The argument is often heard that some/many/all of America's Founding Fathers were unitarians, and therefore they all believed in the modern myth of "separation of church and state," and therefore intended the constitution to give the federal government power to remove the Ten Commandments from local schools.
The fact is that nearly every "unitarian" in the 18th and 19th centuries would be accused of "attempting to impose a Theocracy!" on America if they were alive today.
Joseph Story was appointed U.S. Supreme Court Justice by President James Madison. At 32, Story is the youngest appointed Justice. He helped found the Harvard Law School and was the first Dane Professor of Law. He wrote nine commentaries on the law, including the Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (3 vols., 1833), a work of profound learning which is still a standard treatise on the subject (Google Books: Volume I and Google Books: Volume II).
Jonathan Rowe, writing on the "Positive Liberty" blog, tells us about Joseph Story’s Political Theology. What we find out is that Story (1) was a unitarian in his personal theological beliefs, and (2) he was a hard-core Christian Theocrat. Further study would reveal that virtually every unitarian Founding Father was also a hard-core Theocrat compared to today's Unitarians and ACLU members.
Theologically speaking, Story was a unitarian.
Here is Story on what he DIDN’T believe about Christianity:
TO WILLIAM WILLIAMS, ESQ.
Washington, March 6th, 1824.
…The Unitarians are universally steadfast, sincere, and earnest Christians.
They all believe in the divine mission of Christ, the credibility and authenticity of the Bible, the miracles wrought by our Saviour and his apostles, and the efficacy of his precepts to lead men to salvation….They differ among themselves as to the nature of our Saviour, but they all agree that he was the special messenger of God, and that what he taught is of Divine authority. In truth, they principally differ from other Christians in disbelieving the Trinity, for they think Christ was not God, but in the Scripture language “the Son of God.”
And here is testimony from Story’s brother, speaking to and through Story’s son:
After my continued absence from home for four or five years, we met again, your father being now about eighteen years old, and renewed our former affection towards each other. At this time we were, from a similarity of sentiment, drawn more closely together. I allude particularly to our religious opinions. We frequently discussed the subject of the divinity and the humanity of Christ, and we both agreed in believing in his humanity. Thus you see that your father and myself were early Unitarians, long before the doctrine was preached among us by any one, unless I except Dr. Bentley of Salem.
In other words, Story was a Socinian Unitarian, believing Jesus was 100% human and not divine at all. And here is what Story thought on salvation:
This faith he retained during his whole life, and was ever ardent in his advocacy of the views of Liberal Christians. He was several times President of the American Unitarian Association, and was in the habit of attending its meetings and joining in its discussions. No man, however, was ever more free from a spirit of bigotry and proselytism. He gladly allowed every one freedom of belief, and claimed only that it should be a genuine conviction and not a mere theologic opinion, considering the true faith of every man to be the necessary exponent of his nature, and honoring a religious life more than a formal creed. He admitted within the pale of salvation Mahommedan and Christian, Catholic and Infidel. He believed that whatever is sincere and honest is recognized of God; — that as the views of any sect are but human opinion, susceptible of error on every side, it behooves all men to be on their guard against arrogance of belief; — and that in the sight of God it is not the truth or falsity of our views, but the spirit in which we believe, which alone is of vital consequence. [Bold mine.]
Now, Story obviously thought his “liberal unitarian Christianity” was “Christianity.” Story’s private creed informed his beliefs on public political theology. And whether this creed qualifies as “Christianity” is a matter of debate. And certainly the debate is one that no government ought to resolve. And America’s Foundations hold that no government ought involve itself in this debate. As Madison believed, it’s not government’s place — any government, federal, state or local — to take “cognizance” of these issues.
At American Creation my friend Tom Van Dyke points to the learned Joseph Story’s commentaries on the Constitution and religion. To his credit, Van Dyke gives us a long excerpt from Story, so we can read it in context. You can read the original here. Included in the longer except is the quotation that Christian Nationalists like to cite on behalf of the “Christian Nation” thesis:
§1871. The real object of the amendment was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government.
However original meaning originalists can make a strong case, consistent with what Story writes later, that troublesome questions about “religion” v. “Christianity” and the US Constitution’s text are placated by understanding that it was the states who were charged with resolving those nettlesome issues. The Federal government, as it were, would be burdened with a “hands off” restriction on involving itself in religious disputes.
That said, I want to address Story’s “political theology” about which he writes in the excepts that Mr. Van Dyke quoted, what Story sees as the “ideal” way government and religion ought to co-exist with one another. Here is the the relevant part of Story’s position:
§1865….
How far any government has a right to interfere in matters touching religion, has been a subject much discussed by writers upon public and political law. The right and the duty of the interference of government, in matters of religion, have been maintained by many distinguished authors, as well those, who were the warmest advocates of free governments, as those, who were attached to governments of a more arbitrary character. Indeed, the right of a society or government to interfere in matters of religion will hardly be contested by any persons, who believe that piety, religion, and morality are intimately connected with the well being of the state, and indispensable to the administration of civil justice. The promulgation of the great doctrines of religion, the being, and attributes, and providence of one Almighty God; the responsibility to him for all our actions, founded upon moral freedom and accountability; a future state of rewards and punishments; the cultivation of all the personal, social, and benevolent virtues;—these never can be a matter of indifference in any well ordered community. It is, indeed, difficult to conceive, how any civilized society can well exist without them. And at all events, it is impossible for those, who believe in the truth of Christianity, as a divine revelation, to doubt, that it is the especial duty of government to foster, and encourage it among all the citizens and subjects. This is a point wholly distinct from that of the right of private judgment in matters of religion, and of the freedom of public worship according to the dictates of one’s conscience. [Bold mine.]
He seems to endorse the idea that there is an Almighty God to whom we are accountable and that publicly policy should be friendly towards “piety, religion and morality” and a “future state of rewards and punishments.” In addition this public religion “cultivat[es]…the personal, social, and benevolent virtues.” As Story notes these are “the great doctrines of religion.” Finally Story intimates these great doctrines are found with the “Christian revelation.” Arguably, they are.
A comment from Tom Van Dyke
As I’m getting used to tracking down Mr. Rowe’s cross-posts here from our groupblog and my name is mentioned in his post, here’s my reply in modified form:
And whether this creed qualifies as “Christianity” is a matter of debate. And certain the debate is one that no government ought to resolve. And America’s Foundations hold that no government ought involve itself in this debate. As Madison believed, it’s not government’s place — any government, federal, state or local — to take “cognizance” of these issues.
That would be Madison’s view, and likely most of the Founders who were from Virginia and perhaps New York.
However, this cannot be presented as the view of “The Founders.” Please see my [original] essay on Joseph Story
http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2009/01/joseph-story-on-religion-and-first.html
where he writes in §1873,
“Thus, the whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the state governments…”
[Boldface mine.]
I had hopes of us doing a “close-reading” and dialogue together in the comments section that post, but we have to start somewhere, and here is fine.
I would note in “nuance” that Story’s quote isn’t exactly of the “all faiths are equal” sort. When he writes in §1867
“The real object of the amendment was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects…”
we should not, um, overzealously gloss over it in the opposite direction.
Indeed, he writes
“Now, there will probably be found few persons in this, or any other Christian country, who would deliberately contend, that it was unreasonable, or unjust to foster and encourage the Christian religion generally, as a matter of sound policy, as well as of revealed truth…
…Indeed, in a republic, there would seem to be a peculiar propriety in viewing the Christian religion, as the great basis, on which it must rest for its support and permanence, if it be, what it has ever been deemed by its truest friends to be, the religion of liberty. Montesquieu has remarked, that the Christian religion is a stranger to mere despotic power.”
Now, it’s true he leaves the question open, a question we pose to this day:
§1869. It yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs, whether any free government can be permanent, where the public worship of God, and the support of religion, constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in any assignable shape. The future experience of Christendom, and chiefly of the American states, must settle this problem, as yet new in the history of the world, abundant, as it has been, in experiments in the theory of government.
NOW if we pick him up in context, we see his personal argument is that Christianity will be required for a successful republic, because some sort of religion WILL be needed, and Christianity is, he argues, essentially non-despotic.
But he leaves this question, this experiment, up to the states, which is the very soul of federalism.
[There are scholars who maintain James Madison was quite the supporter of federalism, but one thang at a time.]
But let’s make no mistake—Justice Story cites the “bill of rights” of Massachusetts approvingly in §1869:
“The language of that bill of rights is remarkable for its pointed affirmation of the duty of government to support Christianity, and the reasons for it. “As,” says the third article, “the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion, and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through the community, but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion, and morality; therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this Common wealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize, and require, and the legislature shall from time to time authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, &c. &c. to make suitable provision at their own expense for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.”
[Brad,] although you’re technically correct that
Story makes ABSOLUTELY NO REFERENCE to Christianity being the founding religion of America
he’s far from agnostic, “neutral”—or even pluralistic—on the subject except, as Jon notes, on irrelevant [and irreconcilable] stuff like the Trinity.
In the same spirit, Benjamin Franklin, also unorthodox on the doctrine of the Trinity, said:
History will also afford frequent opportunities of showing the necessity of a public religion. . . and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern.
Proposals Relating to the Education of Youth in Pennsylvania, 1749, p.22
Jerry Falwell devoted his entire life to the pursuit of a unitarian theocracy like Ben Franklin's. Falwell never demanded that Trinitarianism or Calvinism be taught in public schools. Falwell only wanted what Ben Franklin, Joseph Story, James Madison, and just about every other Founding Father expected to be taught in public schools: "religion, morality and knowledge."
Justice Story wrote the opinion in the case of Vidal v. Girard's Executors, 43 U.S. 127 (1844), in which the Court said that Christianity and the New Testament "must" be taught in government-run schools.
The word "unitarian" is often thrown around as if it ends the debate.
The debate is over, because NO Founding Father -- even -- or especially -- the unitarians -- believed in the modern myth of "the separation of church and state." No unitarian believed that the Federal Government had the authority to remove the Ten Commandments from public schools in your neighborhood, nor prayer, nor the Bible, nor just about any other decision that the modern Court has reached based on the myth of "the separation of church and state." Nobody who signed the Constitution intended to give the federal government the powers it exercises today under the mythical banner of "separation of church and state."