A Defense of Religious Liberty

Thesis to Be Proved

Religious liberty is the freedom
of the people to publicly profess whatever religious truths
are agreeable to the reasoned judgment of the majority

Preface

The appearance of religious liberty within the socio-political order signals an underlying agreement among all believers; therefore, it cannot be the product of any one faith. Instead, the idea of religious liberty coincides with the appearance of a purely rational conception of God among the people. By “rational conception” I mean God as conceived by the mind independently of any supernatural faith. Despite this non-sectarian character, Christianity has played a key role in the development of religious liberty.

Two Proofs

This thesis is proved in two ways, first, on the basis of historical fact; second, on the basis of philosophic reason.

The first proof examines the decision of the American Founders to declare political independence from England, a political act that gave birth to the United States. The establishment of this nation as a separate power under the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God was an the exercise of the natural right of religious liberty by the American people.

The second proof is more complex.  It begins with a description of economic life as the pursuit of the various goods of nature, for example, the good of food. The people are free to pursue their own economic interests prior to government; the political order thus rests on a natural economic foundation. The idea that the people have rights in nature, and so prior to government, follows from the common insight that the various goods of nature are created by God. This rational idea of God blossoms within a society comprised of a variety of separate religious faiths. Political unity within such a society is possible only under religious ideas that transcend all sectarian differences; reason thus becomes the standard of religion in the public life of a free people.

The freedom of the people to profess whatever religious truths are agreeable to the reasoned judgment of the majority is the key philosophical insight of the modern democratic republic. Under this political system, the people claim their rights directly from God, not on the basis of faith, but as on the basis of rational argumentation and “self-evident”) truths. The suppression of this claim by modern republics is a direct act of political injustice against thire people. Religious liberty, as defined above, underlies any political system in which the people are rightful arbiters of public law.

First Proof:
Historical Fact of the Founding

This is a demonstration of the fact (demonstration quia).

The act that brought the United States into existence was a rational agreement among a majority of the people’s elected delegates that God is the author of the rights of the people. 

The idea that God is the author of rights is the central religious insight of a people who have the natural right right of self-government. Under this conception of the political order, government is founded to secure God-given rights.

The Declaration of Independence contains many theological, moral, and political truths, for example, that God is the Divine Providence, that we are created equals, and that citizenship is a sacred honor. Although the assertion that God is the author of our right would be sufficient of itself to prove that the definition of religious liberty given above is accurate, it is important to see that there is in fact a set of theological and moral ideas that were originally deemed agreeable to the reasoned judgment of the majority at the founding of this country. The Declaration of Independence enunciates only a small number of the religious ideas that the philosophers and the people have affirmed to be evident to reason. The sum of all of those ideas constitutes the philosophy of natural religion.

The delegates to the Second Continental Congress were overwhelmingly Christian, but they belonged to different branches of that ancient faith. They disagreed among themselves about various dogmatic teachings. Many colonists had left England and Europe to escape the religious persecutions that afflicted those countries; yet, most delegates at the Philadelphia Convention represented colonies that had religions established in law as the official faith of their citizens. No delegate was prepared to abandon its established faith in favor of another.

Thomas Jefferson was a prominent American Deist from Virginia. He was asked to write the first draft of the Declaration of Independence. He was joined on the Committee of Five by Benjamin Franklin, another well-known Deist from Pennsylvania, and John Adams, a Christian from New England who had strong rational tendencies. Together these three men formed a majority on the Committee of Five. Only Franklin made any substantive alterations to the initial draft, which was then presented to the Congress where it underwent further revisions.

In the course of this process, all doctrines that were unique to any one branch of Christianity were struck away. Given the conflicting faith commitments of the various delegates, agreement on the supernatural doctrines of Christianity was not possible. Agreement could only be founded on those theological, moral, and political truths that were agreeable to a majority of the delegates. Thus the supernatural doctrines of the Christian faith were excluded from the document; only those religious truths agreeable to reason found their way into the text.

The definition is thus proved. The “freedom of the people” signifies our delegates at the Second Continental Congress, who brought our nation about through the Declaration of Independence. . “To publicly profess” refers to the announcement of our founding truths to the world. “Whatever religious truths are agreeable to reason” signifies those theological and moral ideas that remained intact following the debates and discussions of our original delegates in Congress. This body of rational truth, stripped of the dogmatic teachings of Christianity and affirming only rational religious truths, was affirmed by the “judgment of the majority.”

Thus religious liberty is the freedom of the people to publicly profess whatever religious truths are agreeable to the reasoned judgment of the majority.

Second Proof:
Philosophical Idea of the Republic

This is a demonstration of the reason for the fact (demonstration propter quid).

The religious understanding that is evident to reason, independently of any supernatural revelation, is known to history as natural religion; it is comprised of two branches, natural theology and natural law morality. The earliest defenders of this ancient system of religious thought were the philosophers of Greece and Rome. The theory allied itself with Christianity, developed over the course of Western history, and played an instrumental role in the rise of the modern republic and the founding of the United States of America.

 

PART ONE
THE REPUBLIC AND NATURAL LAW

Atheism and Natural Law

There is an order of dependence between the two main branches of natural religion. Natural theology is first in the order of being, but second in the order of discovery. This means that the branch discovered first depends on that which is discovered second. This reverse order occurs because an effect is naturally known prior to its cause. God is the cause of the moral order, but natural law ethics can be known independently of any theological conception.

As a result, one can be an atheist and live a moral life. No one today doubts this possibility. The idea of the good is self-evident, that is, it is immediately grasped within experience. Although education in the moral life is essential in the development of this intuition, the mind has the natural ability to distinguish between good and evil. No one needs to tell us, for example, that an injury to the body is harmful. This is a lesson that nature teaches us directly. On the basis of such simple lessons as this the whole of natural law ethics arises.

The problem for the atheist is that he does not inquire deeply enough about first principles. Even though he prides himself on his use of the power of reason, he limits its exercise to science. This is wholly inadequate. Empirical science tells us little about the moral life, which is bound up instead with the use of common sense and sound practical judgment. The good is not an object of scientific inquiry. In short, the atheist surrenders reason to science and accepts its authority as gospel. He rests in the irrational conclusion that the whole of nature exists without a cause and thus results from chance.

Economic Life

A proper proof of God’s existence begins with the self-evident facts of experience. All sound argumentation begins with what is immediately known to the mind. Various arguments for God’s existence have been offered over the course of history by the great philosophers, but the most relevant to the foundation of the republic begins with reflection on the good, which is the natural object of human desire. The Republic is founded on the idea that government is ordered by nature to the good of the people: “Salus Populi Suprema Lex Esto.”

The goods of nature are self-evident. They are not mental products. Everyone who encounters the good immediately recognizes that the good exists objectively. This simple fact is the starting-point of all reasoning in morality and ethics. We first learn how to secure the most fundamental goods of life, such as food, clothing, and shelter, and then how to acquire those higher goods that constitute the perfection of the social order, such as knowledge, friendship, and virtue. Because politics, properly considered, has its foundation the order of justice that exists within nature, the natural pursuit of what is good is the starting point of all reasoning about government.

Some goods are real; others are merely possible, but none is a product of human invention. This point is of capital importance. The sophisticates like to convince themselves that “good” is a mental construct, but this is delusory. The goodness of food, for example, exists by nature; we do not decide that food is good. The very idea is an absurdity. Our desire for food exists as a fundamental law of human nature. We can no more eradicate our desire for food than we can eradicate the law of gravity. The same holds true of every good. We are bound to obey the laws of nature if we are to secure the blessings of happiness for ourselves, our families, and our country .

The acquisition of the good is governed by objective laws. The growing of food, for example, requires knowledge of the times and seasons, the types of seeds, and how to cultivate and till the soil. This endeavor is connected to innumerable activities of others. A division of labor is inevitable within society because of the interconnected diversity of goods, the natural distribution of human skills, and the increase in productivity that results from cooperation. One who must spend his time plowing a field is better served if someone else makes the plow. The aim of one effort to secure good typically benefits another aim within the larger social order.

The Good of the Social Order

The pursuit of the good, as exhibited by the productive actions of all working in concert, constitutes the good of the social order as a whole. The one who makes tires for the truck, who refines gasoline for engines, who makes the asphalt for the roads---all of these help the farmer sells his goods at public market. So too do those who produce the ships, operate the trains, and fly the aircraft that enable those who buy these goods at market to supply them to those throughout the world.  A sack of grain transported to a distant shore has benefited from so many human hands that it is impossible to enumerate the contributions— there are a million small but essential endeavors.

Reason learns how to secure its aims through observation on nature, by studying its principles and causes, and by intervening upon its existing instrumentalities. We cannot change the course of nature; we can only learn how to cooperate with its powers. The vast expanse of the sea is a standing request that we build ships, just as distant markets call us to pursue economic enterprise on an ever-widening scale. Economic activity is natural to the human race. The pursuit of the good through economic means exists prior to the establishment of any political system. There is a natural order of justice that governs the social order independently of government.

The Political Order

The political order arises on the pre-existing system of natural economic activity. Within the original state of nature, each person is free to pursue his own economic interests. The equal freedom of all to enjoy the fruits of their labors is a right that belongs everyone prior to the establishment of government. Only thosee who seek an unfair advantage over others would deny that each of us must be free to maintain the liberty of his own actions and thus the freedom to pursue the goods that secure happiness. A correctly ordered political system will recognize the original freedom and equality all human human beings within the original state of nature.

This freedom and equality is the basis of those original moral laws that oblige us to treat everyone else as we ourselves would like to be treated. This moral law was not invented by the human mind, much less by the state, but is found in existence prior to any choice on our part. We do not create our own freedom and equality, but find ourselves to be free and equal. Freedom and equality are the common rights of all members of a just civil society. Additional rights accrue to each of us as members of a family and the larger social order as a whole. The mutual recognition of the rights that belong to the people within society is the first step toward a just political order.

In an ideal society, there would be no need to establish any political system or enact any written laws. If whole of society lived followed the law of nature that is equally evident to every human mind, the laws of nature would be sufficient for securing justice.

Rise of the Republic

The natural justice of the social order is disrupted by chance and malice. Natural advantages, such as strength, health, beauty, and inherited wealth, cause inequalities. Considered in themselves, these inequalities are not unjust, but result from the finitude and temporality of the natural world. Nonetheless, these advantages also provoke strong jealousies and hatreds, which in turn cause injustices. Some use violence or intrigue to acquire unfair advantages over others. Others allow themselves to be ruled by their passions, thus subjecting reason to the slavery of desire. All in all, reason does not rule with equanimity, but is subjected to various disorders and abuses.

The natural system of freedom and equality is thus spoiled by malice. The law of nature remains in full effect, and a fully rational people would observe it without question, but the depredations of a few compel the remainder to resort to the establishment of some system of political representation in which the good of all will be preserved through force. The authority of the people is thus placed into the hands of a selected few who are charged with representing the good of society as a whole. This power is transmitted on the understanding that those who exercise this authority will follow the original laws of justice that are equally evident to all in nature.

The first forms of government imitated the rule of family in the household. A single individual acted as if he were the parent of the whole of society. His power was rarely absolute; the king was obliged to resolve tensions among his subjects, principally between the wealthy and the poor. At times, a wealthy few gained power over the king and ruled as an aristocracy; at other times the poor took control of the levers of power and gave rise to simple democracies. Political theorists, through observation on these events over the course of history, realized that the most stable form of government was a mixture of these three types: monarchy, artistocrary, and democracy.

Indeed, the “mixed form” of government has been identified as the ideal since ancient times, even though it rarely appeared in practice. The ancient Roman Republic was an early and successful instance of this form, in which political power was shared among the Emperor, the Senate, and the people, represented by the Tribunes. When this mixed form was joined with the idea of elected representation, the modern republic was born. Power was initially divided between king and parliament, as in England, which parliament was further separated into an upper and lower chamber, which represented the interests of the wealthy and the poor.

Unlike the earlier mixed forms of government, which divided power according to the interests of class, the Constitution of the United States divided political authority according to the faculties of mind. This is made clear in the Federalist Papers, especially those written by James Madison. The executive, legislative, and judiciary branches exist as the representation of the will, reason, and judgment of the citizens. The American Republic is thus a transmission to elected representatives of the power of self-government that belongs to each and every person in the original state of nature; its branches reflect the rational power of self-rule that exists within the individual.

 

PART TWO
THE REPUBLIC AND NATURAL THEOLOGY

God as Author of Rights

The law of nature binds us to the pursuit of what is good. We govern ourselves well when we follow those laws that are evident to reason in nature and that enable us secure the good for ourselves, our families, and our society as a whole. The freedom of the individual to pursue the good is what the people transmit to government as their representative. That transmission is always partial; no one can completely divest himself of the duty of self-governance. The political order is charged with the special task of protecting the good of society as a whole.

The protection of the common good is not secure until it is grounded in the idea that God is author of nature’s law and therefore the source of the natural rights of the people. When this theological truth is grasped, the state recognizes—for the first time—the existence of inalienable rights. For example, the law of nature protects innocent human life. As a pre-existing and fundamental good of the nature, the elected representatives of the republic have a duty to protect the lives of the innocent. From the existence of such self-evident truths as this, the mind deduces all of the duties that bind the political order to the pursuit of the good on behalf of the people.

The Political Idea of God

To arrive at the conclusion that nature is governed by God, the mind must first realize that the natural good is not the product of material forces, but follows instead from the inherent purposefulness of nature. Purposes do not happen without reason, but result from thoughtful intention. Observation on the general tendency of all things in nature to seek the good thus leads the mind to the conclusion that nature is governed by Divine Intelligence. This insight is compatible with almost every religious faith, but it is not secured within the political order until it is affirmed by the people on the basis of reason. Only then does it become the focal point of union under a republic.

Reflection reveals that nature is a teleological system (telos [purpose] + logos [thought]). Human beings, like every other creature, seek the goods that perfect their nature. The goods of the body include food, clothing, and shelter. The goods of the mind include knowledge, friendship, and virtue. All of these goods exist as objects of rational desire. On the basis of the desirability of these self-evident goods of nature, the mind concludes to the existence of a body of moral law that ought to govern society as a whole. The rational recognition that God is the cause of that body of law, via the inherent purposefulness of nature, includes the political insight of inalienable rights.

The God who infuses nature with purposes calls us to secure the good under laws that He has made evident to reason in nature. Reason is the means by which we secure that good. We are rational creatures and we deduce through reflection on nature that God is also rational. Self-governance is thus an imitation of the work of the Divine Reason. The right of the people to govern themselves under the laws that God has made evident to reason in nature stands at the core of the political structure of the republic.

Despite its grounding in theology, the conclusion that we are to govern ourselves under the Laws of Nature’s God is not the private doctrine of any religious faith. The idea contains no supernatural doctrine; its theological content is wholly ordered to reason. In order for this political idea to take root within society, and thus serve as the foundation of the modern republic, it must be acknowledged among the people as a whole---or at least among a majority. Only then will the idea of God as the Author of Rights bind the written laws of the state to the protection of the most fundamental goods of the people, namely, their freedom and happiness.

The final step in securing the moral order of the republic, and with it, the highest good of the people, is the acknowledgment of the inalienable right of every citizen to affirm whatever truths are agreeable to reason. The rational pursuit of religious truth thus forms a central part of self-governance. This liberty is fundamental to the republic because the pursuit of religious truth is what enables the people to discover the principles of government; thus, it precedes all other rights in gravity and importance. Without this freedom, the people cannot defend the theological insight that God---and not government---is the author of their rights. They fall prey to tyranny.

Appearance of Religious Liberty

When a people seek to overcome the dogmatic differences that separate them into distinct religious faiths, the possibility of religious liberty first appears. The supernatural faiths that explain the mysteries of death, the passage to the next world, and the means of salvation, exist differently within different cultures. Even within Christianity, the dominant religion of the West, there is little unity among the various denominations that make up that large and complex religious system. These dogmatic differences are the source of deep divisions among the people; tragically, they also cause of war and injustices. The world’s religious faiths are similarly situated as a whole.

Although God’s existence is affirmed by every religion worthy of the name, the separation of Church and State does not take root within society until there is a strong distinction in the mind of the people between revealed and rational religion. By “church,” of course, I mean any religious establishment whatsoever (church, temple, mosque, shrine, etc.). Revealed religion concerns all those supernatural mysteries that are not comprehensible to the ordinary powers of the rational mind. Rational religion, in contrast, consists of all of those ideas about God and morality that can be understood by reason independently of any act of faith.

Without the distinction between reason and revelation, the political order remains within the grip of the most politically powerful faith, either because of its numerical superiority or through the simple use of force. Obviously, neither is a true justification for political supremacy. Indeed, the union of Church and State is inherently unjust, for it presumes that those who hold political power have the authority to compel the mind to acts of belief and worship. This infringes on the rights of conscience and the free exericse of religion---two inalienable rights of nature. The written laws of the state thus become measures to oppress minority faiths.

Among the religions of the world, Christianity has been the most open to the life of reason; therefore, it was the first to openly embrace the separation of Church and State. Many of Christianity’s greatest leaders were directly influenced by philosophical ideas derived from non-Christian sources, especially those of ancient Greece and Rome. Christian philosophers have recognized, for example, that various proofs for God’s existence have been successfully offered by pagan thinkers. Under its best intellectual leaders, Christianity added the unique doctrines of its supernatural faith to those religious truths that were already known to reason.

The Progress of Natural Religion

The political idea of the republic developed in conjunction with the progress of natural religion. The various proofs for the existence of God, both Christian and non-Christian, were at first confined to the researches of the great philosophers. The defenders of the modern republic joined this rational theology to the idea of a society that is ordered to justice under a system of natural rights. The freedom and happiness of the people, according to these modern theorists, was to be found within a political system that acknowledged the rational truth that God is the author of the rights of the people. We are called to pursue the good under the Law of Nature’s God.

This theological conception was gradually wedded to the religious beliefs of the people, especially within Christianity. Of course, the vast majority of Christians affirmed this truth not as philosophical conviction, but as an obviously corollary to their faith. Within the United States, the appearance of prominent Deists, and the openness of the Christians of that time to the life of reason, led the government of that nation to become the first to openly acknowledge in its founding document that its people claimed their rights from God under the Laws of Nature.

Generally speaking, the protection of religious liberty under laws of the state begins as soon as the people agree to the universal protection of all religious faiths. This development cannot occur within a homogenous society, but requires the existence of a social order with numerous incompatible faiths roughly equivalent in political power. This was the circumstance at the founding of the United States of America. [See first proof above.] The need for political consensus among these diverse traditions necessitated that the different sects set aside their doctrinal differences and find unity under religious truths agreeable to the reasoned judgment of the majority.

Freedom and Religious Truth

Among the various rights that belong to the people in the original state of nature is the freedom to profess, teach, and defend the philosophical conclusion that God is the author of their rights. This right is known to the people independently of faith through reasoned reflection on nature. The assemblage of all of religious truths known to the people through the exercise of reason constitutes the philosophy of natural religion. The right of self-government necessarily includes the freedom to profess, teach, and defend the truths of natural religion.

As truths known to the people through the light of reason, natural theology and natural law ethics are not the private possession of any private sect of religion. The republic, in fact, is nothing more than the expression of those theological and moral truths that God has made evident to reason in nature. Government by the people rests on these self-evident principles. The measure of freedom by which a people are able to profess, teach, and defend the first principles of their political union is the measure by which a republic gives expression to its essential form.

The truths of natural religion include the principles of natural justice that the people know prior to government. The Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God are thus the source and pattern for all of the written laws of the state. The citizens assign political power to their elected representatives on condition that they will follow the laws of nature whenever they enact written law on their behalf. So long as the people are free to give public expression to those religious truths that are evident to reason, the political union of the republic will be preserved.

The falsehood that rights are the gift of government has crushed the human spirit throughout most of its history. This error was overcome only through the advent and slow development, over the course of many centuries, of rational theology within the West. The republic places this rational conception of God at the center of its political life; it guarantees the freedom of the people to acknowledge God; and it tests the justice of every written law by the unwritten laws that God has established in nature.

Separation of Church and State

Reason is the standard by which the people must decide all public matters, including the question of which religious truths belong to the people within their public life. Whatever religious affirmations are within the range of ordinary and uninspired reason may be freely joined to public life; whenever this principle is forgotten, the truths of the republic are suppressed. In contrast, whatever religious claims transcend ordinary and uninspired reason must be separated from public life. The supernatural doctrines of faith should never be joined to public law.

The supernatural character of revelation is obvious to any reasonable observer. That one God should be Three Persons or that Three Persons shoul be one God is not evident to reason. Non-Christians rightly object whenever this doctrine is joined to public life. The same objection applies equally to the introduction to public life of the revealed teachings of any other private religious faith. In a republic, the citizens know how to distinguish between what is rational and what is revealed. They know how to separate Church (temple, shrine, mosque, etc.) and State.

They also know that the separation of Church and State does not apply to any religious truth that is within the range of ordinary human reason. The means by which a people decide which truths are agreeable to reason and which are not is public discussion and debate. When freedom of speech in guaranteed in public law, only those truths that are agreeable to the reasoned judgment of the majority find their way into public life. The separation of Church and State is the natural result of free speech and free association among a people of diverse religious faiths.

Those who agree that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and supremely good must necessarily have in mind the same Divine Being, regardless of whatever disagreement they may continue to have over the supernatural doctrines of their respective faiths. There is only one God. He possesses only certain attributes. When two or more citizens employ reason to affirm the supreme knowledge, power, and goodness of God, they forge union under the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God. Thus does a society of incompatible religious faiths arrive at the rational consensus that God is the author of their rights.

Note on the U.S. Constitution

The task of separating Church and State falls to the people. The U.S. Constitution provides no guidance whatsoever on how to carry out this task. The separation clause of the First Amendment is merely negative; it does not concern the theological and moral truths that the people affirm in common as the basis of their union under the light of reason. Likewise, the free exercise clause concerns only the protection of conscience and the private practice of religion. The freedom of the people to affirm the first principles of their own political union precedes the Constitution and is wholly immune from its articles and clauses. The freedom to profess those truths—the truths which are the founding principles of the republic—is the basis of the Constitution. The opposite is not the case.

The right of religious liberty precedes government; it exists prior to any constitution, congress, or court. Within the United States of America, it is the Declaration of Independence---not the Constitution---that evinces the right of the people to publicly profess whatever religious truths are agreeable to reason. The first principles of political union among a people are not subject to the rule of government. Only the people have the authority to establish, set forth, and revise the first principles of their republic. Reason is the standard of that great historical task.

Definition Proved

The second proof is thus concluded. The “freedom of the people” refers to the exercise self-governance, which belongs to the people in the original state of nature and therefore prior to government. “To publicly profess” refers to the freedom of the people to affirm what is known in that original state. The phrase “whatever religious truths are agreeable to reason” refers to the consensus forged among the people on the basis of free intellectual inquiry. And “judgment of the majority” signifies truths that are agreeable to the universal instrument of reason.

Thus religious liberty is the freedom of the people to publicly profess whatever religious truths are agreeable to the reasoned judgment of the majority.

Copyright 2014 Edward J. Furton