Errors Abound Regarding the Founders’ Religious Liberty
In December 2023, fault lines emerged within the ranks of both conservative and evangelical leadership after a Navy pilot destroyed a Baphomet statue depicting Satan in the Iowa State Capitol building. The Iowa Legislature approved a request from the Satanic Temple to admit the figure in their holiday display under a commitment to include all religions. Jon Dunwell, A Christian and Missionary Alliance Pastor as well as an Iowa State Representative, became one of the first to publicly use the logic of religious neutrality to support the statue’s presence. Though he found the depiction personally objectionable, he did not want the “state evaluating and making determinations about religions.”1 Soon voices influential in evangelicalism echoed Dunwell’s sentiment.
Former Trump Administration lawyer and radio host Jenna Ellis wrote that “Destruction of property is not okay for the Christian who hates a satanic statue any more than it’s okay for the satanist who hates a nativity scene.”2 Author and speaker James Lindsay who, though an atheist, is frequently featured at Christian gatherings, posted a picture of the broken-down Baphoment blaming the rejection of “a Classically Liberal Society” in favor of “a Fascist Society” for its demise.3 Presbyterian pastor and theologian R. Scott Clark stated Christians should not engage in iconoclasm and reasoned that since the Iowa State Capitol is a secular building no religious displays of any kind should be present there, including Nativity Scenes.4
Other prominent conservatives such as Michael Knowles, Charlie Kirk, and Ron Desantis argued that knocking the statue down was right since Satan was evil and religious protections should not apply to those who claim to follow him. Just as issues like same-sex marriage, preferred pronouns, and drag queen story hour challenged the political Right’s commitment to neutrality in areas of speech and social arrangement, the Satan display forced conservatives to decide the limits of religious liberty. According to the Satanic Temple, this was their purpose in the first place.
In Hail Satan, a 2019 documentary about the Satanic Temple, leaders in the movement explain their goal to use Satanism as a tool to fight for social justice and challenge “Christian privilege” in the culture wars. Many of their adherents are atheists who view Satan as a symbol of rebellion against God. Their requests to participate in public displays of worship helped place a satanic holiday exhibit in the Florida State Capitol, shut down invocations at the City of Phoenix Council meetings, and challenged the Oklahoma Ten Commandments statue in Federal court. They sponsor multiple after-school Satan clubs in public high schools and object to state-imposed abortion restrictions on religious grounds. Their strategy is to make civil magistrates choose between accommodating them or refusing to accommodate any religion. Municipalities that deny them access will likely face legal action.
The Satanic Temple essentially exploits America’s tradition of religious toleration while exposing the weakness of Republicans to do anything about it. Even though over three-quarters of Iowans identify as Christian and the State government is overwhelmingly controlled by Republicans, Governor Kim Reynolds signaled that the only acceptable recourse they had was to focus on the Nativity scene and pray over the Capitol.5 According to Franklin Graham, this was enough to count as “opposing a satanic display.” Yet, the Iowa Legislature is able to “set the rules and standards for any display”6 and succeeded in prohibiting the Satanic Temple from using an actual goat head in theirs.7 Some opponents of the exhibit also pointed to the fact that the Iowa State Constitution’s primary purpose for the government was the furtherance of God-ordained blessing.8 A satanic symbol thus stood opposed to more than Christianity as a religion, but also the foundation of Iowa law. Republicans who favored religious neutrality were able to ignore these elements by deferring to a higher principle of religious freedom they believed was enshrined in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
For example, Jenna Ellis lashed out against Christian Nationalists for violating the First Amendment in order to “create a theocracy that doesn’t allow religious freedom.”9 However, this understanding of the Founder’s purpose is relatively recent. In 1787, when the Federal Constitution was ratified, nine state constitutions included Christian religious test requirements for officeholders including adherence to doctrines such as the Trinity and the inspiration of scripture.10 The Four remaining states were governed by explicitly Christian Royal Charters or constitutions.11
New York, one of the states without a religious test, stated in her Constitution of 1777 that “free exercise . . . [of] worship” and “liberty of conscience . . . shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness.” The document limits its religious conception to Christian “ministers of the gospel” and priests “of any denomination.”12 Ten years later, Virginia, which also precluded a religious test, stated in its Constitution that “the free exercise of religion” was governed by “the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forebearance, love, and charity towards each other.”13 Not only did all thirteen states recognize God, but they exclusively preferred Christianity.
Even those advocating the freedom to worship God according to the dictates of conscience intended its application for a broadly Christian conception of God.14 In pursuing the disestablishment of The Church of England in Virginia, James Madison appealed to this principle yet invoked a duty to “the Supreme Lawgiver of the Universe” who guided lawgivers according to His plan, trust, and blessing.15 In 1786, the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, authored by Thomas Jefferson, passed the Virginia General Assembly. Though there were those like Jefferson and Richard Henry Lee before him, who extended freedom of conscience to non-Christian religions, the statute’s immediate impact was to foster greater peace between competing Christian denominations by ending compelled worship in the name of Almighty God. That same year, James Madison also introduced another bill authored by Thomas Jefferson that punished Sabbath-breakers. This showed that even the Founding Generation’s greatest champions for religious liberty did not see a conflict between freedom to worship and a legally upheld Christian civilization.16
This broad support for Christianity often manifested itself on the state level against undermining influences such as witchcraft, blasphemy, and Sabbath-breaking.17 Even if one assumes the Federal Constitution promoted secularism, it could do nothing to suppress these precedents since the First Amendment only prevented Congress, not States, from making laws “respecting an establishment of religion.”
However, it is worth noting that even Congress did not think they were in violation of this principle when in 1789 they appointed publicly-funded Protestant chaplains, passed the Judiciary Act which required Supreme Court justices to acknowledge God in their oath of office, renewed the Northwest Ordinance which encouraged “religion” in schools as “necessary to good government,” and issued overtly Christian Thanksgiving resolutions.18 The Establishment Clause prevented the United States from erecting an official ecclesiastical body similar to The Church of England, but it did not prevent Congress from recognizing God or Christianity.
It was commonly acknowledged that religion in general, and Christianity in particular, were necessary for public morality and public morality was necessary for self-government. George Washington represented this sentiment well in his Farewell Address when he stated: “Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports.”19 While the Founders tolerated a small Jewish population that shared much in common with Christians, Judaism did not enjoy the same public accommodation as Christianity did. Outside of Christendom, there were no significant religions within the early American body politic. There is no evidence to suggest the men who crafted the Federal Constitution intended to accommodate something like a future image of Satan in the United States Capitol, let alone a state capitol. Yet, this is what some conservative leaders want us to believe.
One reason many modern conservatives are confused on this issue is because of the way courts contrived and applied the “incorporation doctrine” which, starting in the 1920s especially, used the “due process” clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to apply certain aspects of the Bill of Rights to the States. It was not until 1947, that the Supreme Court applied the Establishment Clause to a State in the Everson v. Board of Education decision. Chief Justice Hugo Black maintained in his majority opinion that states could not participate in or use tax revenue to support religious activities.20
In the 1980s, the Supreme Court began to handle religious displays using this logic culminating in the County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union decision which disqualified a Nativity scene that included a banner that read: “Glory to God for the birth of Jesus Christ.” Local holiday displays were now unconstitutional if they endorsed religion, made someone feel like an outsider, or entangled the state in religious activities. In recent years, more conservative Supreme Court justices have utilized a competing standard that allows for religious displays if they are consistent with “historical practices and understandings.” Though the dust has not yet settled on this issue in modern legal terms, the fact of the matter is that a historically rooted understanding of civics which separates original intent from innovations of the Court would go a long way to clarify the issues concerning the Baphomet statue in Iowa.
Unfortunately, fidelity to a misunderstanding of the Founders is not the only thing motivating those who support religious neutrality. For years, elites on the Right developed a commitment to pluralistic democracy. Under this philosophy, things like blasphemy laws, sexual norms, and Confederate imagery conflict with the New America leaders in both parties are working to realize. As I type these words, a crew is removing the Arlington Reconciliation Monument with little fanfare from conservative media who also largely ignored the recent vandalizing and destruction of hundreds of similar statues.
It stands to reason that if actions like these are acceptable, then tearing down a statue of Satan would also be viewed favorably. Today’s political Right praises examples of civil disobedience from the past like the Boston Tea Party or Civil Right’s “sit-ins.” Yet, these examples are conceived as helping evolve society toward greater levels of freedom and autonomy. The modern conservative disposition increasingly tolerates evil while failing to defend good in hopes that a more equal society will emerge from the ruins. Yet, all around us things seem to be deteriorating. It is important to interpret the Baphomet statue’s demise in light of this.
People like Michael Cassidy, the Navy test pilot who knocked down the display, are losing confidence in their leadership. Cassidy was surprised “that the legislature allowed it up and that they didn’t do anything to take it down.” When he arrived at the Capitol “it touched a nerve” and in “righteous indignation” he practiced what he believed was “Christian civil disobedience.”21 After turning himself over to Capitol police it disappointed him that some “professing Christians” disapproved and seemed to want to “give equal time to evil as to good.” He told Tucker Carlson: “I love our country and I don’t want statues of Satan in our government buildings.”22 This simple display of moral clarity and courage still resonates with many Americans who are not in the leadership class.
It did not take long for Christians who supported Cassidy to compare his actions to Gideon destroying the altar to Baal. Those who disapproved contrasted him with the Apostle Paul who did not rip down idols to pagan deities. Gideon and Paul both serve as positive examples for Christians, yet their contexts, callings, and purposes are distinct. Paul was an “apostle to the Gentiles” who introduced the gospel and built the church within pagan contexts. Gideon did not start out as a political leader, but he rose to the occasion and liberated Israel from a pagan nation in her time of need. If we are entering a time of social breakdown similar to that of Judges where “everyone did what was right in his own eyes,” Christians will likely need more men like Cassidy, not fewer.
It would have been preferable for someone who already held political office in Iowa to destroy the satanic image, but the political will did not exist. Satan worship is perhaps the highest form of blasphemy and a direct attack on Anglo-American law. The reason blasphemy was universally punished until recently is because the laws of a country flow from that country’s religion.23 To attack the religion so aggressively is an attack on the people who live under its laws. In the words of George Washington: “Who, that is a sincere friend to [free government], can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?”
Instead of getting caught up in the minor details of whether Cassidy’s actions line up with rigid ideological commitments to free expression, private property, or civil disobedience, it is time for both evangelical and conservative leadership to examine the entire picture. The house is on fire and if elected officials refuse to put it out, someone else will, whether their bucket is to our liking or not. It would be better for all if civil magistrates under God’s authority simply did their job. If they do not, new leaders will be found.
Image Credit: Unsplash
Navy guy who smashed off satan’s head courtroom defense?
“Satan is the father of yellin’ ‘Fire!’…in a crowded movie theater.”
Case dismissed.
The problem was that the Navy pilot’s actions included the denial of the free speech of others. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment ends this way:
‘No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’
Conservatives, that is most if not all, who contribute articles to this website want to return to the good old days. But which good old days do they want to return to? Is it the days in which Jim Crow was going strong? Is it the days when women were denied the right to vote? Is it the days when America ethnically cleansed Native Americans from the land? Is it the days when women were denied the right to vote or subjugated in other ways? Is it the days of slavery. We should note that there were Christians, in some cases prominent ones, who supported each of those ventures.
Is it inconsistent for Harris to call attention to the context in which Paul spoke and wrote while taking for granted the context of the founding fathers, especially the Christian ones, whom he cites? In addition, Harris also seems unaware of the difference between liberty and privilege. For privilege is liberty without equality. And so liberty does not exist without equality. Thus he should note why, according to him, atheists are joining Satanic groups, which he said is to oppose Christian privilege. What Harris is promoting is feeding the very groups that he writes against.
The third paragraph of your response is a “straw man” argument. The lense you are using is application of the 2023 worldview on past history.
Brian,
You claim that my third paragraph is a straw man. But consider the following from the above article:
‘For example, Jenna Ellis lashed out against Christian Nationalists for violating the First Amendment in order to “create a theocracy that doesn’t allow religious freedom.” However, this understanding of the Founder’s purpose is relatively recent. In 1787, when the Federal Constitution was ratified, nine state constitutions included Christian religious test requirements for officeholders including adherence to doctrines such as the Trinity and the inspiration of scripture. The Four remaining states were governed by explicitly Christian Royal Charters or constitutions.’
How is it that that paragraph doesn’t show a longing for a return to the past? After all, isn’t Harris using the conditions of 1787 to criticize Jenna Ellis’s opposition to Christian Nationalism? Realize that he couldn’t oppose Ellis’s criticisms of Christian Nationalism using the current state constitutions of those 13 states. And what were the social conditions for Blacks, women, and Native Americans, and others in 1787? And those social conditions existed despite, or perhaps partially because of, the 9 states constitutions that also had religious tests using Christian beliefs and the other 4 states that had Christian Royal Charters.
Or consider a little bit later on in the article when Harris wrote:
‘That same year, James Madison also introduced another bill authored by Thomas Jefferson that punished Sabbath-breakers. This showed that even the Founding Generation’s greatest champions for religious liberty did not see a conflict between freedom to worship and a legally upheld Christian civilization.
This broad support for Christianity often manifested itself on the state level against undermining influences such as witchcraft, blasphemy, and Sabbath-breaking. Even if one assumes the Federal Constitution promoted secularism, it could do nothing to suppress these precedents since the First Amendment only prevented Congress, not States, from making laws “respecting an establishment of religion.” ‘
And so that quote from Harris’s article is not showing a longing for a return to the same time period? And again, what were the social conditions for Blacks, women, Native Americans, and others during that time period?
So where is the straw man here? We should note that Harris is not calling for a return to slavery, the subjugation of women, the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans and so forth. But he is praising the state constitutions for their religious tests and he is using them as sources of authority to determine what freedom of religion should mean today. And so take the Georgia state constitution of 1777 for example. It also only allowed white males who met certain other requirements the right to vote. In North Carolina, it was only freemen who met certain other conditions who were granted the right to vote. If the then state constitutions could be used as authoritative sources for requiring religious tests on officials and limiting freedom of speech, why can’t we uses those same state constitutions as authoritative sources that justify limited access to voting?
We should note here that many Christians, including Christian leaders, back then supported that kind of discrimination. And you might rightfully say that support for such discrimination was due to the times. But so were the allowance of religious tests for people who were allowed to hold office. After all, Christendom still held sway back then. And that leads to the 4th paragraph of my first comment.
Finally, isn’t Harris using a 1787 worldview to judge what is happening in America today? And what Harris does not seem to consider is whether the religious laws back then and the first state constitutions that used religious criteria to determine who could hold office was inconsistent with the right to free speech and the principle of the Establishment clause.
Odd take. Jon’s clearly talking about the original intent behind the 1st amendment, not arguing for a return to every social condition that existed in 1787. If he quoted scripture to correct a modern interpretation it doesn’t follow that he’s arguing for a return to biblical times- just a return to accurate interpretation.
R,
But he is using the past to evaluate the present. He using the past to provide a justification for what he wants in the present. And the past he is using not only supports a Christian Nationalism, it support a lot of oppression. Now think about that pairing because that pairing is being provided by history. Also think about the fact that Harris doesn’t question the consistency of how the 1st Amendment was applied back then.
One could rightfully dismiss the white supremacy in those state constitutions by pointing to the times in which they were written. But if we can do that with the white supremacy, why can’t we do that with the religious tests for government officials and limits on free speech practiced back then too.
Don’t you realize that if Harris, Cline, and others get what they want, that oppression suffered by Blacks and others will return in new forms with new targets if not the original targets too?
It’s like you didn’t read my comment. To interpret anything you need to know the intention of its authors whether they were wrong in other areas or not. Your objection is irrelevant and kinda paranoid. By your logic we should throw out anything arbitrarily we don’t like simply based on the fact that the people who devised it had other opinions we disagree with. In that case I don’t believe we should follow anything the executive branch decides since I disagree with the president’s view on abortion. Makes no sense.
R,
I did read your comment. Consider my second paragraph where I acknowledged that it was the times that caused the discrimination back then. Then read my third paragraph. I wrote that others besides blacks will suffer oppression if Harris and Cline get their. Who are those others? Those whose beliefs, lifestyles, and speech run contrary to the laws that Harris and Cline want to impose. Laws such as those prohibiting blasphemy and Sabbath breaking or those whose sexual mores run counter to the Scriptures. They will be oppressed because their equal rights will be violated–which is how Thomas Jefferson called oppression in his 1801 Inaugural Address. Where is the paranoia in recognizing that? After all, don’t Harris and Cline oppose democracy with equality because such invites pluralism?
And what about Blacks whose recognized roots run counter to Christianity. Won’t they be oppressed as well? It’s not paranoia to say that that is a distinct possibility.
Finally, isn’t it possible that in legislating those religiously based laws on speech and behavior that the people back then were acting inconsistently with what they wrote into The Constitution?
The world and everything in it belongs to GOD. Even that lier satan belongs to GOD. The air we breathe belongs to GOD. GOD said only He is to be worshiped and those who chose to do so will be persecuted by unbelievers. Let the games begin.
As historian Forrest McDonald (among others) has pointed out, the 14th Amendment was never even ratified. The U.S. Congress simply declared it ratified even though it was six votes shy of ratification – and that’s *after* they refused to recognize the right of Ohio and New Jersey to rescind ratifications which were passed by outgoing legislatures without quorums in violation of State laws and constitutions. And after they forced the Southern States (minus Tennessee) to ratify the 14th as a condition of being let back into the Union….immediately after fighting a four-year war justified by the claim that States can’t leave the Union. But I digress. The point is that Incorporation Doctrine is a fallacy with no constitutional basis whatsoever. The people of the States, acting through the amendment process, are the final authority on the powers of the Federal government. To pretend that the Supreme Court is the final authority on constitutional interpretation is to make the U.S. government self-defining regarding the limits of its own powers, which defeats the whole purpose of having a written constitution in the first place.
The States can and should prohibit Satan statues in the capitol, “drag queen story hour,” public drag shows, and any other public perversions the activist Left tries to ram down our throats. Tennessee’s so-called “drag queen ban” really just prohibited sexually explicit public displays. Telling people not to put on strip shows in public parks is not oppression, and anyone who says that it is is either a liar or a blind deaf-mute.
Jake,
That a sufficient number of states approved the amendment means that the amendment was ratified. The states that were forced to approve the amendment were some of the very states that rebelled against the government and fought a war in order to preserve slavery. For the confederate states, the preservation of slavery was the reason for the war. Also, 6 states that originally rejected the amendment approved the amendment after it was ratified. Those states were Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, Mississippi, Kentucky, and Texas. Of the states that sought to withdraw its approval of the 14th Amendment, all of them approved of the Amendment later on including Ohio and New Jersey.
So consider the company you’re keeping and what would be undone if the Amendment was removed and the Incorporation Doctrine was no longer legally standing. State governments could become the tyrants that the founders feared the federal government could become. Is that what you want to be associated with the Gospel?
Also realize that you are providing evidence for my contention that both Harris and Cline want America to return to a past that includes the oppression occurring at that time. Though the targets that Harris and Cline are eying would be different than the targets of oppression in 1787, elimination of the Incorporation Doctrine means that the targets in the past could become targets today. Even with the Incorporation Doctrine intact, gerrymandering is being used to try to limit the voice of minority voters in some of the Southern States.
From footnote 17, of interest for Baptists and misguided religious liberty advocates: “The English 1604 Act against Witchcraft and Conjuration, which prescribed the death penalty, was adopted by […] Rhode Island between 1718 and 1728.”