Fantastic post Julie Marie!!! Thanks!!!

I wonder how Washington and Adams justified issuing religious proclamations without a joint resolution of Congress?

quote:

“Whether the jeremiads delivered on the occasion of his two fast days were simply outworn colonial traditions or unacceptable national innovations, they fanned the flames of American political discontent and helped make Adams a one-term president. 188-189

I knew that there was some criticism in the newspapers of Adams issuing religious advice to the people. I had never heard of the near riot incident.

quote:

He [Adams] ‘despised and detested’ Hamilton’s letter, which ‘recommended a national fast, not only on account of the intrinsic propriety of it, but because we should be very unskillful if we neglected to avail ourselves of the religious feelings of the people in a crisis so difficult and dangerous.” Correspondence from the Boston Patriot (1809), Works of Adams, 9:289-91 ---p.193

I knew of Hamilton’s letters. How do we know Adams despised Hamilton’s advice to exploit religion for political purposes?

quote:

The fasts were not well-received; in fact, many viewed this act as a partisan trick: “…in Perry Miller’s words, ‘Federalist plots to ensnare Republicans into praying for John Adams….[Miller, “Covenant to Revival,” p. 357]…In Philadelphia on the evening of Adams’s first national fast day, thousands of people took to the streets. …Pennsylvania Governor Thomas Mifflin had to order out a patrol of horse and foot soldiers to preserve that peace. The mood of the crowd around Adams’s house was so ugly that some of his servants feared for his life. Writing to Thomas Jefferson years later, after the two former presidents had been reconciled, Adams revealed that he still had not completely forgiven Jefferson and his party for the events that night in Philadelphia, which had occurred when ‘I have no doubt you were fast asleep, in philosophical tranquility!’” Adams to Jefferson, 30 June 1813, in Works of Adams, 10:46-49—p196

I love that kind of stuff. What is the historical source of the information about the people taking to the streets?

quote:

The article contains many more great historical goodies on the fast; I commend this article and hope it whets the appetite for more knowledge on Adams and fast days.

I would love you to post more on this subject.

quote:

Would a president today ever have the courage to proclaim a fast day?

I hold the Jeffersonian/Baptist view of religion liberty. Therefore, I would ask what is so laudable about trespassing impiously upon the prerogatives of the Almighty?

To respond to the first objection:
It is a simplistic interpretation of scripture to assume that the verses of Jesus inherently argue for an absolute separation of church and state. Such exegesis overlooks the traditions of the church, the authority of many great Christian scholars and saints, the basic principles of scriptural exegesis, and the facts of the matter. In addition, George Washington did not "misunderstand" the Constitution. He certainly did not see in the US Constitution the grounwork for either a secular state or a state which ignored religion absolutely in a state of strict separation.
For futher information on the original understanding of church-state constitutional relations, I recommend a book on the subject which investigates, among other things, the intentions and facts of the framing of the religious clauses of the First Amendment. From there you may see more clearly the difference between strict separation and the ideas of the framers in the Constitution.
Witte, John. Religion and the American Constitutional Experiment.

This author also has written on John Adams and the nature of establishment in Massachusetts. Title: `A MOST MILD AND EQUITABLE ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION': JOHN ADAMS AND THE MASSACHUSETTS EXPERIMENT. By: Witte Jr., John, Journal of Church & State, 0021-969X, March 1, 1999, Vol. 41, Issue 2`A MOST MILD AND EQUITABLE ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION': JOHN ADAMS AND THE MASSACHUSETTS EXPERIMENT.

I do not attach the document because of copyright restrictions.

In my previous post I noted the citations of all my sources. You may see that the commentary for pieces was from the article on Jeremiads. Internal citations refer to the other texts quoted at each point. For complete biolographic data, I recommend finding the original article and examining its assuredly extensive footnoting.

This should answer the question of: How do we know Adams despised Hamilton’s advice to exploit religion for political purposes? Immediately after mentioning it, I cite the portion of Adams's works which documents his reaction to said letter.

Last, I question whether Jefferson and the Baptist view of religious liberty may be so quickly conflated. Jefferson, as all ISI members would well know, was mostly a deist and had a rather eclectic philosophy, creed, or set of convictions. It was a hodgepodge of fashionable thought, picked up from a life of international and unscrupulous rummaging in other people's mind. I caution you to rely so implicitly upon his political thought and recommend instead to examine him in greater detail.

Most of all, it would appear that your post places a great disadvantage for Christian statesmen and public service. If the Christian must be involved as a citizen in democracy, he cannot and should not leave his religious convictions and attitude behind. God certainly hopes politicians will heed and obey him in all that is right. There cannot be a separation of church and state in a complete sense so long as this exists, nor does the constitution or the traditions of this nation demand so. Should politicians make no decisions based on a Christian worldview or conscience, then in practice we would have a secular state and a religiously unfree people. The thought that religiously informed politicians who act to protect religious belief infringes on the role of God should not be considered traditional, American, or unarguably sound. In fact, the constitution was amended specifically to safeguard the tradition of allowing state governments to establish and promote religion or religions in their areas. The Witte pieces will give further details on the history and since you asked, I refer you to these more exhaustive sources.

For enlightenment on the nature of how Christian values are inherent in the laws and government of the United States, in a way which is impossible to ignore, see an ISI lecture online by the great and late Russell Kirk, in which he discusses Christian politics. This is available in the historical lecture library portion of the website and is highly commendable for its commonsense approach to the historical fact of religious conviction inherent in the development of Western jurisprudence and particularly in the American republic.

Realizing the restrictive nature of electronic posting as a means of communicating a rich, complex, and important tradition of church-state interdependence, as well as my own status as a student, I hope these works will prove adequate to facilitating an understanding of the viewpoints unlike yours. Should you have remaining questions once these works end, I hope other ISI members will contribute to the discussion. I feel independent study on such a matter is really the best way to go, instead of relying upon quick advice in such a forum. I hope this aids your further study. The Witte article really addresses this viewpoint digression.

I think one of the things people confuse is that separation of **church** and state is not separation of **religion** and state. Jefferson's Wall of Seperation letter makes clear that he wants the institutions of religion and the institutions of government to be separated, not that the government should be wholly disinterested in matters of religion and that religion should be wholly disinterested in matters of state.

In every attempt the Fathers made in protecting the government against corruption, it was by placing **institutions** in check, not ideas.

quote:

Originally posted by John Bambenek:
I think one of the things people confuse is that separation of **church** and state is not separation of **religion** and state.

It was James Madison's general view of the Constitution and First Amendment's religion clauses that prevailed during the Early Years of the Republic. James Madison's Perfect Separation of Church and State exempts the duty which we owe to the Creator from the cognizance of the government. This means the government does not resolve disputes regarding the duty which we owe to our Creator, except for the duty of every man to render homage to his Creator as directed by his conscience and convictions.

quote:

Jefferson's Wall of Seperation letter makes clear that he wants the institutions of religion and the institutions of government to be separated

The following excerpt from Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists means a separation of government from our opinions on the duty wich we owe to our Creator.

"The legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions."

quote:

The government should not be wholly disinterested in matters of religion

The U. S. Government should be interested in enforcing the Christian doctrine of Separation of Church and State.

quote:

George Washington did not "misunderstand" the Constitution. He certainly did not see in the US Constitution the grounwork for either a secular state or a state which ignored religion absolutely in a state of strict separation.

What was George Washington's understanding of the US Constitution regarding the right of conscience; and where did he articulate his understanding?