*I stole the title from the book by Joseph J. Ellis*

Okay, the following is more of a dissertation than the typical works of fiction that have been posted thus far. However, I just spent the better part of two hours writing this, so I thought I'd post it and see what you guys thought.

I wrote this post in response to an article in my university's newspaper on their website (which explains the reference to a prior post by PWB). The article questioned the practice of prayer before meetings of the student senate. Enjoy!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The issue of freedom of religion is an interesting concept.

I do think that many are overstepping the bounds in an attempt to be PR and secular in their beliefs. I do not think that prayer and the like need to be banned from our governing bodies.

However, the prayers must not be mandatory, other viewpoints must be taken into consideration, and rules and laws must not be made strictly because the bible wills it so, but should come about through careful consideration, a part of which can include input from the bible.

As for the founding fathers. Most of them were affiliated with a religious organization of the Christian persuasion. It was the acceptable thing to do at the time. Atheism was much less common at the time. If those men were to be transported to modern times, I doubt that there would be such a high percentage of Christians among them. Also, many of the founding fathers were far from orthodox Christians, many being deists or poorly practicing members.

The following few paragraphs summarize information from the essay "Religion and Politics in Early America" by John M. Murrin found in the reader "Forging the American Character: Readings in United States History to 1877 Vol 1" 4th edition Ed. John M. Wilson copyright 2003

During the revolutionary period the 13 colonies became states and drafted their own individual constitutions. Each and every one mentioned God to some extent, whether in open praise or in passing reference giving thanks to "our Creator". So, when the Federal constitution failed to mention God, it was very much against the norm. However, when looking at the band of men who wrote the constitution the men known as the founding fathers, this lack of acknowledgment towards a particular deity is not the exception.

(In response to a comment by PBW:
"When the Framers were in a rut, Mr. Franklin stood and asked that every Assembly meeting from that point forward begin with prayer.")

In late June of 1787 the delegates at the Philadelphia Constitution were under a lot of stress and Benjamin Franklin made a motion to have a chaplain come and lead them in prayer. Surprisingly, this brought up another big debate, with those in favor of bringing in a chaplain securing perhaps only four votes. However, even those opposed did not vote directly against a chaplain, instead moving for adjournment.

(While ole Ben did indeed motion for a prayer, he was voted down. The precedent for praying before meetings of legislature actually originated from the state legislative bodies.)

It was in this vein that the constitution was written. What could today be called a secular humanist stance. There are three requirements for secular humanism.

First, the elevation of human reason above divine revelation whenever the two are in contest. James Madison looked to the history books instead of the bible when it came to making political decisions. James Wilson believed that the Bible reinforced moral concepts that were learned through self-awareness and reason. Thomas Jefferson flatly denied the virgin birth of Christ. Even saying to John Adams, "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."

Second, the belief that human solutions are suitable for human problems, is seen embedded in the constitution itself. "Built in checks and balances pitted one human passion against another. The separation of powers kept Congress, the president, and the courts warily watching one another...he [Madison] left little to chance - or providence." (pg 83)

Third, while they admired the values of Jesus they aspired to higher moral precepts than the church was espousing at the time. In this respect they were more anti-established church, preferring to have their own ideals than having a church or minister define them and hand them down.

In short, the US was founded by a group of men who were fairly secular (at least by the standards of their day), but to say that they were anti-religion is a gross overstatement. On top of that these men represented the highly educated elite of the nation - hardly the majority. However, the constitution was eventually ratified by every state and the great experiment that was a large representative republic was undertaken. The fact that it still stands today is testament to the brilliance of those men, whose opinions on matters should not be taken lightly.

(End reference to the aforementioned reader)

Congratulations if you actually read my post! I hope it has softened the stances of some of the more radically conservative out there. The creation of the United States was an incredibly liberal undertaking. I mean empowering the people? Throwing off the reigns of the traditional established system of government? These liberal principles allowed the formation of this wonderful nation. At the same time however, much of our government, from the two house legislature to Hamilton's National Bank, comes from the conservative isle of Britain. In this respect, the ultra liberal viewpoint needs to also be revised to take into consideration the predominantly Christian nature of our nation. Taking a look at the original idea of freedom of religion, that one should be able to practice religion as he pleased - provided he still believed in a religion. So, in effect I stress a very moderate stance at at time when moderates receive very little vocal support yet garner resentment from the vocal extremes.

One last note. While I agree with neither side directly, I find it fascinating that the idea of checks and balances that permeates the constitution is so applicable to human interactions. Without liberals we would be chained to tradition and the status quo without ever exploring the alternatives. Without the conservatives we would be without a foundation and guiding principles that keep the liberals from getting to far ahead of themselves.