Letters

January/February 2003

A State of Liberty

"This Happy State," by Jim Walker (July/August 2002) presents a factual presentation of the intent of America's founders to keep the authority of the church separate from the authority of the state. But the article ignores the fact that there were Christian ideas behind the American concept of liberty. It was not all the result of the Enlightenment and deism.
The treaty with Tripoli was worded as it was to assure the Bey that the U.S. was not hostile to an Islamic country. The U.S. was composed of people who came from the "Christian" nations of Europe. Those "Christian" nations were often at war with Islam. It was natural to believe that America would be the same. It was not because of any hostility to world Christianity that the words "America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion" were included in the treaty. It was to convince Tripoli that the American government would not wage war on those that the church labeled heretic.
The founders of two of the original colonies established liberty of conscience. They were Roger Williams in Rhode Island and William Penn in Pennsylvania. Roger Williams was a Christian minister who was persecuted for his strong belief that magistrates (government officials) were out of order when they attempted to enforce the "first table of the law." He wrote much against that idea and for freedom of conscience.
William Penn was a Quaker, not a deist. Quakers were a "third way" of Christians. They were a reaction against the wars over Christian dogma. Their teaching was that Christian qualities matter much more than Christian dogmas. It was Christian teaching of how people should live that was the basis of Penn's government.
The figure that only about 10 percent of the population at the time of the American Revolution were church members does not adequately express the influence of Christian teaching. The union of the state with established churches that existed in most colonies was the cause of low membership. Such Christianity did not fit American society, with its open frontiers and ideas of liberty. Such religion could not meet the needs of the human heart. The Christianity presented in the Great Awakening, 1725-1760, which was grounded in the gospel and the Holy Spirit, had a large influence on the people of America.
David Manzano,
Harriman, Tennessee

The Sabbath Word

Just a quick comment: in your article "Stone Words" (September/October 2002) there is an error. The Ten Commandments, specifically the fourth, does not say "keep holy the Lord's day." You know as well as I that it says to keep holy "the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." Sadly, it seems this is a missed opportunity to remind individuals of the idea of the Sabbath. Instead they are reminded of the false teaching of the "Lord's Day."
Jason and Grace, e-mail



In Marci A. Hamilton's article "Stone Words" (September/October) she cites the "shall nots" of the last six (of the ten) commandments and then says, "The principles expressed in [these] . . . can be found in various aspects in many laws in the United States."
How can there be a man-made law against coveting (a sin of the heart)? Only the original Lawgiver can pass judgment here. In fact, when Christ elaborated on two of the commandments (see Matthew, chapter 5), He indicated that lawbreaking begins in the mind, which only Divinity can read. People can only judge the actions and presume motives on the basis of the facts or on confessions.
It seems to me the Ten Commandments (or Words) are bracketed, first and last, by commands that aim at the spiritual heart and harmonize with the two great commandments cited by Christ to an inquirer: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. . . . Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets" (Matthew 22:37-40).
If one truly has no other gods before God in his/her life (the first commandment), and covets nothing forbidden (the tenth commandment), his/her actions will be in harmony with a just government's laws (and with the other eight commandments).
Helen Kelly,
Ridgetop, Tennessee

Commonsense Morality

I appreciated your two fine articles on the Ten Commandments, "Thou Shalt Not" and "Stone Words." It seems to me that the constitutional issues that are decisive regarding the public display of the Ten Commandments are the first four, which deal with humanity's relationship to God, versus the last six, which are civil in nature (people's relationships with people). Does any civil government have the right to be concerned and protect its citizens from harm from one another? Common sense would say Yes it would. Does government have the right to legislate civil morality? Again, common sense would say Yes. Laws against murder are found worldwide, whether you are a believer or a nonbeliever. How about laws against stealing? I do not know of any government or cultural code worldwide that would advocate this type of civil behavior in society. If people are concerned about the morality of the country, I see no constitutional harm in posting the last six commandments as a reminder of how we are to treat our fellow human beings.
Greg Carr,
Meadow Vista, California

Salvation and the State

As a practicing Catholic lawyer, I find your magazine both fascinating and ennobling. However, I do wish to point out that the tenor of some of the articles that I have read over the years seems to be somewhat anti-Catholic. However, that is not always true, as I read with interest your article entitled "A Violation of Faith" in the September/October 2002 edition.
However, there was a statement that you highlighted that was somewhat disconcerting and lacking in historical perspective. It was in the same September/October issue of Liberty on page 7, where you say that the below quoted proposition was contained in the Syllabus of Errors in 1867, two years before the First Vatican Council. "Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he considers to be true." Then you put another quote that said, "The day that this country ceases to be free for irreligion it will cease to be free for religion—except for the sect that can win political power." This was from the Honorable Robert H. Jackson, Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952).
While I don't want to be legalistic, I do wish to quote from the Second Vatican Council's Constitution on the Church, which says: "In fact, those who through no fault of their own, are not aware of the gospel of Christ and of the Church but who, nonetheless, search sincerely for God and with the help of grace attempt to carry out His Will, known through the dictates of their conscience—they too can attain eternal salvation. Nor will divine providence deny the help necessary for salvation for those who have not yet arrived at a clear knowledge and recognition of God and who attempt without divine grace to conduct a good life." That's the current church teaching, and historically, it has been so held since Paul's writing to his churches. It's just that some church leaders have taken a maximalist view from time to time, as have other rigid conceptualists in other Christian sects. There is salvation outside of the Catholic Church, and lots of it.
I do believe that you should first read Crossing the Threshold of Hope by Pope John Paul II. The entire tenor of his and the church's position is one of true ecumenism. I do believe, without being legalistic and quoting passages, that the entire message of that book was that we must have mutual respect for one another and we must live the truth in love as quoted in the Epistle to the Ephesians 4:15. The reason I did not extrapolate quotes from the book is that there is an element in spirituality that indicates that epistemologically; we are dealing not with reason, but with concepts of faith, which often cannot be supported by reason. Because of that fact, I believe that the concepts of Jesus Christ tell us to love our enemies; to turn the other cheek; and not to separate the wheat from the chaff; but instead, to come to understand what agape love is all about and apply it to our relationships with God and other people. Because of that, the discussion that we engage in is often lacking in love and is somewhat triumphalistic. I am glad that the broad spectrum of my church contains liberal, middle-of-the-road, and conservative elements, and every other element that you could possibly conceive in the realm of religiosity. I also am very glad that there are Seventh-day Adventists, Mormons, and Christian Fundamentalists, because as the Holy Spirit works with each of us, I believe that we come to understand what God wants in our lives.
While the Eastern religions may not subscribe to the various Western concepts of God, they present us with an ethical and moral society that has a lot to offer us in terms of guiding us on the path of getting to know our fellow human beings and God in a loving manner. Ultimately, we must agree with Thomas Aquinas: "We must love them both—those whose opinions we share and those whose opinions we reject. Both have labored in the search for truth, and both have helped us in the finding of it."
Thomas M. Whaling,
Lake Forest, California

---