John Leland

Under this head, I would remark, that there is a common saying, “that a republican government is the best in the world if people only have virtue enough to bear it.” If people had virtue enough, there would be no need of any government. Government becomes necessary on account of the vices of men. …Those who so frequently are making the above observation, should do all they can to save and foster that government which they own is best; but for the most part, the remark is made by men who are wishing to sap the foundation of republican government, trick the people out of their liberties, and raise themselves to a state of preeminence above the control of others.

~ John Leland – “Republicanism, the Best Government; but not without its evils”

Sins of our Forerunners (Separation of Church and State)

A week or two ago someone mentioned something about "those who believe the lie of separation of Church and State". Normally this is combined with the idea that "separation of church and state" is a myth and is not in the Constitution. Yet if it was a myth, lie, or unconstitutional, the idea is clearly a Baptist and Southern Baptist lie/myth. Baptists, including Southern Baptists were claiming that the state and church should remain separate as part of their "religious liberty" and "soul liberty" theologies. Honestly if leaders of the SBC had not perpetuated this idea for at least a century I doubt that the courts would have picked it up.

Now you may disagree with "separation of Church and State". Also, there are those that disagree on the boundaries of what is an establishment and what should be permitted under free exercise. Fine, but it was a basic Baptist tenet until recently. For those that are Baptists, we understand that all Baptist theology is up for debate. We just need to know that the debate is not between Atheists and Baptists, but devout Southern Baptists and devout Southern Baptists. Unlike, slavery, Christian slave holders, and Biblical segregation this one didn't die so easily for those that find fault with it. Also, by the way, it is not been Baptist practice to say that "separation of Church and State" is "one way" and designed to merely protect the church from the state. Baptist tended to believe that it works both ways. Some of the non-baptists have a reason not to become Baptists should they believe that this separation is a lie/myth. Their lives may have been easier if Baptists had been less vocal over the centuries.

Anyways the following quote struck me as interesting for several reasons. One, the book was published by Baptists in 1907. This particular chapter was written by Benjamin O. True, Professor of Church History at Rochester Theological Seminary. Two, the quote is older than the book. I do not know how old the source is that he is quoting, but obviously it is older than 1907. Three, this is written before our recent controversies. At this time, there was not a National Day of Prayer, National Prayer Breakfast, Under God in the Pledge of Allegiance, Most of the Ten Commandment monuments, prayer at the Sugar Bowl, and the national motto as In God we trust. This is why I like older Baptist theology, it is less politicized. They believed in separation of church and state without being accused by fellow baptists of being against prayer or against the Bible. I am not sure what George Truett, John Leland, or Spurgeon would think about our battles on government faculty prayer and bible reading in public schools, but I am certain that they would not believe that their addition would change the nation towards true piety.

So far as this was a work of intelligent conviction and religious faith the chief honor of it must be given to the Baptists. Other sects, notably the Presbyterians, had been energetic and efficient in demanding their own liberties; the Friends and the Baptists agreed in demanding liberty of conscience and worship and equality before the law for all alike. But the active labor in this cause was mainly done by the Baptists. It is to their consistency and constancy in the warfare against the privileges of the powerful “Standing Order” of New England, and of the moribund establishments of the South, that we are chiefly indebted for the final triumph in this country of that principle of the separation of Church from State which is one of the largest contributions of the New World to civilization and to the church universal.

~ Dr. Leonard Woolsey Bacon, "History of American Christianity" pg 221

A passage from John Leland's Autobiography

I was reading through early American preacher John Leland's biography.  This paragraph struck me.

I am now in the decline of life, having lived nearly two-thirds of a century.  When Jacob had lived twice as long, his days had been few and evil.  I have spent my years like a tale that is told.  Looking over the foregoing narrative [his autobiography] , there is proof enough of imperfection; and yet what I have written is the best part of my life.  A history seven times as large might be written of my error in judgment, incorrectness of behavior and baseness of heart.  My only hope of acceptance with God, is in the blood and righteousness of Jesus Christ.  And when I come to Christ for pardon I come as an old grey headed sinner; in the language of the publican, "God be merciful to me a sinner.

Villains make no scruple to take any oath

To say that "religion cannot stand without a state establishment," is not only contrary to fact, (as has been proved already,) but is a contradiction in phrase. Religion must have stood a time before any law could have been made about it; and if it did stand almost three hundred years without law, it can still stand without it.


The evils of such an establishment, are many.


First. Uninspired, fallible men make their own opinions tests of orthodoxy, and use their own systems, as Pocrustes used his iron bedstead, to stretch and measure the consciences of all others by. Where no toleration is granted to non-conformists, either ignorance and superstition prevail, or persecution rages; and if toleration is granted to restricted non-conformists, the minds of men are biased to embrace that religion which is favored and pampered by law, and thereby hypocrisy is nourished; while those who cannot stretch their consciences to believe anything and everything in the established creed, are treated with contempt and opprobrious names; and by such means, some are pampered to death by largesses, and others confined from doing what good they otherwise could, by penury. The first lie under a temptation to flatter the ruling party, to continue that form of government which brings them in the sure bread of idleness; the last to despise that government, and those rulers, that oppress them. The first have their eyes shut to all further light, that would alter the religious machine; the last are always seeking new light, and often fall into enthusiasm. Such are the natural evils of the establishment of religion by human laws.


Second. Such establishments not only wean and alienate the affections of one from another, on account of the different usage they receive in their religious sentiments, but are also very impolitic, especially in new countries; for what encouragement can strangers have to migrate with their arts and wealth into a state, where they cannot enjoy their religious sentiments without exposing themselves to the law? when, at the same time, their religious opinions do not lead them to be mutinous. And further, how often have kingdoms and states been greatly weakened by religious tests! In the time of the persecution in France, not less than twenty thousand people fled for the enjoyment of religious liberty.


Third. These establishments metamorphose the church into a creature, and religion into a principle of state, which has a natural tendency to make men conclude that Bible religion is nothing but a trick of state; hence it is that the greatest part of the well-informed in literature are overrun with deism and infidelity; nor is it likely that it will ever be much better, while preaching is made a trade of emolument. And if there is no difference between Bible religion and state religion, I shall soon fall into infidelity.


Fourth. There are no two kingdoms and states that establish the same creed and formalities of faith, which alone proves their debility. In one kingdom a man is condemned for not believing a doctrine that he would be condemned for believing in another kingdom. Both of these establishments cannot be right, but both of them can be, and surely are, wrong.


First. The nature of such establishments, further, is to keep from civil office the best of men. Good men cannot believe what they cannot believe, and they will not subscribe to what they disbelieve, and take an oath to maintain what they conclude is error; and, as the best of men differ in judgment, there may be some of them in any state: their talents and virtue entitle them to fill the most important posts, yet, because they differ from the established creed of the state, they cannot—will not fill those posts; whereas villains make no scruple to take any oath.


If these, and many more evils, attend such establishments, what were, and still are, the causes that ever there should be a state establishment ofreligion m any empire, kingdom, or state?


The causes are many—some of which follow:


First. The love of importance is a general evil. It is natural to men to dictate for others: they choose to command the bushel and use the whip row: to have the halter around the necks of others, to hang them at pleasure.


Second. An over-fondness for a particular system or sect. This gave rise to the first human establishment of religion, by Constantine the Great. Being- converted to the Christian system, he established it in the Roman empire, compelled the Pagans to submit, and banished the Christian heretics; built fine chapels at public expense, and forced large stipends for the preachers. All this was done out of love to the Christian religion; but his love operated inadvertently, for he did the Christian church more harm than all the persecuting emperors ever did. It is said, that in his day a voice was heard from heaven, saying: ". Now is poison spued into the churches." If this voice was not heard, it, nevertheless, was a truth; for, from that day to this, the Christian religion has been made a stirrup to mount the steed of popularity, wealth and ambition.


Third. To produce uniformity in religion. Rulers often fear that if they leave every man to think, speak, and worship as he pleases, that the whole cause will be wrecked in diversity; to prevent which, they establish some standard of orthodoxy, to effect uniformity. But, is uniformity attainable? Millions of men, women and children, have been tortured to death, to produce uniformity, and yet the world has not advanced one inch towards it. And as long as men live in different parts of the world, have different habits, education and interests, they will be different in judgment, humanly speaking. ~ Rights of Conscience - John Leland - ca 1790's[1]

John Leland 1791 - He is so happy that most Virginians now believe that slaves can feel pain.

Often people do not realized how far we have come.  Racial prejudices used to be ingrained in the science of the day.  I could find quotes from the 1960's, but these from the 1780-90's blow my mind.  Here is something that then abolitionist Elder John Leland noted on Virginian slavery in 1791.

I am heartily glad, that I can say that the spirit of masters has greatly abated since I have been in Virginia; it is now confessed, by many, that negroes can feel injuries, hunger, pain and weariness, and I hope this spark of good fire will be raised to a flame, in due time.

"Letter of Valediction on Leaving Virginia, in 1791" ~ Elder John Leland[1]

PS - Just for fun here is some Jefferson:

I have  supposed the black man, in his present state, might not be in body and mind equal to the white man; but it would be hazardous to affirm, that, equally cultivated for a few generations, he would not become so.

To General ChasTellux 1785

The improvement of the blacks in body and mind, in the first instance of their mixture [miscegenation]  with the whites, has been observed by every one. and proves that their inferiority is not the effect merely of their condition in life.

Notes On Virginia 1782

Comparing them by their faculties of memory, reason, and imagination, it appears to me that in memory they are equal to the whites; in reason much inferior, as I think one could scarcely be found capable of tracing and comprehending the investigations of Euclid; and that in imagination they are dull, tasteless, and anomalous. It would be unfair to follow them to Africa for this investigation. We will consider them here, on the same stage with the whites, and where the facts are not apocryphal on which a judgment is to be formed. It will be right to make great allowances for the difference of condition, of education, of conversation, of the sphere in which they move. Many millions of them have been brought to, and born in America. Most of them, indeed, have been confined to tillage, to their own homes, and their own society; yet many of them have been so situated that they might have availed themselves of the conversation of their masters; many of them have been brought up to the handicraft arts, and from that circumstance have always been associated with the whites. Some have been liberally educated, and all have lived in countries where the arts and sciences are cultivated to a considerable degree, and have had before their eyes samples of the best works from abroad. The Indians ... will often carve figures on their pipes not destitute of design and merit. They will crayon out an animal, a plant, or a country. so as to prove the existence of a germ in their minds which only wants cultivation. They astonish you with strokes of the most sublime oratory; such as prove their reason and sentiment strong, their imagination glowing and elevated--! Butnever yet could I find that a black had uttered a thought above the level of plain narration; never saw even an elementary trait of painting or sculpture.

—Notes On Virginia 1782

Jefferson's supremacist thoughts on African Americans cataloged in 1900[2]

Need help convincing your friends that Islam is a religion?

Step 1 – It meets the Biblical definition of a religion.

If someone thinks he is religious yet does not bridle his tongue, and so deceives his heart, his religion is futile. Pure and undefiled religion before God the Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their misfortune and to keep oneself unstained by the world. ~ James 1:26-27

The word James uses for religion is the Greek word, thrēskeia. It means, “religious worship”[0]. Despite what some preachers teach, James here describes the new Christian faith as a religion. This religion is something that should be pure and undefiled. Here this purity involves controlling the tongue.

In Acts 26:5, Paul describes Judaism as a religion.

They know, because they have known me from time past, if they are willing to testify, that according to the strictest party of our religion, I lived as a Pharisee.

Also Colossians 2:18 warns against the worshiping of angels, literally the “religion of the angels”.

Let no one who delights in humility and the worship of angels pass judgment on you. That person goes on at great lengths about what he has supposedly seen, but he is puffed up with empty notions by his fleshly mind.

According to the Bible, Judaism, Christianity, and even some heretical sects are religions. Now, I am sure that the definition goes beyond the Abrahamic religions, but even if it does not is Islam a thrēskeia? Islam developed centuries after the completion of the canon and even the fall of Rome. However Islam is still an Abrahamic religion that owes a lot of its theology to both Judaism and Christianity. Many of the practices that today we condemn in some forms of Islam were practiced by Biblical Judaism. Some have argued that Islam cannot be a religion, because of "Sharia law"*. Still the Bible clearly considered Judaism a religion when it was killing people for blasphemy and conversion to Christianity. Therefore Islam passes the Bible test.

Step 2 – The Founding Fathers considered Islam a religion.

Not only are some Christian speakers arguing that Islam is not a religion. Some other speakers are also arguing that the First Amendment only applies to Christianity. These people are arguing that the authors of the Bill of Rights only considered Christianity when they used the word, “religion”. Here we will see that not only did the Founding Fathers use “religion” for other faiths than Christianity, they also considered Islam a religion.

Let us start with Benjamin Rush.  In 1798, he wrote On the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic and said this about Islam.

Such is my veneration for every religion that reveals the attributes of the Deity, or a future state of rewards and punishments, that I had rather see the opinions of Confucius or Mohammed inculcated upon our youth than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles. But the religion I mean to recommend in this place, is that of Jesus Christ.[1]

In James Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, though not mentioning Islam directly, he stated that there were other religions than Christianity. He almost absolutely meant Islam here.

Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?[2]

 June 10, 1797, John Adams, as President, signed the Treaty of Tripoli which clearly refers to Islam as a religion.

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall never produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. ~ Article 11 [3]

Madison and Jefferson clearly understood that the war against the Barbary pirates was not a war against Islam.  This minority of Muslims had conscripted hundreds of Americans, but the United States had enslaved hundreds of thousands of Africans. 20% of African slaves abducted were Muslims.  The conscription by the Barbary pirates was not a massive religious endeavor.  Although Pope Pius VI congratulated the United States for defending Christianity, neither Madison or Jefferson wanted to further the religious prejudice. Madison instructed the U.S. consul in Algiers to exhibit "universal toleration in matters of religion." Clearly Madison and Jefferson thought of Islam as a religion and used the word "religion" to refer to Islam.[4]

In the Elder John Leland's Blow at the Root, he clearly refers to Islam as a religion in his appeal for religious liberty. (By the way, the works of Leland were recently reprinted by Abebooks.  I recommend you pick up a copy.)

The golden rule is: "Do unto all men as you would they should do unto you." If Christians were in Turkey or Algiers, would they not wish to enjoy the liberty of their consciences without control Would they not say, in their hearts at least, " We wish to be freed from paying the Turkish priests, and supporting the Turkish religion, which is only an imposture, and that we might be respected according to our conduct, while we enjoy our religious opinions, as an inalienable right?" If so, then let them grant these favors, or rather, let them not deprive others of these rights, or give up the name of Christians.[5]

In 1790, George Washington wrote a letter to Moses Seixas, the warden of Congregation Kahal Kadosh Yeshuat Israel synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island. Though he does not mention religion or Islam, he makes it clear that "liberty of conscience" is an inherent natural right of all people including Muslims.

The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.[6] 

Finally, we must look to Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary entry on religion.

Religion ~ 4. Any system of faith and worship. In this sense, religion comprehends the belief and worship of pagans and Mohammedans, as well as of christians; any religion consisting in the belief of a superior power or powers governing the world, and in the worship of such power or powers. Thus we speak of the religion of the Turks, of the Hindoos, of the Indians, &c. as well as of the christian religion. We speak of false religion, as well as of true religion.[7]

Now look, I would be the first to tell you that the Founding Fathers were not some group mind.  They did not agree on everything and the First Amendment itself is a political compromise. Also, Leland, Madison, and Jefferson are a pretty radical bunch as Founders go.  However all I wished to prove was that "religion" could mean Islam in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.  Islam was clearly thought of as a "religion" and "religion" was used of other religions than Christianity.  Islam clearly passes the Founders test of a religion.


Conclusion


The argument that Islam is not a religion is a false dichotomy and a strawman.  Like when one argues that Christianity is not a religion, one sets up a false black and white standard.  One assumes that Islam cannot be a religion, because that it advances a legal code.  However at least two faiths that make the cut advocate legal codes in some of their sects: Christianity and Judaism. There is no black and white standard declaring what is a religion or not.  In fact if one has been paying attention to the latest news about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, one could argue that the term religion is too inclusive. Secular Humanism, Pastafarianism, Buddhism, and Atheism are all religions and none of them have deities. "Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas Queen, Defender of the Faith" is the official title of the Queen of England. Obviously Christianity does have a legal code in some sects. Clearly religions can have legal codes.

This argument is also a strawman. Islam, like Christianity, is composed of several different sects. There are also different versions of sharia and different interpretations of that sharia. This is what one would expect from a religion that covers hundreds of millions of people and several different languages. There are five different schools of sharia, one in Shia and four in Sunni. There is no universal sharia law.

It is false to say that Islam/sharia law wants to "see one convert or dead." This a view taken by a group of sects of Islam. Like some forms of Judaism, many sects of Islam have interpreted the executing of converts as a metaphorical death.

Are there violations of human rights because of interpretations of sharia? Sure. Are there people using interpretations of sharia to stop these violations? Yep.

When one speaks in stereotypes and generalities one does not only condemn the guilty, one also condemns the victims. This is one of the advantages that the freedom of religion gives us. Bad parts of religions tend to fade as they lose the argument in the marketplace of ideas.

*As I mention in the conclusion there is no universal sharia law.

8/29/11 1:24pm Corrected a poorly worded sentence about Rush. Added a mention about Sharia Law.