This essay is part of the Pillar series.  Please follow the link in the menu to discover the nature of this series.

*      *       *

To the reader who might wish to assert the United States of America is a Judeo-Christian nation, or some similar sentiment, I must admit to a reaction of a nature similar only in that it is nearly fundamental to my temperament, and automatic in its reaction; otherwise, it is in complete variance to the reader’s thought, or rather, feeling.  My immediate reaction is: the United States is secular.  But such must yield to more considered reflection, which, when indulged upon, yields a conclusion stronger yet: the United States MUST, for her survival, her honor, her very nature, be secular.

The news sphere crackles with incidents of relevance, such as the Idaho legislators who refused to attend a legislature’s invocation involving a Hindu prayer, or the massacre of minority or disfavored populations in Iraq by ISIS forces (here and here).  How do these disparate events link to the question at hand?  Read on, dear reader …

Definitions

We might begin by asking, what does it mean to say we, the United States, are secular?  Or, alternatively, to be of any religious nature, as a Mormon might dispute the Baptist’s assertion to a traditional Christian nature, or a Presbyterian’s view might differ from a Catholic’s concept.  The most useful conception may be to suggest that, while we may acknowledge and respect the First Amendment, it is well known that we are founded on a Christian view of the world, and that, really, all positions of importance are reserved for Christians, and where the government law and the Bible clash, well, we all know the Bible should be paramount.

Such a view prevails through a noticeable fraction of the populace, and suffices to our purposes.  It is to this view I find myself opposed.

The First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …

It is best to begin with the weakest part of my argument, and from there build to the crescendo, so the beginning will be the basic law.  I say weakest, for it is settled law, but without, at this juncture, basic justification.  There is nothing new to the interested reader; I reiterate this basic part of our governmental structure, not only to fulfill the rote requirements of discussing an Amendment, but to point out that this part of our governmental structure, and in fact our culture, is beyond the reach of majority whim.  We are a Constitutional Republic, which means we recognize that sometimes majority opinion will be wrong, that it can be variable, that it can blow about like a leaf on the wind.  This amendment reminds us that the coercive power of the State should never be utilized with respect to this most variable of subjects, for reasons yet to be explored.  The Amendment is our bulwark against the waywardness of the day, as first one sect and then another gains power in the focus of the Nation.

But why concern ourselves with such matters?  Surely, the opposed reader might murmur in all sincerity, we’re all Christians here!  At this juncture, it might be best to ask those whose concerns on these matters have shaped our Law, as they gave it deep thought, given the examples that befell their ancestors.

The Founders

It all begins with the Founding Fathers, of course.  They penned the weighty documents shaping our lives; they gave long and deep thought and debate to every line of our Constitution.  Why did they make the decisions we deal with in our lives?

We might learnedly argue over the intentions of the Founders – putative statements vs. implied intentions, close textual analyses, even documents of dubious character imputed to those who would, in all reality, find the content of said documents repulsive: such is the emotional turmoil our Founders can roil in the breasts of both their contemporaries and the political warriors of today.

But let us take a different tack.  The approach mentioned in the previous paragraph exists oddly without context, as if those who fought both physically and intellectually for the soul of the nation were mere heads floating in nutrient broth; so let’s build a reasonable context and then ask how the Founders would react to it.

Society

What is the purpose of society?  To glorify God?   Kill the enemy?  Restore some former glory?  Each of these positions may have its advocates, but I believe they are vain, shallow, and unworthy of the serious searcher.

I propose it’s self-perpetuation; without that, nothing else matters.  As a whole, societies exist today to exist tomorrow.  This implies member replacement and expansion, commonly (but not always) achieved through reproduction; given an already adequate supply of folks, a relatively low average rate is necessary assuming an otherwise conducive context.  Raising one’s offspring while ducking, say, a spray of mustard gas from the murderous tribe next door is not congruent with any unrisible definition of ‘conductive context’.

So let’s examine “conducive context”, not from our modern viewpoint where we can relax amongst our cornucopia of plenty and raise our individual blood pressures arguing over political and epistemological fantasies, whilst peeling grapes or removing buns from our Quarter Pounders, but from the viewpoint of Colonial America, circa 18th century.  The Founders, faced with very real conundrums as the Country advanced beyond the victory over the English Monarchy, had diverse religious roots, but what was their knowledge and experiential base?  What informed their decisions, beyond the requirement of a conducive context?
English History

The European settlers of the area which later became the initial thirteen states making up the new country of The United States of America were, by and large, English expatriates, or their descendants, men & women whose experience with English events was, at its most distant, third hand; more often, it was second hand or even personally witnessed.  It is entirely reasonable to suppose this culture, this history, informed the choices of the Founding Fathers who helped form the legal, formal frameworks on which the United States rests.  A brief history of the relevant times, visceral as it will be, will serve to inform the skeptical reader of the knowledge, formal and informal, acquired through schooling and popular play (such as that of Wm. Shakespeare) available to those who sought to create a new country.

Henry VIII (reigned 1509 – 1547)
A period of civil unrest began with Henry the VIII’s famous break with Roman Catholicism and his founding of the Anglican Church; concomitant with this act was the attachment of England to the Anglican Church.  One of the primary immediate results was the Dissolution of the Lesser Monasteries Act of 1536 (the remainder were dissolved in 1542), a law which stirred up resentment in northern England.  20,000 to 40,000 rebels rose up against the law, but were dispersed when

“Henry VIII promised the rebels he would pardon them and thanked them for raising the issues [certain acts Henry had passed] to his attention. [Robert] Aske told the rebels they had been successful and they could disperse and go home.”

Alas, the promise was merely convenient; when more violence occurred, the leaders and 200 of the followers were rounded up and executed.

Noteworthy in 1540 was the death by burning of three men accused of religious heresy, in that they preached Lutheranism, these being Robert Barnes, William Jerome and Thomas Garret.

Scotland was invaded, with hopes of imposing Anglicanism on the then-Catholic Scots; it ceased with the death of the Scottish King but then resumed, with the destruction of Edinburgh, when the Scots reneged on the treaty that had been imposed upon them.

Henry felt he ruled purely by the Grace of God, and the kingdom was often near bankruptcy, at war, and suffering from civil strife.

Edward VI (1547 – 1553)

The son of Henry VIII, adherent to the new Church of England, became King at age nine and never held true power; this was held by the Privy Council.  In his short reign religious difficulties continued.  The war on Catholic Scotland was uninterrupted, and the Scots’ alliance with Catholic France made the fighting bitter; witness the utter destruction of Edinburgh and a network of English garrisons, although the dream of uniting England with Scotland was not achieved.

The Prayer Book Rebellion broke out in 1549 in Devon and Cornwall, when religious services were ordered to be performed in English.  Catholic sympathizers were executed, prisoners had their throats slit, and the usual battlefield atrocities were committed.  5500 died amidst the chaos.

Church properties continued to be converted to Royal and private purposes, embittering Catholic priests and laity alike.

Queen Jane (9 days in 1553), Queen Mary (1553 – 1558)

Jane, Protestant cousin of Edward, was Queen for several days before the Privy Council discovered its 3000 man army faced a 20,000 man army supporting the Catholic Mary, daughter to Henry. Some supported Mary for religious reasons, others because of their detestation of the Privy Council, and so Jane was deprived of the throne, and later her life, due to her religion.

Queen Mary, Catholic ruler of Anglican England, aka Bloody Mary, proclaimed that no one would be imprisoned or executed because of their religious inclinations, yet did exactly that; reversed most of the policies enacted by her father and brother; and burned at the stake more than 280 Protestants during her tenure, using the newly passed Heresy Acts.  The executions were considered cruel even by her own, yet Mary persevered; thus the chalice of Catholicism in England came to be poisoned.

Like her father, she felt she ruled by the Grace of God.

Elizabeth I (1533 – 1603)

Elizabeth I, Protestant, and last of the Tudors, succeeded Mary upon her death, and England once again became Anglican as she (under the guidance of counselors) introduced the Elizabethan Religious Settlement, which dismantled “Popery”. Known as “Good Queen Bess,” her long reign was relatively quiet for our purposes, once the official religious designation of England had been switched; this was pursued for both personal (she was raised Protestant, unlike her sister) and practical reasons (being illegitimate in Catholic eyes made being Queen impossible).  Still, the Rising in the North, a Catholic attempt to install Mary, Queen of Scots, on the English throne, did result in the executions of 750 of the imprisoned Catholics, plus the general disorder of a revolt.

She also faced the vexing problem of the Catholic Irish:

Crown forces pursued scorched-earth tactics, burning the land and slaughtering man, woman and child.

Then came the 9 Years War, an Irish revolt.  Even for Good Queen Bess, generally thought to have believed faith was personal, religious cruelty was not entirely absent.  Still, one must observe the general positive view of her reign and the correlation with religious tolerance.

James I (1603-1625)

James I, of the House of Stuart, King of Scotland, and son of Mary, Queen of Scots, succeeded Elizabeth after charming her into naming him successor, despite her execution of his mother.  He was the eponymous sponsor of the King James Version of the Bible, adherent to the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian), and, later, the Church of England, and the author of two books on the theological basis of kingship.  During his reign The Gunpowder Plot occurred, the attempt of a Catholic group to destroy the King and Government of England; a possible motivation was the failure of James to relax prohibitions on English Catholics.  Unfortunately, greater misfortunes were then visited on the Catholics, including an Oath of Allegiance, which could be demanded of any Catholic and included denial of the Pope’s authority over the King: a distressing requirement.  The Puritans, founded during Elizabeth’s reign, registered objections to various religious practices; James initially required conformity from them, but later softened his stance somewhat.  His reign was, perhaps, relatively quiet.

Charles I (1625 – 1649)

The Meaning of Faith

Wherein we elaborate upon the basis of the certainty of the member of the sect, and how it should impact the honest thinker.

*     *     *

This word, faith, we use to indicate our belief in something without proof– this is definitional, incontestable. If there was final, legitimate (or objective) proof that some divinity existed, even were it beyond our comprehension, then the only debate would be between those who accept the proof, and those very few to whom admission of that reality was repugnant. Faith would not play into the matter; of sects, there might only be one, or perhaps a very few. Instead, the least bit of attention will yield recognition of a thousand sects or more, each finding some facet, large or small, to differentiate themselves from the next, from the most xenophobic to the most inclusive.  All are included within perhaps a dozen distinct religions, almost all vying with each other; within each, sect confronting cult confronting orthodoxy confronting heterodoxy– a history of disagreement leading to confrontation, sometimes terminating in horrific consequences. Witness any number of notorious battles in Western Europe alone: murders, massacres, and instances of mayhem, all associated with religious differences. The rare religion really practicing tolerance often finds itself persecuted. Such a sect is the Bah’ai, one of whom I knew for a short while many years ago. Yet, this is not to accuse religion of being the source of strife; to my mind, it is merely a lens that focuses a fundamental facet of mankind into something yet larger, crueler, meaner: that combative nature necessitated by the bloody claw of Nature.  But to return to the point at hand, we use faith, or lack thereof, to justify our own belief in the degree of truthfulness of a particular religious system.

A key implication must then come to the fore – if there is no proof, then there can be no objective certainty, only subjective certainty.  If this is so, then the serious inquirer must ask: how can I be so certain I am right, when the wellspring of certainty consists of dogmatic training, intuition, long traditions, and the bonds of my many friends?  To be sure, a forcefully held opinion can be quite daunting, reinforced by the lungs and black looks of the holder; yet, without objective facts – and those have not been found by searchers with the best of intentions – they remain only opinions, dependent on nothing more than intuition.

Beware the approbation of the crowd: the opinions of the many, be they honestly and forcefully held even by friends, still remain arbitrary opinions in the absence of objective facts.  They have not found the font of truth, but only (but not merely) the comfort of supporting opinions, of belonging, and sharing an important tie.

Perhaps the adherents of these various religions have found success in the course of their lives, however success may be defined. But to use that as a logical justification for the truthfulness of their religious claims – and, worse, the fallaciousness of their theological rivals’ claims – is a logical error called post hoc ergo propter hoc, or “after this, therefore because of this.” But in the absence of objective fact, drawing a conclusion concerning the nature of divinity, even that it exists, is a fool’s errand.

It is not inappropriate to wonder about those folks for whom the truthfulness of a religious system is less than primal; often, those whose exposure has been to a single such system from which they have benefited fail to question the truthfulness of the system; or their circumstances do not permit such investigations; or their temperament is such that it is more important to belong than it is to pursue the truth.  For those students of science, their existence is unsurprising, for survival is an important facet of existence, and while knowing the deep truth about any number of things is not instrumental to survival, membership in a group may greatly enhance survival potential.  Particularly for homogenuous groups, such an attitude is understandable.  Again, though, this would be to mistake adherence for proof, for objective truth.  They adhere, but for reasons peculiar to circumstance, have no particular insight into the final reality.

Before the summation regarding Faith, it is necessary to ask: what if we continue, regardless of the intellectual barriers heretofore erected, to be rock-solid in our certainty and to apply it in our government – to proclaim a theocracy as advocated by a few?  I refer you to the English History, or at least its summary: the observation that confidence in one’s knowledge of the Divinity leads, tragically, to the disregard of those of one’s fellows who fail to adhere to one’s precisely formulated views: deprivation of equality, of property, of decision, and of life; the creation of chaos, of a society inhospitable to all but those most orthodox in today’s orthodoxy, and those few doomed when tomorrow’s orthodoxy differs from today’s.  Does the reader doubt this?  These very scenarios play out to this very day; attestations appear on the television news with appalling regularity.  A retreat to the refuge of ‘Christianity’ merely begs the definition of Christianity, along with a murmur of ‘good luck’; a claim to modernity results in references to the barbaric actions of the various sects of Islam, the various sects of the Jews, and, at the very least, the words of the sects of the Christians, murmured, perhaps, into their beards. And forget not the fanatical acts of Warren Jeffs‘ group of Mormons, the Jim Jones cult, and even the activities of certain Amish groups!  All done in the name of some solitary divinity; all done in the pursuit of temporal power.

So, to our summary: “Faith” is a dangerous word.  It rationalizes any action, any assertion, because it is not subject to any restraint; the daring may use it to achieve their darkest desire, and very dark that may be.

And yet: Faith is also a path to a possibly better future.  Faith comes in many forms, as mundane as faith that our fiat money will continue to be accepted within our nation, to faith that our neighbors will continue to do what is right, to the wondrous, everyday fact of altruism, that mysterious habit of the good to hold out a hand to someone who needs help, regardless of their nationality, their color, their station, their cleanliness, their location.  To Americans at their best, show them someone in true need, assaulted by random Nature, and the American will stick out a mitt, haul the unfortunate to their feet, and help them get started; all with the Faith that this is the right thing to do, that some day that altruism will somehow be repaid to them.  For those of us who think they are realists – and I often include myself in that number – there is a great blind spot that goes with that philosophy, and it is this: no, that cannot be done.  It is not realistic.  We cannot split our camp into two, the tigers will eat us.  Can’t be done.

Sometimes those with Faith get eaten.  And sometimes those with Faith are the leaders to the next great step on our journey.  Here I use the word faith loosely, as simply attempting some great feat without any assurance of achieving same, of risking all, and achieving all, on scant anything but that it will turn out.  Realists hardly do that.

And, finally, in all true Faith there must lurk a tiger of its own: Doubt.  The sincere, clear-eyed believer, to achieve such a description, must forever be aware that Faith means belief without proof, and honesty then must beget doubt.  The doubt need not be crippling, but must be honestly acknowledged and given its due; the believers’ behavior should be moderated toward those not entirely consonant in their belief systems. For the important point of doubt is this: perhaps your potential opponent is Right, and you are Wrong.  Or you are both Wrong.

Or maybe the Atheist is right.

Obligations on Sects

Given the political position and intellectual attributes ascribed to many deities, it is important to understand the obligations inherent upon a sect contemplating existing within a governmental system intent on blindness toward the claims made by the sect.  In the United States, a sect may operate freely unless it abridges any secular law imposed by the State; as the State is prohibited from making laws with respect to religion, the sect may consider all laws to be secular and must be in compliance with all.  To take an extreme example, if a sect (perhaps of Mayan derivation, as an example) believes that blood sacrifice of the sect’s enemies on its altars is a divine requirement, then they should be aware of the State’s prohibitions on homicide, and either modify their deity’s requirements, or choose not to reside in the United States.

Since violent conflict is generally prohibited by modern societies, a wise sect will draw an important lesson: mutual respect.  Respect burnishes reputations; spite, distaste, and hatred tarnishes it.

Immigration

It is perhaps not as well acknowledged as it should be, but the heart-blood of the United States has always been its immigrants.  They are often brave, for they have left their homes, even if forced; they are intelligent, for they learn ways alien to them and become comfortable in our land, as do their children; and they are innovative, because the mental walls we construct for ourselves do not apply to them, and so they may view a problem in a very different way.  Doctors, scientists, engineers, artists: they have brought their genius, their energy, their all, and have made the United State prosper.  Their names are Legion, and need not be repeated here.  All have come and flourished in this land of the free.

Land of the free, repeat it softly, and let that famous phrase circulate in your head for a moment.  We have seen the morbid result of the explicit control of government by those of a religious bent, by well-meaning men & women convinced of the favor of their divinity, at the application of laws written by a subjective mind but proclaimed to be of a divine nature – but subject to no confirmation, and, even worse, no debate, with results scarce needing repeating: repression, offense, hatred, loathing, murder, extinction.

Empathize with our worthy immigrants- possessors of energy, talent, and motivation:  they see one country, full of welcome, of guarantee of a lack of religious strife; they see another country, where sect rages against sect, where bodies appear in the morning to the grief of their loved ones, and a sad whirlwind of vengeance sets in.  Which country should they pick to ensure the safety of their children?  Should my valued reader, possibly an urger of divine control of the United States, still select that which would bring chaos to the United States, and divert the resourceful immigrant from this soil?

Conclusion

In review and summary …

The founding of the United States of America marks the coming together of a unique assemblage who decided they needed to live together in peace in order to survive a hostile world.  Instructed in the ways of man by the history of their former home country, and thus realizing the necessity of surviving disagreements between citizens who are members of various sects, none of which could proclaim with certainty their grasp of any truth, they deliberately ejected religion from a central position within government structures in order to minimize the disorder a resolutely religious party might bring, and to enshrine that decision in the Bill of Rights.  For those who doubt the wisdom of such a result, one might only consult the recent history of such countries as Saudi Arabia and other theocracies, or for that matter aspiring organizations such as ISIS, and the conditions, repressions, and, in extremis, horrors visited upon those religious minorities out of favor with a theocratic ruler.

This removal of religion from the source of worldly power permitted those of a religious bent to return their attention to the central focus natural to their vocation: the spiritual development of their fellows.  By the same token, however, it becomes necessary that some slight subjection of the sect to the State becomes necessary; restrictions on activities are rare, but in the face of compelling State interest, required.

Thus, one of the most religious countries of the Western World is, in fact, secular: the governing laws are indifferent to the sects citizens might have chosen, and that indifference should remind those adherents that Faith implicitly teaches Doubt: we cannot know, but only hope, and through that lack of objective knowledge, we know that others may be more right than ourselves.  Given that great mystery, we should not live in suspicion, hatred, loathing, or any other such adjective belonging to a dread realm, but rather in respect, trust, and a shared faith that, by having freedom of (or from) religion, by being secular, we are the stronger for it.  To be anything else is to risk being torn asunder by our divisions, to fall from the high path into the fire, to fail the school of history as well as the heart-stopping lessons of today.

In the Founders time, a few dozen sects fled to the New World for a new home.  Today we are home to hundreds, with relationships so diverse as to span the entire spectrum, from close alliance, to anger and hatred, and even murder.  If the government of the United States were to descend into some divine alliance, then it’s power would be used to assert the dominance of the sect, much to the discouragement of all those other sects.

And this is why our demanding thesis, that the United States has been, is, and must remain secular, is true. The alternative is neither glorious nor honorable. It is only chaos.

E Pluribus Unum.  There is no other answer.

(Completed with the help of Arts Editor Deb White and Wikipedia.)