Tea Party Rejoice - Rick Channels Patrick Henry

When candidate Rick Santorum said he "'almost threw up' when he read John F. Kennedy’s famous 1960 speech on the separation of church and state," my ears pricked up. Not because I want to discuss, support or trash any candidate, but because he was talking about a speech I remember rather fondly.

According to the Washington Post:

“Mr. Santorum said Kennedy was arguing that 'faith is not allowed in the public square'...

But Mr. Kennedy wasn’t telling people of faith to stay out of public life. He was restating the constitutional principle that has helped make America a great and resilient country: No faith should be able to dictate government policy, and government shouldn’t dictate theology to any faith.”

Tax to Support Christian Teachers

My thoughts immediately returned not to the Kennedy speech of 1960 (responding to accusations that as a Catholic he would consult the Vatican for his policy decisions) but to Virginia in 1784.

In that critical year, after the success of the American Revolution, James Madison was a delegate to the Virginia Assembly and looking forward to a session of modernizing the laws of the state left over from the colonial period. Instead he was confronted almost immediately with an attempt with "a torrent of eloquence from Patrick Henry…to support 'teachers of the Christian religion' by a general tax." Madison was both surprised and appalled.  "Madison thought it 'obnoxious on account of its dishonorable principle and dangerous tendency.'"

Important men such as George Washington, John Marshall, and others as well as Patrick Henry believed the morals of the state were in decline and believed religion had a positive influence on people. In fact, Madison himself was a religious man and member of a church. His horror at the proposed tax was not from distaste for religion. He argued the tax "would neither make religion more vital nor cure the alleged 'moral decay' in Virginia. It would…violate the natural right to liberty of conscience and involve the state in questions of heresy and orthodoxy entirely outside its province."

Madison, the master politician, supported another bill as a delaying tactic and then supported Patrick Henry’s bid for governor, getting him out of the legislature where he had amassed huge power.

Then Madison went to work, gathering every bit of available information, every book, every tract, and every ounce of data and digesting it. The result was his classic Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments. He used it as a petition to gain support against the bill. His 15 points brilliantly argue for the complete separation of church and state.

 Beating Patrick Henry

At the fall 1785 meeting of the Virginia Assembly, Madison was victorious.

The assessment bill of the previous session died silently and Madison quickly proposed adoption of Jefferson’s eloquent 'Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom.' After its enactment, Madison wrote its author that, 'I flatter myself [we] have in this country extinguished forever the ambitious hope of making laws for the human mind.' Of all his accomplishments as a legislator, Madison took greatest pleasure and pride in this victory.

In fact, religious liberty stands out as the one subject upon which Madison took an extreme, absolute, undeviating position throughout his life. The phrases he proposed for the first amendment to the federal Constitution–-'the full and equal rights of conscience [shall not] be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed,' and 'no State shall violate the equal rights of conscience'—were less equivocal than the language final adopted.

In the Memorial he asserted the rights of both believers and nonbelievers. He later opposed paying for a congressional or military chaplain or presidential proclamations on religious holidays.

Religious liberty, Madison wrote, ought to be defined 'as distinctly as words can admit, and the limits to [religious laws] established with as much solemnity as the forms of legislation express…Every provision for [such laws] short of this principle, will be found to leave crevices at least through which bigotry may introduce persecution; a monster feeding and thriving on its own venom, gradually swells to a size and strength overwhelming all laws human and define.'...complete separation of church and state saved the church from the inevitable corrupting influence of civil authority.

 Original Intent

In my snarky title to this blog I refer to the tea party folks who want to "return to the US Constitution." They often support an ‘originalist’ approach. It’s hard to get more original than James Madison. He was part of a conspiracy to call the Constitutional Convention in 1787, drafted the Virginia Plan kicking off the debates, defeated Patrick Henry’s attempts to stop the new Constitution in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, and drafted the Bill of Rights and pushed through it the first Congress.

Over time, his views shifted on other aspects of his creations but never on the separation of Church and State. Of course, he did pay a certain political price at the time. Payback is as much a part of politics in the 18^th century as it is today. Under the new Constitution, Senators were appointed by the Governor. Governor Henry blocked Madison’s nomination to the new upper house. He also saw to the gerrymandering of Madison's home congressional district in an attempt to stop him there and supported his opponent, James Monroe. Madison was not thwarted and went into the first Congress as George Washington’s whip to get the president’s agenda through the lower house.

There is no doubt that in the late 18^th century there were those who would blur the lines between religion and republican government. However, the victors at the state and federal level, the founders and framers who shaped the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the new government, where staunchly in the camp that Kennedy reiterated.

Whether Mr. Santorum wins or loses is not the point.

Does the Constitution’s wall of separation between church and state stand or fall.

Do we stand with Madison or Henry?

*     *     *     *     *     *     *     *

© Rebecca Staton-Reinstein and Advantage Leadership, Inc.

References:

1-Washington Post

2-All quotes about Madison: Ralph Ketcham, James Madison, University of Virginia, 1990, pages 162-168.

I NEED YOUR HELP: I’m beginning research for my new book on the influence of leaders on their organizations (Washington’s Shadow) and I’m interested in your experiences or ideas for case studies. Drop me a note: Rebecca@AdvantageLeadership.com 

Learn more about "Conventional Wisdom: How Today's Leaders Plan, Perform, and Progress Like the Founding Fathers" (http://www.ConventionalWisdomCenter.com  and visit our Author Page on Amazon. (http://tinyurl.com/RSRpage )

Sign up for our Conventional Wisdom blog and read this and other leadership stories and tips. http://tinyurl.com/yk7bgtn 

Rebecca Staton-Reinstein, Ph.D., President
Advantage Leadership, Inc.
1835 NE Miami Gardens Drive, Suite 152
North Miami Beach, FL 33179

http://www.AdvantageLeadership.com

Rebecca@AdvantageLeadership.com

Don't know much about historeeee...

You may not remember the old pop song with that refrain but it could be the theme song of way too many people. My sister called the other night and told me about a meeting she went to in her town. The discussion got pretty hot and heavy and one woman pulled out her pocket-sized copy of the Constitution and waved it around as she made her points, disagreeing with whatever was being said.

Now my sister is not the shy retiring type that I am -  ;-)  - and so she asked her, "Did you actually read the Constitution?" "Well, no...but I know what it says..." and went on with her harangue, misquoting and mangling the document -- rhetorically not physically.

To my sister and me, it was a reminder us of being dragged off to tent revivals by our grammaw where various lay preachers would thump the good book, tell us what it said, and threaten us if we doubted them.

The problem with the thumpers is that in the words of the founding fathers, the constitution, or the bible or other holy books, you can cherry pick phrases that agree with your beliefs and ignore those that don't. If your audience doesn't know any better and hasn't studied the details themselves, you can say just about anything. Psychologist know that if the idea is repeated often enough, you will come to believe if, even when faced with hard facts to the contrary.

Here's an example from a letter to USA Today (7/1/10) from a writer commenting on the passing of Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia.

Our Founding Fathers did not intend congressional positions to be life-long ones. They felt that it was the duty of our leaders to give of their time and manage their states temporarily, and that this was in the best interests of their constituents...

We have senators...[who] have become professional politicians.

He goes on to support term limits AND age limits.

There are many good arguments for and against term limits...but how the founding fathers "felt" is not among them. There were among the founders those who saw it as their duty (or privilege) to serve in government for a while and then return to private life. George Washington is a good example.

But not all the "fathers" followed that path nor believed it was the best path. Three examples from three different political philosophies come to mind. Patrick Henry was one of the most powerful professional politicians in Virginia and served in a variety of positions in the state including the governorship. He was a strong "states rights" defender and foe of the new federal Constitution because it removed the absolute power of the states.

John Adams started out as a lawyer but was soon drawn into the Continental Congress and became a professional politician, serving as a representative in the Continental Congress, and as a diplomat in France and England. With the establishment of the new federal government he became Vice President and then President. He was a Federalist and only left office when defeated by Jefferson in the election of 1800.

James Madison beginning in his mid-twenties was only out of public office for a couple of years. He served in county and state legislatures, the Continental Congress, worked with Alexander Hamilton and Ben Franklin to engineer the Constitutional Convention, served in the new Congress, was Secretary of State under Jefferson, and finally served as a two-term president. Although starting out with a strong nationalist/federalist bent, he moved away from this by Washington's second term and worked along side Jefferson to found the Republican Party (which later morphed into the Democratic Party.)

My point is that the letter writer didn't know some basic history, which he could have discovered in a  history book, on the web, or (in the olden days) in school. But that seems too hard. I recently set my Google Alerts to look for references to the Founding Fathers -- everybody adopts them to prove their points. I'm on a quest to confront ignorance with facts.

The founding fathers were as complex, complicated, and conniving as any modern politician or leader. They were humans. They had their points of greatness and their follies. We should admire them, not because we can find some words they uttered that fit our political views but because of what they did, sometimes in spite of themselves, to create a system of government that works and is self-correcting through the will of the people.

Before you adopt their words to prove yourself right, read the entire body of their work. Learn what books they were reading and what philosophers influenced their thinking. Know what was going on in the wider world and in their world.

Learn a little more about historeeeee....

*    *    *    *    *    *    *    *

(c) Rebecca Staton-Reinstein, President , Advantage Leadership, Inc.

Want to know a little more about historeee and contemporary leaders? Check out Conventional Wisdom: How Today's Leaders Plan, Perform, and Progress Like the Founding Fathers. Available on Amazon.

Want to read a couple of chapters first? Send an email to Rebecca@AdvantageLeadership.com with "Chapters" in the subject line.