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
