Posted on by Mark Movsesian

A New History of the Religion Clauses

From Oxford University Press, here is a new history of the religion clauses, Free Exercise: Religion, the First Amendment, and the Making of America, focusing especially on the social and cultural context at the time of the Framing, and foregrounding the experience of marginalized religious communities like Jews and Catholics, among others. The author is historian Chris Beneke of Bentley University. Oxford’s description follows:

CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF. Those words, scratched on parchment in 1789, open the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment. From them, countless interpretations have been drawn. As a consequence, an astonishing variety of activities in modern America-prayer after football games, Bible reading in classrooms, company healthcare policies, the baking of wedding cakes, and Ten Commandment displays around courthouses-have been alternately authorized, prohibited, or modified.

In this compelling historical account, Chris Beneke explains how the religion clauses came into existence and how they were woven into American culture. He brings prominent early national figures to life, including George Washington, James Madison, and Thomas Paine, while chronicling the First Amendment’s relationship to defining social conditions like slavery, civility, family life, and the free market. Beneke probes what kind of nation America was when the religion clauses were framed and what kind of nation it was becoming.

Going beyond traditional church-state scholarship, Beneke also demonstrates how white women, African Americans, Roman Catholics, Jews, and nonbelievers widened religious liberty’s application and illuminated its boundaries. In doing so he makes a groundbreaking contribution to both constitutional history and the history of American pluralism.

Posted on by L&R Forum

Legal Spirits 064: A City Upon a Hill

Ever since President Ronald Reagan popularized the phrase in the 1980s, American leaders have referred to the United States as the “shining city on a hill.” Reagan adapted the phrase from John Winthrop, the 17th century governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, who himself took it from the Gospel of Matthew. But the message has changed down the centuries. What began as a warning to carry out faithfully a mission from God became a boast about the United States and the benefits of human freedom. In this episode, Notre Dame historian Don Drakeman explores the original meaning of Winthrop’s text (Don argues it was in part a sales pitch to Puritan investors!) and its meaning today. Both are part of the American tradition: which meaning is the “real” one? Listen in!

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

Posted on by Mark Movsesian

On Christian Institutionalism in the Early Republic

The proper role of Christianity in American public life has sparked controversy from the beginning. Is the US a Christian nation, and what does that mean, exactly? Or is the US a secular republic? Like France, perhaps? Historian Miles Smith has written a new book, Religion & Republic: Christian America from the Founding to the Civil War, that argues that the true role of Christianity in the early Republic is captured by the phrase “Christian Institutionalism,” in which a public, Protestant Christianity coexisted with official disestablishment. Looks interesting. Here’s the description from the publisher’s website (Davenant):

In recent years, America’s status as a “Christian nation” has become an incredibly vexed question. This is not simply a debate about America’s present, or even its future–it has become a debate about its past. Some want to rewrite America’s history as having always been highly secular in order to ensure a similar future; others seek to reframe the American founding as a continuation of medieval Christendom in the hopes of reviving America’s religious identity today.

In this book, Miles Smith offers a fresh historical reading of America’s status as a Christian nation in the Early Republic era. Defined neither by secularism nor Christendom, America was instead marked by “Christian institutionalism.” Christianity–and Protestantism specifically–was always baked into the American republic’s diplomatic, educational, judicial, and legislative regimes and institutional Christianity in state apparatuses coexisted comfortably with disestablishment from the American Revolution until the beginning of the twenty-first century. 

Any productive discussion about America’s religious present or future must first reckon accurately with its past. With close attention to a wide range of sermons, letters, laws, court cases and more, Religion & Republic offers just such a reckoning

Posted on by Mark Movsesian

A City on a Hill

I’d like to thank the members of our Law & Religion Reading Group who turned out last night for a wonderful discussion of John Winthrop’s famous essay, “A Model of Christian Charity” (1630), the source of the oft-repeated saying that America is “a city on a hill.” A 400-year old Puritan text came to life. Look for a new Legal Spirits podcast on the subject soon!

Posted on by Mark Movsesian

Reading Group to Discuss John Winthrop

Photo: Partnership of Historic Bostons

Later this month, the Mattone Center Reading Group will meet at St. John’s to discuss one of the most famous essays in American history, John Winthrop’s “Model of Christian Charity.” Winthrop wrote the essay on the ship Arbella in 1630, while he and other Puritan colonists were on their way to Massachusetts. The essay is the source of the much quoted metaphor–itself a Biblical reference–of America as a “city upon a hill.” But what did Winthrop mean, exactly? And how do his words apply today, in a very different America than he could have imagined. Please join us (registration required)! Details below.

24_MCLR_CUAH_PosterDownload
Posted on by Mark Movsesian

Teaching American Religious History

Here at the Mattone Center, we focus on the study of law-and-religion, that is, the relationship between these two social institutions. Mostly, we emphasize the “law” part. But from the beginning we have tried to pay attention as well to religion as a subject in itself, especially to the history of religion in the West generally and the United States particularly. In my law-and-religion seminar, for example, I spend significant time on American religious history, much of which students are learning for the first time. I believe the material is essential. Without a knowledge of our religious history, it’s difficult to understand why our law with respect to religion has developed as it has.

A book out this month from the University of Wisconsin Press, Understanding and Teaching Religion in US History, seems a very good resource for instructors getting into this material. The editors are historian Karen J. Johnson (Wheaton College) and religious studies scholar Jonathan M. Yeager (University of Tennessee at Chattanooga). Here’s the description from the publisher’s website:

How to learn, think, and teach about a vital and sometimes contentious topic

Religion is deeply embedded in American history, and one cannot understand American history’s broad dynamics without accounting for it. Without detailing the history of religions, teachers cannot properly explain key themes in US survey courses, such as politics, social dynamics, immigration and colonization, gender, race, or class. From early Native American beliefs and practices, to European explorations of the New World, to the most recent presidential elections, religion has been a significant feature of the American story. In Understanding and Teaching Religion in US History, a diverse group of eminent historians and history teachers provide a practical tool for teachers looking to improve history instruction at the upper-level secondary and undergraduate level.

This book offers a breadth of voices and approaches to teaching this crucial part of US history. Religion can be a delicate topic, especially in public education, and many students and teachers bring strongly held views and identities to their understanding of the past. The editors and contributors aim to help the reader see religion in fresh ways, to present sources and perspectives that may be unfamiliar, and to suggest practical interventions in the classroom that teachers can use immediately.

Posted on by Mark Movsesian

Missionary Diplomacy

American Christians have been trying to influence US foreign policy for hundreds of years. Occasionally, they have succeeded–where their advocacy coincided with what the US Government perceived of as the national interest. Protestant missionaries were historically quite active in this regard, especially in places like Ottoman Turkey, where their advocacy for Armenian and other Christians in the 19th century led to what Peter Balakian has called the first international human rights campaign in US history. (Unfortunately, this was one of the occasions where the missionaries’ efforts did not lead to significant US government support, a history I have recounted elsewhere). A new book from the Cornell University Press, Missionary Diplomacy: Religion and Nineteenth-Century American Foreign Relations, explores the role that missionaries have had in US foreign policy. The author is historian Emily Conroy-Krutz (Michigan State). The publisher’s description follows:

Missionary Diplomacy illuminates the crucial place of religion in nineteenth-century American diplomacy. From the 1810s through the 1920s, Protestant missionaries positioned themselves as key experts in the development of American relations in Asia, Africa, the Pacific, and the Middle East. Missionaries served as consuls, translators, and occasional trouble-makers who forced the State Department to take actions it otherwise would have avoided. Yet as decades passed, more Americans began to question the propriety of missionaries’ power. Were missionaries serving the interests of American diplomacy? Or were they creating unnecessary problems?

As Emily Conroy-Krutz demonstrates, they were doing both. Across the century, missionaries forced the government to articulate new conceptions of the rights of US citizens abroad and of the role of the US as an engine of humanitarianism and religious freedom. By the time the US entered the first world war, missionary diplomacy had for nearly a century created the conditions for some Americans to embrace a vision of their country as an internationally engaged world power. Missionary Diplomacy exposes the longstanding influence of evangelical missions on the shape of American foreign relations.

Posted on by Mark Movsesian

Denmark Vesey’s Bible

In my law-and-religion seminar, we spend about a week on religion in public culture, focusing specifically on the United States. Historically, and even today, religious appeals have played a major role in American public conflicts, on all sides. A new book from Princeton University Press, Denmark Vesey’s Bible: The Thwarted Revolt That Put Slavery and Scripture on Trial, discusses the role of biblical allusions in one important episode, a slave rebellion that shook the antebellum South. The author is Jeremy Schipper, a professor in the Departments for the Study of Religion and Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations at the University of Toronto. Here is the publisher’s description:

On July 2, 1822, Denmark Vesey, a formerly enslaved man, was hanged in Charleston, South Carolina. He was convicted of plotting what might have been the largest insurrection against slaveholders in US history. Witnesses claimed that Vesey appealed to numerous biblical texts to promote and justify the revolt. While sentencing Vesey to death, Lionel Henry Kennedy, a magistrate at the trial, accused Vesey not only of treason but also of “attempting to pervert the sacred words of God into a sanction for crimes of the blackest hue.” Denmark Vesey’s Bible tells the story of this momentous trial, examining the role of scriptural interpretation in the deadly struggle against American white supremacy and its brutal enforcement.

Jeremy Schipper brings the trial and its aftermath vividly to life, drawing on court documents, personal letters, sermons, speeches, and editorials. He shows how Vesey compared people of African descent with enslaved Israelites in the Bible, while his accusers portrayed plantation owners as benevolent biblical patriarchs responsible for providing religious instruction to the enslaved. What emerges is an explosive portrait of an antebellum city in the grips of racial terror, violence, and contending visions of biblical truth.

Shedding light on the uses of scripture in America’s troubled racial history, Denmark Vesey’s Bible draws vital lessons from a terrible moment in the nation’s past, enabling us to confront racism and religious discord today with renewed urgency and understanding.

Posted on by L&R Forum

Legal Spirits 057: Historian Richard Brookhiser on Religious Freedom in America

In this episode, Center Director Mark Movsesian interviews historian Richard Brookhiser (left) about his new documentary, “Free Exercise: America’s Story of Religious Liberty.” How have minority religions tested and shaped America’s commitment to religious freedom over the centuries–and how has America changed those religions in return? From the Flushing Remonstrance of 1657 until now, it has been a grand story. Listen in!

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

Posted on by Mark Movsesian

Washington and Jefferson: Pals?

In our most recent Legal Spirits episode on the meaning of the Establishment Clause, Marc and I discuss the differing views of George Washington, who argued that religion was an essential basis for public morality, and Thomas Jefferson, who originated the phrase “separation of church and state.” This wasn’t the only disagreement these two Framers, and sometime friends, had. A forthcoming book from Harvard, A Revolutionary Friendship: Washington, Jefferson, and the American Republic, discusses these disagreements and makes an important point. In the Framers’ generation, as in ours, Americans disagreed on the meaning and application of fundamental principles. Somehow, they were able to compromise–at least much of the time. The author is historian Francis Cogliano (University of Edinburgh). Here’s the description from the Harvard website:

The first full account of the relationship between George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, countering the legend of their enmity while drawing vital historical lessons from the differences that arose between them.

Martha Washington’s worst memory was the death of her husband. Her second worst was Thomas Jefferson’s awkward visit to pay his respects subsequently. Indeed, by the time George Washington had died in 1799, the two founders were estranged. But that estrangement has obscured the fact that for most of their thirty-year acquaintance they enjoyed a productive relationship. Precisely because they shared so much, their disagreements have something important to teach us.

In constitutional design, for instance: Whereas Washington believed in the rule of traditional elites like the Virginia gentry, Jefferson preferred what we would call a meritocratic approach, by which elites would be elected on the basis of education and skills. And while Washington emphasized a need for strong central government, Jefferson favored diffusion of power across the states. Still, as Francis Cogliano argues, common convictions equally defined their relationship: a passion for American independence and republican government, as well as a commitment to westward expansion and the power of commerce. They also both evolved a skeptical view of slavery, eventually growing to question the institution, even as they took only limited steps to abolish it.

What remains fascinating is that the differences between the two statesmen mirrored key political fissures of the early United States, as the unity of revolutionary zeal gave way to competing visions for the new nation. A Revolutionary Friendship brilliantly captures the dramatic, challenging, and poignant reality that there was no single founding ideal—only compromise between friends and sometime rivals.