No one would defend official state churches in this day and age, right?

I was catching up on some TV the other day and caught Jan LaRue, chief counsel of Concerned Women for America, on PBS’ “NOW” with David Brancaccio. (C&L has a clip from the show.)

There was one part of the interview that was stunning, even by today’s religious right standards.

Brancaccio: So in my efforts here to understand, sort of, where your limits are on this, you wouldn’t support a state that wanted to establish an official religion would you?

LaRue: Well, you know, the interesting thing is that the founding of our country, there were state churches. That’s what it’s all about, in a country where the people get to rule, and if you, you know, you’re in a state you don’t like then you get to move to another state. I think that’s highly unlikely, in this day and age, where we’re gonna have any state church.

As a rule, in 21st century America, when someone asks you on national television if you’d support a state establishing an official religion, the right answer is, “No.” But for the chief counsel of a leading religious right group, the answer is to defend the idea and argue “that’s what it’s all about” in a majority-rule dynamic.

After all, to hear LaRue argue the point, if you live in a state where they pick the wrong religion, you can “move to another state.” If your faith tradition is left out of every state, presumably LaRue would expect you to simply leave the country altogether.

LaRue’s argument is almost too ridiculous to generate a response, but it’s worth noting that colonial America did have states choosing official religions, but the Founding Fathers, when crafting the Constitution, found the practice so fundamentally at odds with the idea of democratic pluralism and the ideals of the new nation that it quickly abolished the practice. LaRue seems to lament the bygone era, but she’s defending a rejected idea that didn’t work and that contradicts every principle of the Constitution.

It’s also worth noting that LaRue may have radical ideas about religious liberty and the rights of minorities, but that doesn’t put her outside the mainstream of today’s conservative movement. In fact, LaRue is not only an influential outsider, pressuring Republican officials to toe the far-right line, she’s also a powerful insider. Indeed, it was Jan LaRue who stood alongside Reps. Tom DeLay (R-Texas), Lamar Smith (R-Texas), and Todd Akin (R-Mo.) last month when the Taliban-wing of the Republican Party got together for a conference on “Confronting the Judicial War on Faith.”

LaRue’s ideas may be absurd, but that hasn’t damaged her standing as a major player in today’s GOP.

A few weeks ago in Carpetbagger comments I linked to a Clarence Thomas opinion that posits this same idea: The Establishment Clause prohibits only Federal establishment of religion– states can form churches if they want to.

  • re: if you live in a state where they pick the wrong religion, you can “move to another state.â€?

    I’d like to know the difference between that (state religions) and similar arguments concerning state-level abortion laws and laws permitting/preventing gay marriage or civil unions.

  • Well, that’s just twisted. And, is it even true? Did any state have a church? Because, here in Virginia, there was some sentiment for continuing support of the Episcopal Church under state sanction, but it dissappeared quickly. The Anglican Church went away with the demise of royal rule, and I don’t think that another religion got the imprimateur in its stead. Official churches were a relic of the Bad Old Days of constitutional monarchy and Parliament. The Baptists and Methodists here were delighted that the Enlightenment rejected the idea of an official church. Whether the states could establish religion, there was apparently a powerful disincintive to doing so.

    Good to see that the Concerned Women for America are ready to endorse an Islamic Republic in one of the fifty, should that day come.

  • Massachusetts had an established church until 1833, and required an oath affirming one’s Christian faith of all office holders until 1822.

    More to the point is Scott’s comment above. The guy from CWA is echoing Thomas’ sentiments. What troubles me more, as a Chirstian, is the question of why Christians would want this?

  • the Taliban-wing of the Republican Party

    I love this part of the post. All I can say is wow. Thank god we HAVE a constitution in this counry since the ruling DeLay/Bush/Frist/Dobson/LaRue/Torquemada group just simply does not believe in plurality or minority rights. I have no doubt that if these people could appoint a judge who would claim establishment of religion doesn’t actually mean ESTABLISHMENT, then they would make evangelical southern baptism the state religion and begin burning heretics in the streets of Dallas. Who’s ready for the American Inquisition?

  • For the record the host of Now is named David, not Brian.

    Oops. Good catch.

  • Actually, what she’s saying is factually correct. I’m not saying I agree with the implication, but there’s significant evidence to support the theory (some would say fact) that the intent of the Establishment clause was not to protect individuals from an official state church/religion, but to protect the official state churches already in existence from interference by the federal government.

  • NYCmoderate – whether that is true or not generally (and it is not prima facie false) hundreds of years of jurisprudence interprets this differently. Jefferson and co. wanted the Constitution to be a living document and our interpretation established in the courts and in society generally does not back up state sponsored religions.

    By the way, since the Carpetbagger apparently does check the comment section – I only found this blog fairly recently, but I think you have been doing a ban up job. Keep up the good work, and I’ll keep reading on a daily basis.

  • Wasn’t fear of state churches one of the reasons behind that pesky church/state separation thing the founders were so fond of??

  • The 14th Amendment incorporated the prohibitions on Congress found in the Constitution and Bill of Rights onto the States — that is basically what the Civil War was fought over, that we can have a national and federal definition of human rights, that states may not override these rights (obviously slavery was the root conflict). Importantly to this discussion, this includes the Establishment Clause prohibtion of the 1st Amendment.

    It is important in these dangerous times that people fully understand this. It is 100% unconstitutional, due to the 14th and 1st Amendments, for states to establish religions anymore. That ship sailed in 1868.

  • Yes, Ron is right on the legal & historical facts, and I would comment to those who say “the constitution is a living, breathing document.” I guess those who proport this either don’t know their history or are hoping that if they say it enough times, educated people will just start believing it. The founders did intend for the constitution to be able to be flexible and adaptable to changing times, true- but that was to be accomplished via an amendment, not some court just up and deciding that something not mentioned in any way in the constitution is a fundamental right. There is absolutely no historical support to the notion of “a living document” in the way NYC moderate asserts (but I’ll grant him there aare many scholarsand even a couple supreme court justices who take this approach, so I’m not saying your looney, JS) Jefferson, who along with Madison coined the reference of there being “a wall of seperation between church and state” asserts only one of four historically recognized positions on the establishment clause, that actually isn’t borne out by the conduct of our nation for the first one hundred years after 1787.

  • On this topic, there is a new book out by Mark McGarvie (Univ. of Richmond) titled “One Nation Under Law” which argues that if you’re looking for evidence in the Constitution that Church and State are supposed to be separate, the place to look is not in the First Amendment but in the “contract clause” (Article I, section 10). His reasoning is based not on absolute principles but on the actual historical development of the country during its formative years. Very interesting and worth reading if you’re into this kind of debate.

    I note also the loaded implication of the title. This should set off the theocrats.

    He quotes historian Sidney Mead, who said this in 1977:

    “. . .practically every species of traditional orthodoxy in Christendom is intellectually at war with the basic premises upon which the constitutional and legal structures of the Republic rest. . . .[E]very ardent defense of a sectarian orthodoxy tends at best to confuse the citizen’s understanding of the basic premises of his country’s ideals, at worst to undermine his belief in them. . . ”

    Here is another delicious little tidbit:

    “One of [Thomas] Jefferson’s chief complaints about the judiciary was its tendency to read Christianity into the common law, creating public policy never enacted by any legislature.”

    And you thought “judicial activism” was something new. . .

  • Comments are closed.