COMMENTARY: Church and State: Separate Yes, But Also Good Friends, Part Two
By Stephen N. ReedSpecial to Huntington News Network
So no, the founding fathers may not have seen the need for the taxpayers' dollars to be involved in any religious institution's work.
But for anyone who thinks that the founders thought good relations with the religious community unnecessary, think again. Whether individual founders were Christian, deist, or something in between, they understood that their new society would be up against it without the charitable efforts and character-building teachings of what was then the local churches and synagogues.
The founders wisely left it to the people to determine for themselves which religion in the marketplace of ideas they wished to pursue, if any.
But they were not about to turn a cold shoulder to the best friend they had, given their tiny budgets. They clearly saw the value of constructive religious institutions of all stripes, helping the poor, providing educational opportunities, challenging injustices, and nurturing individuals to maturity, hopefully as good citizens.
George Washington, early in his presidency, set the pattern for religious tolerance in his now famous "Letter to the Jews of Newport, Rhode Island" (1790). As Commander of the Continental Army, he had seen all kinds of men, from varying backgrounds and faiths, fight in common resolve to win America's independence from Great Britain. No doubt he felt an obligation to all these men and their respective backgrounds.
In this letter, he speaks for the new federal government, saying, in part:
"The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for giving to Mankind examples of an enlarged...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." (emphasis added)
You can bet that the Jewish citizens of Newport liked hearing that, after what many Jews had endured in other countries where prejudice was not only allowed but actually encouraged by those countries' goverments. But here in America, Washington wrote, the government was to give "bigotry no sanction...persecution no assistance." What a breath of fresh air!
Washington may have been ahead of his times in some ways, even though the historical record reflects that the Christian community of Newport, Rhode Island had for many years been exemplary in their acceptance of the Jewish community there. As the new President, with everyone watching his every move, Washington's letter was as symbolic as it was historic. So what was he really saying?
Merely that all religions are very welcome here, as long as they help their sons and daughters behave as good citizens.
When one sees the devastation that rules parts of our inner cities, indeed the drug infestation and associated crime that strikes even good cities like Huntington, it is not hard to imagine what Washington would say to us regarding the good works of all constructive religious faiths, even those whom we do not share common doctrines or beliefs.
Washington would tell us to embrace them, to stand up for them, or to at least leave them alone so that our common society can benefit from their good teachings to their young.
Certainly it is true that religious institutions and the state have separate functions and should not never be confused with one other. However, Washington and the founders grasped the obvious that so many today ignore: good religious institutions are the best friend a civil society could have.