A Piece to the Puzzle

Frances Willard went boldly in the direction of her calling in 1874 when joining the Women’s Christian Temperance Union, but who was Frances Willard and why would anyone care what she was fighting for?

Frances Elizabeth Willard was born September 28, 1839 in Churchville, New York. During the mid 1830’s Churchville was a small town with few but established businesses, churches and mills. Churchville gained access to transporting by train just before Willard’s birth. Frances Willard was only there a short while when she was uprooted at the age of two and moved to Oberlin, Ohio then again at the age of six when she moved to Janesville, Wisconsin Territory. She was brought up in a rural atmosphere and seemed to gain a strong will about her by the time she was eighteen and began attending Milwaukee Female College. Willard soon after transferred from Milwaukee to North Western Female College and graduated by the age of twenty and began teaching.

At age thirty Frances Willard and a friend took off to travel the world, two years later upon her return to America she moved to Evanston where she became president of New Evanston College for Ladies. Willard resigned from her position at the college after a long engagement to a college three years later. Frances Willard had a significantly changing life from the beginning, which I believe led her to be an independent and strong willed individual who could was capable and comfortable of being the person on top.

In October, 1874 when Frances Willard was presented with the opportunity to work with the Women’s Christian Tempererance Union she was more than ecstatic. Willard saw the position as a small hope that could engulf her surrounding society and even hit the government with force. She saw that with the right approach she could lead many into the movement of banning alcohol and truly believed she could change the law of the government. At the first convention for the Women’s Temperance Union Willard addresses the group, “Realizing that our cause is combated by mighty and relentless forces, we will go forward in strength of Him who is the Prince of Peace, meeting argument with argument, misjudgment with patience, and all our difficulties and dangers with prayer.” (Pg 444 Mathisen) It was in this way that Willard gained the hearts of many believers by opening their minds to the divine power. Frances Willard “resigned as president of the Chicago WCTU in 1877 and worked briefly as director of women's meetings for the evangelist Dwight L. Moody. Later in the year she left the national WCTU, in large part because of the resistance of President Annie Wittenmyer to her wish to link the issues of liquor prohibition and woman suffrage.” (Pg 1 Britannica Biographies)

As successful as Frances Willard’s was, her most cherished dream was never accomplished but not without her trying. Her wish was to become a minister, which was never permitted to her. Willard quotes her “Master”, “There is neither male nor female in Christ Jesus’; while I steadfastly believe that there is no place too good for a woman to occupy, and nothing too sacred for her to do”. (Pg 444 Mathisen, Mary Lathbury) This is who Frances Willard became. If nothing else, understand how this woman gained so many hearts and influenced a world of individuals in the time of the Social Gospel.

Resources

1. Robert R. Mathisen, Critical Issues in American Religious History: A Reader (2nd Revised Edition). Baylor University Press, 2006.

2. Britannica Biographies, Biography: Frances Willard. 2008. Access date September 29, 2009.

3. The History of Churchville, Access date September 29, 2009. http://www.churchville.net/history.asp

An Attempt of Holding onto what is Left of Christianity: The Social Gospel Movement

Sadly, societies are rarely ever rated successful based on how happy and healthy their citizens are, where more importantly the success is determined by their level of economy. In the early stages of this nation life was simple, your wealth was based on your slaves, and you barely had to do anything. It was during the 1800’s when industrialization came into play, slavery had found its end, and it was time for a revolution of power, appreciation and consideration of whom was now going to be active citizens of an equal nation.
The Social Gospel Movement was an introduction of how the people of this growing nation should be recognized and put into practice as long as fairness was going to be taken into account. “In the very existence of every church there should appear the freest offer of the gospel’s divine power (Mathesin, Doc 88).” This power was to no longer enable those who have once been enabled by a master, this power was to convince them of their worthiness as they too can work just as hard, regardless of The Christian Interdependence of Capital and Labor. Where they explain, “rich and poor are intended by nature to live at war with one another (Mathesin, Doc 89),” with this the Social Gospel attempts to renew all that has taken a turn for the worst.
Our current society is only a continuance of the first industrialization era, it is something we have continued by ways of all physical items.
“ the social gospel is the clearness and insistence with which it sets forth the necessity and the possibility of redeeming the historical life of humanity from the social wrongs which now pervade it and which act as temptations and incitements to evil and as forces of resistance to the powers of redemption (Rauschenbusch, 1917)”
As we all take notice every moment throughout our lives the social wrongs that pervade and the temptations that many times have lead to bad endings, maybe a social gospel reconstructed to assist with modern day times would not be so bad.
Lastly, ‘what would Jesus do? (Mathesin, Doc 90)’ It took one brave man to interrupt a sermon in order to get his question answered with only some sighs, which eventually erupted into a worldwide questions of, what would Jesus do? Today one can flip a page in a book, magazine, or even click on an internet link and read a tragic story of those dying in tragic ways and simply ask themselves, what would Jesus do? Almost makes one wonder about the possibilities of equality that could come with every politician being a ‘good Christian’ and asking themselves every time before their vote was to be cast on a bill, what would Jesus do?

Resources
1. Robert R. Mathesin, Critical Issues in American Religious History: A Reader (2nd Revised Edition). __Baylor University Press, 2006.
2. Rauschenbusch, Walter. ‘A Theology for the Social Gospel.’ Louisville, KY. 1917 Reprint Knox Press __1997.

Modern Social Gospel

The rise of industrial capitalism and the imposition of individualism were major factors during the economic revolution of the late 1800s. The industrialization of America brought with it corruption, inequality, crime, racial tension, and, significant poverty. The Social Gospel was an attempt to apply the teachings of Christianity to tackle the economic and social mayhems caused by the capitalist industrialization. The Social Gospel, however, was not a method to reinstate the stand of religion in politics; rather, it was an excuse for people to use religion as an instrument in the restoration of the state and to aid in national survival.
The Social Gospel possessed a revolutionary role in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Then, it effectively brought about change such as the prevention of child labor, the eight-hour workday, and factory regulation. Although much has changed since then, scholars and church leaders are in hesitation to bring it back. “The future of the Social Gospel lies in our ability to appropriate critically its thought in ways that separate its foundational thinkers from their own biases and the time-bound influence of Victorian ideals and culture in order to real enduring truths about Christian commitment to prophetic activity and activism in the United States (Hinson-Hasty, 61).”
Then or now, the Social Gospel emphasizes that “word and work go together (Mathisen 448).” Today, the country’s economic crises reflect the crises in the late 1800s. Bill Moyers, director of Business for Shared Prosperity, claims that, “our wages now adjusting for inflammation are lower than they were in the 1970s. Our minimum wage, adjusting for inflation, is lower than it was in the 1950s. One of the things going on is that income and wealth inequality have gone back to the 1920s (Hinson-Hasty 62).” The application of the Social Gospel in today’s modern society, however, is not simple. The gospel, back then, fit its historical context. Now, for the gospel to be applied to society, it requires the consideration of race and gender; an in-depth study of the history, figures, and ideologies of past Social Gospelers; and a better “understanding of leadership development and decision making in the 21st century (Hinson-Hasty, 71).”
The context of the Social Gospel in the 19th century involved racial separation and gender distinction. Although most Social Gospelers believed in the better treatment for blacks, there exists evidence on the development of a black Social Gospel. The racial division during the period affected ideals; black ideals were not equal to white ideals. The Social Gospel, which may have sounded naïve to its critics, surrounded the initiative that materializing the kingdom of God on earth was essentially white. Added to that, the Social Gospel was essentially contributions of feminist movements. Frances Willard was one of the distinguished feminist in the 19th century, though her reputation did not survive the test of time.
Because certain Social Gospel leaders were neglected and forgotten, researchers failed to define the wide boundaries of the gospel. The uncovering of the social leaders with their contributions and beliefs would therefore benefit us; it would broaden our understanding of the Social Gospel and the various definitions it holds. Not two activists viewed the Social Gospel identically. Unlike Rauschenbusch who viewed the gospel as a means to spread the kingdom of God, Vida Dutton Scudder, a woman activist, viewed “the Trinity as [the] divine society that served the basis for [the] pursuit of equality and justice in a society that would progress toward a cooperative commonwealth (70).”
Although the last two necessities possess the chance to be carried out, activists doubt whether the church can still affect the population or the state with an influential impact parallel to its impact during the 19th century. The churches today are facing the intricacy of people’s trust. There has to be a revival or an awakening of the nation’s religious conscience and the church’s prophetic roots.



Source:
Hinson-Hasty, Elizabeth. "The Future of the Social Gospel." Theology Today 66.1 (2009): 60-73. Web. 27 Sep 2009.

Women of the Social Gospel Movement

Time, as well as action, has shown us that history tends to repeat itself over and over again. Why is this idea of history repeating itself so important? The idea that history repeats itself is a small way, I think, of showing us that even something so vastly different, like religion, has a way of working its way into historically important events. One such event was the Social Gospel movement of the late 19th century, in which problems of a social urban, economic, and industrial nature were brought forward and had Christian ethics applied to them; this was an effort to reform the "evils" of society. During this time of reflection and action upon society, not only were men of the church working for change, but women were working as well. In their own way, women were just as important in bringing about societal change as the men; however, they were extremely downplayed as merely being secondary to those of the male sex.

In the document by Mary Lathbury, which quotes Frances Willard of the Women's Christian Temperance Union: "The deepest thought and desire of my life would have been met, if my dear Mother Church had permitted me to be a minister." (Mathisen p. 444) One woman amongst many who wished for the reform of social problems in the country, wishing to do it through the act of ministry, was downplayed by the very church which she believed in, the very church that strove to bring about important change to society. While this might have been a deterrent to some women, Frances Willard continued on with her work in the Social Gospel because she believed in the idea of the church above her own wants. "While I steadfastly believe that there is no place too good for a woman to occupy, and nothing too sacred for her to do, I am not willing to go on record as a misanthropic complainer against the church which I prefer above my chief joy." (Mathisen p. 444)

In Lindley's "Women and the Social Gospel Novel", the women of the Social Gospel movement are described in novels as different types like the shallow and snobby society matron or the beautiful and lacking moral depth society belle. Again, even here their efforts and true actions are downplayed. "They are objects of love and devotion to heroes-- manly, saintly, deeply committed men who always seem willing to excuse the women's shallowness for the sake of their beauty." (p. 59)

Women at that time cannot be readily put into simple categories, because they did so much more for the Social Gospel movement than they were given credit for. They dealt with the problems of women and child labor and pressed a heavy hand on the act of prohibition. And they did both it and more working alongside men, as well as on their own.

1.Lathbury, Mary. "Frances Willard of Illinois". Women and Temperance or The Work and Workers of the Women's Christian Temperance Union. Chicago: Women's Temperance Publication Association, 1886, pp. 28-32 (in Mathisen, p. 443-444)

2. Lindley, Susan H. "Women and the Social Gospel Novel". Church History, Vol. 54, No. 1 (Mar., 1985), pp. 56-73

The Fight For Freedom Against Slavery and Unjust "American Religion" (Doc, 75, 58, 60)

Slavery has lingered in our country of “freedom” for centuries, and presently it still exists. Although slavery is not legal in this day of age it still is happening in certain places throughout the world. Here in America we see the residue of racism that has been branded in certain individuals’ personalities. Throughout America’s history we have seen how Religion (Christianity) had been used to suppress and validate slavery. The racism and inequality that was used during the eighteen hundreds in America were cruel, manipulative and unjust to the utmost extent. The main topic of discussion is how Christianity was used as the scapegoat for slavery.

Fredrick Douglass once said, “They convert the very name of religion into an engine of tyranny, and barbarous cruelty, and serve to confirm more infidels, in this age………these ministers make religion a cold and flinty-hearted thing, having neither principles of right action, nor bowels of compassion.”(1.Mathison, Pg 287 Douglass) In essence Douglass expresses his outlook on how the white supremacist Christian’s are using the church and Christian doctrine in order to subdue the African American peoples. Douglass discusses key issues that were very critical to the survival and equality for the black community. Christianity being taught in churches was used to impose influence that having slaves was ok, and that slaves are not equal to the white man. Furthermore it is imperative to understand that manipulation of the society, as a whole was they key that the white supremacist used to gain public acceptance of the idea of slavery.

The acceptance of slavery came with the acceptance of God. The Christian church was the instrument and the American Christian was its advocate. Even the African Americans were manipulated to think that they are treated unequally because this is just how things are. “Servants, be obedient to your masters; and he that knoweth his masters will and doeth it not, shall be beaten with many stripes.”(2.Mathison, Pg 282, Bib) The slaves were told sayings like this and they believed in it. This shows the fear that was instilled in them if they did something wrong they would get punished for it severely. Yet they were treated like this, many African Americans wanted to become Christian and were not able to.

Yet there were a few individuals of white color such as Miss Davis that didn’t believe in this inequality and taught the bible to the slaves. When she was caught she was in a lot of trouble. Yet again the African American people were tricked into drinking and fighting on Sundays so they would not be able to attend mass, in turn keeping them separated from the white community.

Douglass gave a speech commemorating the Declaration Of Independence. He said, “The fourth of July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn.”(3.Douglass) The struggles of inequality have always been an issue of history and even today. Although Douglass had lived through the toughest part of history throughout slavery he would be happy to see that today’s world is nothing it was during his time. Today we have freedom and justice for all. But we must never forget the pain, suffering, and agony of the past, and how the Christian church as the American religion was used as a tool of manipulating society into believing that slavery was ok.

1. Mathisen, Robert pg 287; What to the Slave is Fourth of July?, Fredrick Douglass (1852)

2. Mathisen, Robert pg 282; Slave Religion, Henry Bib (1849)

3.Douglass Fredrick, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h2927.html,

The role of Christianity in American slavery

Throughout the history of American slavery, Christianity had been an effective tool in supporting slavery, yet also a great resource for the abolition movements.  Christian churches favored and supported slavery and slaveholders.  According to Frederick Douglass, "the church of this country is not only indifferent to the wrongs of the slave, it actually takes sides with the oppressors, [and] has made itself the bulwark of American slavery, and the shield of American slave hunters" (Mathissen 287). However, with the exception of some inescapably Christian individuals, the abolition was also carried out through Christian motives that slavery is a sin.

Christianity was the ultimate support that the slaveholders relied on to treat slavery as a system approved by God, "that the relation of master and slave is ordained of God [and] to send back an escaped bondman to his master is clearly the duty of all the followers of the Lord Jesus Christ" (287). Christianity hypocritically supported its doctrine by associating slavery with the Bible, and with its system sustained by favoring the rich to the poor; Christianity had given the slaveholders the religious right to maintain slavery. Though it sounds as much like a "horrible blasphemy", the tool had been used to prolong the live of slavery in the American society. Churches system apparently had the most judicial authority to both enact and overthrow slavery with the power it had over the society. The majority worshiped its legislative order; therefore, its administrative and executive function could create big influences on social matters. With that saying, "The American church is guilty, when viewed in connection with what it is doing to uphold slavery; but it is superlatively guilty when viewed in connection with its ability to abolish slavery" (288). 

In the article "The abolitionists" by Tim Stafford, a large portion of Christian derivers had become abolitionists by Christian motives, using Christian means and vocabulary. Their philosophy was to favor "moral suasion" than force. They wanted to convince the church that slavery is a sin to God and therefore, should not be supported by the church. They had faced opposition and were hated across the America, especially in the South, the originated land of slavery. They brought their preaching across the nation to battle for the churches' support. In "The Bible Argument", Theodore Weld "attempted to prove that slavery from the Bible was different in kind than American slavery"; and if slavery was supported by the church because the southerners could prove that God accepted slavery, the argument would prove slavery was sin by demonstrating that "the Bible condemned American slavery, rather than sanctioned it. All the attempts were to gain the church support to one side. That is to prove the important role the church had taken in the revolution of both slavery and anti-slavery.

Even though the anti-slavery were later successful through military coercion rather than repentance and love as in the preaching of those former abolitionists before Lincoln time. It was stated, "without the abolitionists' thirty years of preaching, slavery would never have become the issue that Lincoln had to face" (Stafford). With their acknowledgement of the causes and religious motives of the issue, the act of the pioneer abolitionists had changed the course of anti-slavery in the most religious aspect with both success and failure.

 

Source: Stafford, Tim, "The Abolitionists", Christian History; 1992, Vol. 11 Issue 1, p21, 5p, 6 bw

http://0-search.ebscohost.com.mill1.sjlibrary.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=9604291012&site=ehost-live

The maturation of Capitalism: Wage-labor vs. Slavery

“I remember, also, that, as a people, Americans are remarkably familiar with all facts which make their own favor. This is esteemed by some as a national trait- perhaps a national weakness. It is in fact, that whatever makes for wealth or for the reputation of Americans, and can be had cheap! Fredrick Douglas, 1852.

If disestablishment is the separation of church and state, then is there a word for the separation of state from church? During class discussion, one opinion of disestablishment in the current workaday world of American politics, was of a relationship of give and take, with a distinction between the worlds of religious and political ambition being established, and this distinction allowing for the activation of a default setting. That being said, if we are able to recognize, if only out of habit and practice, when religion is taking point on an issue of policy, are we also equipped to detect when the state employs religion, for issues involving business and economy?

In the Charles Elliot essay (#57), “Slavery and Methodist Schism,” there exists a type of religiosity, that in its strength of opinion and scope of reach, illuminates the possible duality of such motivations. Charles Elliot contends that, “slavery” is “a flagrant violation of the law of God,” and that “people of God cannot exist so long as slavery continues.” He elucidates eighteen points to complete his argument, none of which address the potential economic or social complications of actualizing such opinion in the world of 1850. And as far as questions concerning faith, one wonders about the timely ambition and activating strength of “God’s laws,” if slavery existed and flourished for so long, seemingly unimpeded, in a society where individuals lived in abeyance to those laws.

Is it possible to know if Elliot has any political motivation, particularly if they are not explicited stated? A good place to start, in attempting to understand possible political motive behind the antislavery movement during the eighteen-hundreds, is in understanding some of the socioeconomic changes that were taking place in the North during this time and how these changes were leading the North into conflict with the Southern, slave-based economy. According to John Ashworth, “The civil war is best understood as the clash of two antagonistic ideologies, proslavery and antislavery, that had been generated by the opposed labor systems that developed South and North of the Mason and Dixon’s line, namely slavery and wage-labor” (Rugemer, 2009). In other words, the North was industrializing and attempting to “mature the experiment of capitalism.” One vital element to the success of this experiment was believed to be the use of “wage-labor (people to make and buy things).” Slave-labor being unfairly competitive with the Capitalist model.

Would the North have rallied around a cause as untried, inhuman and class motivated as “the maturation of capitalism,” in a war of wage-labor vs. slavery, or was it necessary to equate and confuse issues of capital, with personal faith and the laws of God?

References:

Rugemer, E. (2009, March). Explaining the Causes of the American Civil War, 1787-1861. Reviews in American History, 37 (1), 56-68. Retrieved September 22, 2009, from Academic search Premier database.

Douglass, Frederick. What to the slave is the Fourth of July? (1852). Critical Issues in American Religious History. Baylor University Press, Waco, 2006. 285-288.

Elliot, Charles. Slavery and the Methodist Schism (1843). Critical Issues in American Religious History. Baylor University Press, Waco, 2006. 279-281.

Religion and Slavery

The brutality inflicted on the slaves in America was so severe, it is difficult for many of us to understand what would drive a person to act in such a way. Often, we write-off slave-owners as demented, crazy, stupid, ignorant. However, Frederick Douglass points out in What to the Slave is the Fourth of July? that "the church of this country is not only indifferent to the wrongs of the slave, it actually takes sides with the oppressors, it has made itself the bulwark of American Slavery, and the shield of American slavehunters (Mathisen 287)." Religion justified slavery, encouraging adherents to keep and abuse slaves without feeling any moral guilt.
Dougalss placed responsibility on the churches of America for preaching hatred and righteousness to white slave owners. The clergy insisted that slavery is accepted by God, and that it is every religious man’s duty to capture and return escaped slaves. In Douglass’ slave narrative, his experience with a religious slave-owner is shockingly described. In 1832, Douglass was sent back to the plantation on St. Michael’s under the master, Captain Thomas Auld. Shortly after his arrival, Captain Auld attended a Methodist camp where he became deeply religious. Due to his new-found religion, the slaves expected him to return a better man, and to possibly even free his slaves. Instead, Captain Auld found sanction in the Bible to explain his horrible mistreatment of the slaves. For example, when he whipped a female slave until the blood dripped from her body, he quoted Bible scripture to justify his wrongdoing, saying that "he that knoweth his master’s will, and doeth it not, shall be beaten with many stripes (Douglass, 278)".
Similarly, Harriet Jacobs, a female slave in the south, was subjected to a harsh life of servitude to her master, Dr. Flint. From the age of fourteen, Dr. Flint used Harriet as his personal sex object, whenever and wherever he wanted. Following the insurrection of Nat Turner, slave-holders felt the need to send their slaves to church in order to quell a potential uprise. Church hierarchy warned the slaves that the Bible demanded them to be obedient to their masters. The reverend, Mr. Pike preached to the colored people:"You are rebellious sinners. Your hearts are filled with all manners of evil... God is angry with you, and will surely punish you, if you don’t forsake your wicked ways...Instead of serving your masters faithfully, which is pleasing in the sight of your heavenly Master, you are idle, and shirk your work. God sees you. You tell lies (Jacobs, 517)".
Thomas Poole, a published author in the Journal of Religion also points to Frederick Douglass as one of the first, and most well-known civil-rights activists. He says that Douglass’ unrest was brought on by his own devotion to Christianity. For him, to be purely Christian meant a complete rejection of slavery. Poole declares that for Frederick Douglass "America’s paramount injustice was perpetuated not because the nation had a deficiency of believers but a surplus. Too many people had been converted to a religion that provided the moral blinders that obscured the bondage and disenfranchisement of the African-American people (Poole 545)." Douglass asserted that the reason slavery existed was because religion took the place of humanity.
By referencing the Bible, slave-holders were under the impression that religion allowed and encouraged their cruel actions towards the slaves, and were convinced that they were behaving in accordance with God’s word. This ethical paradox is completely absurd. Now, in America, people of every color are welcomed into God’s church and seen as brethren to white men. Hatred, abuse, and racism towards blacks was contrived by white slave-holders for the purpose of easing their own fears.


Works Cited:

Poole, Thomas G. "What country have I? Nineteenth-century African American theological critiques of the nation's..." Journal of Religion 72.4 (Oct. 1992): 533. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. King Library, San Jose, CA. 26 Sep. 2009 .

Douglass, Frederick. Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave, Written by Himself. 1845. Classic American Autobiographies. Ed. William L. Andrews. New York: Signet, 1992. 229-327.

Jacobs, Harriet. Incidents In The Life Of A Slave Girl, Written by Herself. 1861. The Classic Slave Narratives. Ed. Henry Louis Gates, Jr. New York: Signet, 1987. 445-665.

Man’s Natural Right to Disestablish.

“No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief”. (Thomas Jefferson, 1786).

The separation between church and state in American society remains a very complex and grey area. Because of the many diverse religions that exist in the United States today, many would agree that separating the church (i.e. Christian church) from the state in the best interest of the people. The right to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion are stated in the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and to this day, Americans deeply internalized and practice these freedoms. In “The Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom”, Thomas Jefferson makes reference to a man’s “natural right” in terms of every human beings natural right to their own religious beliefs. Although the U.S. Constitution clearly states a separation between church and state, many may argue that there is no true separation but an ongoing back and forth “tug of war” with religion winning on some occasions and the state winning on other occasions.

The most recent example of religion winning over state is the passing of Proposition 8. Voting against Proposition 8 was largely influenced by religious beliefs. A 2004 news poll revealed that 85% of evangelical Christians voted yes on prop 8, along with 66% of Protestants and 60% of Roman Catholics (kabc, 2009). An older example would be the pledge of allegiance, in which congress inserted the phrase “Under God” in 1954 after being pressured by a religious organization known as the “Knights of Columbus” (Pei, 2003). The separation of church and state does not mean complete indifference between the two. Since the people represent the state, a highly religious society will create a religious presence in the state.

Although religious people have pushed for change in the state, many liberal laws in which the state has kept its stance on, such as the right to have an abortion, the teaching of evolution, and the banning of mandatory prayer in public schools. As discussed by Goldberg (2007) in her book “Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism”, many religious fundamentalists, particularly Christian fundamentalists, continue to fight against the state on religious matters and also continue to fight for the United States to be a Christian dominated nation.

If there were no separation from between church and state, would United States be indeed a Christian dominated nation? The percentage of Christian adherents in the United States has declined from 86% in 1990 to 77% in 2001, while the percentage of nonreligious people has increased from 8% in 1990 to 14.1% in 2001 (Robinson, 2001). Establishing a government favored religion would foster social conflict and deprive humans of their natural right. Wars have waged in many countries over religious dominance just like they have waged over language dominance. Americans care deeply about their religious beliefs but they also care just as deeply about their constitutionally given rights. However because an individual’s religious beliefs can be a large influence on how he or she acts in society, church and state can never be truly separated when that society is highly religious; they can only be at opposite ends of a connecting rope.


References

New poll shows who voted for prop 8. (December, 2008). KABC News. Retrieved September
22, 2009, from http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/politics&id=6538423.

Pei, M. (2003). The paradoxes of American nationalism. Foreign Policy, 136. Retrieved
September 22, 2009 from http://www.jstor.org/pss/3183620.

Robinson, B. A. (2001, December 15). Religious identification in the U.S.: How Americans view
themselves. Retrieved September 22, 2009 from http://www.religioustolerance.org/
chr_prac2.htm.

James "The Varieties of Religious Experience"

In James’, “Conclusions” from The Varieties of Religious Experience, James states that, “Knowledge about a thing in not the thing itself” (532). To know about religion does not necessarily mean to be devout. If a person who is researching and studying about different religions is devout, he/she might have a stronger bias and not be able to interpret those religions as carefully and neutral as one that is not devout. Throughout his lecture, James states the theme of truth.

According to James, all religions have truth. The one thing that matters is that a religion has an effect on the devoted person. The experience and belief of the person is what makes a religion true. To James, truth is not merely a thing, but rather, something that a person can do. If a person has a religious experience, then they have healthy minds. Later he speaks of religion as a mere survival and how religion can be associated with the most primeval thought (538). He mentions the “Survival theory” and how religion has become an interest of the individual in his private personal destiny (534).

The individual, being as egotistical as he/she is, according to James, say that, “the divine meets him on the basis of his personal concerns”, this tells us that religion is personal. Science, unlike religion, is seen as impersonal by, “utterly repudiating the personal point of view” and like science, nature is seen as impersonal as well because it has no one distinguishable ultimate tendency (534-35). James speaks about a God and how it is seen different in science and in religion. There is a God, and the God that science recognizes is one that must have universal laws executively, not accommodating to the conveniences of individuals. James later speaks about how both thought and feelings are determinants of conduct.

James states that thought and feelings are almost always the same and that the theories which are generated by Religion, are secondary. One must look to the feelings and conduct as being the more constant elements in religion. The theory of Religion is not made up of the feelings and conduct but must be looked into in order to understand it. According to Professor Leuba, “God is not known, he is not understood; he is used…”, and if this God proves himself useful, according to Leuba, he religious consciousness asks for no more than that (550). James states that Religion must exert a permanent function, whether with or without intellectual content. He lists two things that he believes is a uniform that religions all appear to meet.

The uniform that religions all appear to meet is uneasiness and its solution. James reduces this meaning by saying that the uneasiness is a sense that there is something wrong with us and the solution is a sense that we are saved from the wrongness by making proper connection with the higher powers. The lecture moves on to talking about the “more” and “union”.

The “more”, according to theologies, really exists and that it acts as well and that something really is effected for the better when you throw your life into its hands, and it is subconscious and literal. The “union” might be the beliefs that bring the religion together.

The idea of subjectivity and objectivity is also mentioned in the beginning. Our experiences consist of both subjectivity and objectivity, according to James. The objective is, “the sum total of whatsoever at any given time we be thinking of”, what happened without the part of experience. On the other hand, the subjective is what happened including the experience. Both of these are needed in order for experience to be possible. This lecture by James undertakes the religious experience and goes in depth in what that experience consists of.

Late post

Where Individual Freedom Began

In 1802 Thomas Jefferson wrote an extremely significant letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in the state of Connecticut. Jefferson's letter was in response to a letter that the Association had sent to him in October 1801 in support of his presidential campaign. The significance of Jefferson's letter can be seen by taking a look at the doors of change that were opened for religious and political society as a result of it. In fact, Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists represents the tipping point to where religious and political movements began.

The idea of the "wall of separation" was not a new concept when Jefferson chose to take his approach to it as president in 1802. In the 17th century, Roger Williams, the pioneer of religious freedom, used the term to describe his belief that no civil government could avoid endangering free will in attempt to drive devotion to a religious doctrine (Harrington 1). In 1802 Jefferson took the idea of the "wall of separation" a step further when he addressed the idea of detachment between the church and state for the first time in his letter to the Danbury Baptists.

In his letter, Jefferson simply stated that he believed that "religion is a matter which lies solely between Man and his God" (1802). He supported the Baptists in their quest for the immutable rights to enjoy their religious liberties in their state (usconstitution.net). Jefferson agreed that "legitimate powers of government should reach through actions only and not opinions" (Jefferson 1802). Jefferson's use of the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" was the beginning of a paradigmatic shift in personal freedom. It created a foundation for the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution : Freedom of Religion, Press, and Expression (usconstitution.net). Amendment 1 is read as follows : "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abiding the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" (usconstitution.net).

Thomas Jefferson believed that religious freedom was the most sacred human right and the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights were enacted to secure individual rights among the people, one of which was the right to practice the religion of their choice (Harrington). The "wall of separation" allowed freedom of religious ideas to be explored and practiced without boundaries, while at the same time protecting citizens from religious interference from the government (Harrington). The door of "choice" opened up at last, and it did not stop there. Individual liberties became a great topic for society and if Thomas Jefferson had not written the letter to the Danbury Baptists, where would we be today?

Thomas Jefferson's crucial letter lead to the "separation between church and state", which lead to the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution, followed by nine other amendments, all of which were enacted to protect certain fundamental individual rights of the citizens of our country (Harrington). These rights have allowed people to fight for some of the most powerful movements in history. It was these rights which have allowed heroes to fight for us to live in a more equal society where there are no slaves and women can vote. This foundation was laid by one of our Forefathers, Thomas Jefferson, with the delivery of his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association back in 1802. It was Jefferson's bold move that became the tipping point for the beginning of religious and political movements in the United States.


Harrington, Edward F. The Metaphorical Wall. America Magazine.
www.americamagazine.org

Jefferson's Wall of Separation Letter. The U.S. Constitution Online.
www.usconstitution.net

Library of Congress Information. Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists.
Jefferson, Thomas. 1802.

Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists

The Danbury Letter written by Thomas Jefferson was a formal written response back to the Baptists of Danbury Connecticut regarding their concerns with the Connecticut State Constitution and government mandated religion.

The Baptists were concerned that their current state government did not prohibit the state from legislating about religious matters. The state of Connecticut set a system of religious taxation that forced the Connecticut Baptists to support the established Congregationalist Church. A concern grew within the Baptists regarding a national establishment of religion and the letter to Jefferson was a political move by the Danbury Baptists to secure their denomination. They knew he was a Deist and founded his principles on rational thought and ethical standards therefore they felt their argument would be better received. Jefferson's reply in his letter to them reflects and upholds the principles of the First Amendment.

In the second paragraph of the Danbury letter Jefferson states that..."legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, "...thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." This quote has been misinterpreted throughout the centuries within camps of both the conservative right and liberal left, when all Jefferson was trying to do was explain that it is an infringement of our natural rights to mandate any religion.

According to Derek Davis' research, a church/state scholar and author of What Jefferson's Metaphor Really Means, Davis explains the Connecticut law as follows; "Connecticut law allowed the Baptists to rout their religious taxes to their own churches, but this involved filling out an exemption certificate and many Connecticut communities either made it difficult to obtain these certificates or refused to approve the exemptions once submitted."(Davis, 13) Davis continues by adding that the Baptists "found their laws unjust and discriminatory, favoring Congregationalism over other denominations". (Davis, 13) According to Davis, the Baptists in Connecticut began petitioning in the early 1800's to put pressure on the government to rescind the tax. Hence, the letter to Jefferson and his reply on Jan 1, 1802.

The "building a wall" metaphor in his letter can be seen as one-dimensional. Although the government attempts to say that church and state are separate, they continue to govern by adhering to Christian principles that continue to heavily influence the government’s actions. The Founding Fathers had already freed themselves and the colonies from the religious reign of the Mother country. They strongly believed that one couldn’t have a free country if it is ruled by a state-sponsored or mandatory religion.

Citizens in the United States continue today to argue over Jefferson's metaphor when it's in their best interest. I believe that this is why Derek Davis wrote his article, to point out that the reason why our country kept religion separate from government proceedings was so it would not repeat the religious-based atrocities that had previously occurred. Jefferson was a Deist believing that "religion is a matter that lies solely between a Man & his God..." Even if the Baptists of Danbury used Jefferson to promote and/or campaign their own denomination, they had a natural right to do so to demand their own religious freedoms.

Davis, Derek "What Jefferson's Metaphor Really Means," Liberty, (Jan/Feb, 1997), p. 13.

Response to Durkheim Readings

In the selected reading that we did for class regarding the elementary form of religion, Durkheim gives us his theory of the collective nature of religious thought and practice. One element of religion practice that he focuses on to use to support his theory is the use of totemism. Durkheim says that because totems are considered sacred, and are representations of dissimilar things, their sacredness can only be explained by the communal consciousness of the believers. I agree up to this point with his ideas, but he then goes on to say that . these religious totems are anonymous forces that outlive their adherents I disagree.
Even when we review his descriptions the important basic elements of religious thought however primitive, still involves the ability to conceptualize the experience of the totem as sacred, which Durkheim acknowledges when he describes the dichotomy that exists within all religious beliefs of the sacred and the profane. There exists the classification between the ideal and what is really real. This does not necessarily support his argument that the supernatural does not exist within primitive religions because these groups do not have the concept of what is the natural order and the variation of that order,. which would be the supernatural. I think that you could easily argue that these religions did have the ability to conceptualize this if they were able to separate the sacred and the profane.
Durkheim is ignoring the premise that these objects only hold this religious value through human thought. Because human thought is subjective, the religious signifigence of these totems exist only in the mind of the believers and not independently of it. The force that he describes as constant through generations cannot be possible because we cannot assume that the experience of these forces remains the same. It depends on how the experience is conceptualized.

Durkheim, Emile The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (New York: Free Press, 1995)
Durkheim, Emile, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, (New York Free Press, 1995)

American Civil Religion

The Christian religion and American civil religion seem to go hand in hand, but if we look closely we can clearly see that the two are very different. Robert N. Bellah makes this clear in his essay “Civil Religion in America”. The use of God’s name can be found throughout the birth of the American republic. Civil religion was used to bridge the gap between government and the people. As Bellah states,”…it borrowed selectively from the religious tradition in such a way that the average American saw no conflict between the two.” Civil religion created a powerful symbol of national unity beyond the church, as a result the nation began to strive for goals that would benefit the entire nation not just one single religious group.
Our founding fathers blatantly used God’s name as a battle cry that reached the common man, igniting not only their bodies, but their souls to fight for their freedom from the tyranny that had corrupted the nation for so many years. But their intent was never to link the birth of the nation with Christianity. The founding fathers, especially the first few presidents, carefully crafted the religion by borrowing exclusively from Christianity, but they made sure not to invoke the name of Christ. This was done on purpose to separate the two. In Christianity God and Christ are figures that invoke deep spiritual feelings about love and salvation, while the God in civil religion is more interested in establishing laws, order, and the rights of man.
Civil Religion has evolved to its present day state the same way other religions have evolved, through suffering and death. Through these struggles civil religion has established its own holy scriptures, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, its own prophets, and its own days of prayer. These are powerful symbols that have united the nation. There is no clearer example of this than in the national outcry that occurred after the devastation that toppled the Twin Towers in New York and the Pentagon in Washington D.C. on September 11, 2001. These events put America at the center of a new war that pinned religious and cultural differences. These events also created a new symbol of America’s undivided unity that is commemorated every year as a sacred day.
Every religion has its own practices and traditions, civil religion is no different. These traditions and practices provide Americans with the basic human need to explain the past and provide hope for the future. It is this basic need that keeps Americans striving for the utopia the founding fathers envisioned. Bellah puts it best when he says, “…American civil religion is not the worship of the American nation but an understanding of the American experience…”

Bellah, Robert N. "Civil religion in America." Daedalus, Journal of American Academy of Arts and Science (Winter 1967): 1-21.

God in America

In Robert Bellah's article on Civil Religion I was reminded of how important the use of God has, and still is, an importance in America. Although it has been said that America was founded on the Christian religion, Bellah makes a point that by referring to a general “God” as a higher power it could connect others to a God not of the Christian religion. The fact that many political leaders referred to a God and not Jesus Christ is one of Bellah’s arguments that the meaning of God is used in general so that it does not limit the definition of God to originate from Christianity.
However, we know that the Protestants came to America to break away from the regulations of their religion but the spiritual beliefs were the same. Other sects of Christianity were eventually started with the similar and main idea of God and Jesus Christ being the center of the religion.
It is interesting to me that the general “God” is a civic religion that many people embrace, but at the same time many people are trying to get away from. There are many people who want the word “God” out of every political document so that there is a complete separation of Church and state. Some people are bothered by the references to God and others say that it should remain because “God” is what this nation what founded on. Bellah claims that the references to God have been made in generality so that others can identify with the term “God” with what it means to them and that there is no connection here with Christianity. But it is also clear that not all people can relate to even this broad reference of God. It is because they know the history of the founding fathers beliefs as well as the dominant religion at that time.
Today there are many different religions in America and not all refer to their higher being as the God they identify political leaders to be speaking of. In addition, there are those who do not believe in a god and therefore find a problem with having this reference as unnecessary all together. It seems that this civic religion is somewhat changing as our society changes. Although, the references to God in politics is still used, it is not relatable to all in society.

Civil Religion: A Connection between Us All

At a very young age in reciting the “Pledge of Allegiance’ I always stumbled upon the phrase, “one nation under God.” This always made me ponder the idea of why students in a public school system would be pushed to say such a phrase every morning at the start of class, especially in a very strict community where the idea ‘separation of church and state’ was upheld very high. Although, now with more insight on the concept of Civil Religion in America I have come to understand the idea of “one nation under God” as it is a way amongst many that unites our nation.

In Robert Bellah’s, “Civil Religion in America,” he uses John F. Kennedy’s inaugural speech in which Kennedy refers to ‘God’ many times. Although he then goes on to explain Kennedy never once referred to Jesus Christ, Moses or the Christian Church, but instead he refers to the broad concept of a ‘God’ which most Americans cannot resist. Bellah also explains how important the presidents inauguration along with many other rituals are very important to our way of government and how we also have many beliefs and symbols that leads him to the reference of an ‘American Civil Religion.’

As it can easily be uncovered ‘God’ can be found throughout our history, one that is very rich with text which explains who and why our nation is in this form of existence today. Unlike most religions our Civil Religion according to Bellah is not one that upholds salvation and love, but instead lies on the sturdy grounds of order and law, making it very apparent this ‘God’ is interactive with its followers and those followers being the people of America. America is consisted of many cultures and religions and those who all live by the American way of life are united under many of our governments’ rituals, beliefs, and symbol. One being the Pledge of Allegiance and as we have all sited at one point in time, we are “one nation under God.”

Religious Dimensions of America

In Robert Bellah’s “Civil Religion of America,” he argues that there exists not only religion belonging to a church, but religion that belongs to America as a whole. This American civil religion is described as a public religious dimension that is expressed in a set of beliefs, symbols, and rituals.

You might be asking yourself that if civil religion and church religion are two separate things, then why do they seem to be similar? It seems that the commonplace act today is to see the word “God” as indicative of church religion; however, the word “God” has been being used in oaths, solemnity, and other varieties of speeches by the founders of America since the founding of the United States itself. This word is not necessarily indicative of a specific religion, Bellah explains, but instead holds either ceremonial significance or the significance of deferring to the wishes of a higher, guiding power whose will is ours to carry out.

Aside from not being indicative of a specific religion, in particular, one of the major world religions, Bellah also argues that the word “God” could be no more than an empty sign as it is freely used by Americans and means so many different things to different people. He even quoted Dwight Eisenhower stating that, “Our government makes no sense unless it is founded in a deeply felt religious faith and I don’t care what it is.” From this, we can decipher that “real religion” seems to hold no meaning in the arms of the government. Instead, it seems to be the American civil religion that is being spoken of.

Bellah touches on one more interesting point: separation of church and state. With separation of church and state, everyone should have freedom of religious belief and its associations; the political sphere should be separate from the sphere of privately practiced religion. However, because there are certain commonalities that Americans share regarding religious orientation, the political realm is not devoid of a religious dimension.

What is said in the name of “religion” may, at times, be no more than the civil religion shared amongst people of this country. We have followed certain beliefs and rituals from childhood on up through adulthood; we have pictures and words that are symbolic of who and what we are as both a people and a country. I believe that this is what civil religion is and does: it links us to those around us, even when there are such radical differences that it seems to be impossible to find anything in common.

Connecting Americans

America was founded by a collection of people seeking independence. The spiritual beliefs of these individuals differed from group to group, and person to person. Through civil religion, masses are able to come together with a commonality. Even though the word God has been mentioned throughout American history, it is not in reference to a particular religious God.

Civil Religion in America, according to Bellah, is a variety of universal beliefs, symbols, and rituals that the citizens of this country experience as a whole. Many of the holidays that this country celebrates as a majority, Thanksgiving, Memorial Day, Fourth of July, Veterans Day, and the birthdays of important Americans of the past like Lincoln and Washington, are civil religious rituals. Other rituals that are commonly seen include students saying the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag, groups singing our National Anthem, and the inauguration speeches heard by our presidents (Benne). Many of these rituals are taught to Americans in public schools.

The term, God, is imbedded in our countries history. Through manifest destiny, God gave our founding fathers the right to expand our country. In the Declaration of Independence, God is mentioned four times. Presidents, such as Kennedy, Johnson, and Washington, mention God in their inauguration speeches. During the Gettysburg Address, Abraham Lincoln, refers to God as a way to fight slavery. As seen through time, fundamental Americans refer to a non-explicit God.

When discussing God in regards to civil religion, Bellah is not referring to the God of one religion, Christian, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, or Buddhism. Rather, this God being discussed is a broad-spectrum God, a higher power that watches over all Americans, regardless of religious preference. This is not a God that should be worshiped in replacement of a religious God or deity.

With so much religious freedom in America, civil religion connects Americans together, even when they do not have the same beliefs. This is done through common rituals, beliefs, and symbols that are taught to American children while they are in public schools.

Bellah, Robert N. "Civil religion in America." Daedalus 134.4 (Fall2005 2005): 40-55.

Benne, Robert. "The Persistence of Civil Religion." Dialog: A Journal of Theology 2002: 178

Worshiping Our Society

We can easily say that religion has a great influence on society, but can we say that society has a great influence on religion? In the essay “The Elementary Forms of Religious Life”, Emile Durkheim explores the relationship between religion and society. Durkheim introduces us to the totemic principle, in which he explains how things become sacred with in a community and have a symbolic meaning based on a communal belief. For example, Durkheim uses the example of the Crow phratry being crows. Durkheim states,

[The native] does not exactly mean that they are crows, in the everyday empirical sense of the world, but that the same principle is found in all of them. That principle constitutes what they all most fundamentally are, is shared between people and animals of the same name, and is conceptualized as having the outward form of a crow.

Within the Crow phratry the crow has become a sign of the group. As Durkheim explains, this is one of the common threads among religious groups. If we are to look at other religious assemblies we can see that they also have physical objects that are representative of their group. For example, the fish is commonly recognized as a symbol of Christianity and the Torah for the Jewish community. Both the fish and the Torah are religious totems because they reflect the individual societies they symbolize. Based on this observation Durkheim makes the assertion that religion is the worship of a society.

In response, I have to agree with Durkheim’s assertion. If religions use objects from their society as a representation of the religion than they must be honoring the values and ideas they collectively live by.

Durkheim, Emile. "The Elementary Forms of Religious Life." trans. Karen E. Fields (New York: Free Press, 1995).