Bill Simon, Jr. Extols Role of Religion in Public Life
In Delivering College-wide Presidents' Day Address
(Spring 2003 Newsletter)
 Bill
Simon, Jr., the 2002 California Republican Gubernatorial candidate,
delivered the annual Presidents' Day Address at the College
before a packed St. Joseph Commons on February 17, 2003. Among
other endeavors, Simon is Co-Chairman of the William E. Simon
Foundation, founded by his deceased father to engage in a
wide-variety of philanthropic interests. Like his father,
Simon has been a loyal friend of the College, which he calls,
"a sanctified island in a secular sea." He is a
graduate of William's College and Boston College Law School.
A Knight of Malta, he and his wife, Cynthia, have four children.
Following is an abridged version of his remarks.
Tonight I want to talk to you
about a subject that is near and dear to my heart: Does America
really need religion? Let me begin by focusing on the role
for religion as embraced by the framers of our Constitution,
because to them freedom and religion are indissolubly linked
in a way that is critical to the welfare and the endurance
of our country.
Our founders wanted the American republic to be the first
great republic since the fall of Rome. It was to be what they
referred to as "the new order" of the ages. But
they wanted not only to win and to order freedom, but also,
to sustain freedom.
What was their solution to ensuring freedom? It was certainly
not, as I was amazed to learn, a belief in the superiority
of democracy. As John Adams had said, "There never was
a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
Nor was their solution simply in the separation of powers
in our system of checks and balances, as most Americans today,
including many scholars and university students, seem to think.
As the founders realized, a strong constitution is not enough
to sustain freedom, because human nature, left to its own
devices, would eventually subvert the Constitution.
Rather, their solution was based on what they saw as the
eternal set of first principles - a set of three interlocking
and independent ideas - like three legs of a triangle - that
were viewed as absolutely foundational: liberty, virtue, and
religion.
The first leg of the triangle is that liberty requires virtue.
For the framers, liberty was not a form of negative freedom
- not a 'freedom from' something - but a positive freedom,
a 'freedom to be.' In Lord Acton's famous formulation, "Freedom
is not a permission to do what we like, but the power to do
what we ought." In a similar vein, Benjamin Franklin
once said, "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom."
And as James Madison queried, "Is there no virtue amongst
us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical
checks, no form of government can render us secure. To suppose
any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without
virtue in the people is a chimerical idea." John Adams
was equally blunt: "We have no government armed with
powers capable of competing with human passions, unbridled,
without morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge,
or gallantry would break the strongest chords of our constitution,
as a whale goes through a net."
The second leg of this eternal triangle is the principle
that virtue requires religion. For the Framers, virtue was
more all-encompassing than the way many view virtue today.
For one thing, the concept of virtue included features such
as excellence and courage. And for another, it had to be grounded
in something real. Religion provided virtue with its content,
its inspiration, and its sanction. As George Washington said
in his farewell address, "of all the dispositions and
habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality
are the indispensable supports."
The third leg of the triangle is the principle that religion
requires liberty. Here, and not in the separation of powers,
is where our Framers were perhaps the most original and perhaps
the most daring, offering the most distinctive part of the
entire American ordering of public life - an unprecedented
break from fifteen hundred years of political history since
Constantine. As Madison argued so powerfully in his book,
Memorial and Remonstrances, "Torrents of blood
have been spilt in the name of established religion in the
old world. But we now have the true remedy in the separation
of church and state."
But what is the principle underlying that notion of separation
of church and state? As Madison says, "That religion,
or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of
discharging it, can only be directed by reason and conviction,
not by force or violence." Madison further argued that
the establishment of a specific religion would be unnecessary
because it flourishes best on its own merits and not when
it is oppressive and coercive.
What is all too plain today is that many Americans have abandoned,
or are unmindful of, the Framers' position. What has caused
this? One factor is exploding pluralism. The story of America
is indeed a story of a steadily expanding pluralism. The expansion
of the last fifty years now includes most of the world's religions
and has put a new strain on the traditional ordering of religion
in public life. One obvious example, though an unfortunate
example, is our public schools. In Los Angeles, where our
family lives, there are over ninety different religions in
our schools. A politically correct holiday program, as my
wife pointed out to me, probably would take at least a month.
Another factor is what I refer to as "expanding Statism."
When the 1st Amendment was passed in 1791, religion was central
and powerful in most people's lives, while the federal government
was distant. Today, that situation is reversed. The federal
government is strong and central, whereas religion for too
many is marginal and weak.
And another factor emerging is Separationism. This is the
view pushed openly by groups like the ACLU - that the separation
of church and state must be strict and absolute. Religious
freedom, under their construct, becomes freedom from religion,
not freedom for religion. Public life then, becomes a religion-free
zone, so that religion is considered exclusively private,
and public life exclusively secular.
I wonder now what would be on our currency if that were a
subject of discussion. I highly doubt that "In God We
Trust" would pass muster. Similarly, I wonder whether
the pledge of Allegiance would include the phrase, "One
nation under God." Aiming for a religion-free zone is
a radical departure from the greater part of our history.
Great leaders, such as Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower,
and Ronald Reagan, following in the footsteps of the Framers,
continually reminded us that faith and religion are not just
important to the character of the people of the nation, but
also, to repeat Washington's words, "indispensable to
the preservation of our democratic institutions."
It would be easy tonight to lament the present situation.
We have gone from an animating vision which safeguards religion,
to one which systematically sabotages religion and undermines
its revered traditions, honored place, and acknowledged importance
in American society. We have reached a point where the civil
rights of those who preach and practice the most radical lifestyles,
and who insist that all public places must be a naked public
square, trump the religious liberties of anyone who disagrees.
When Michael Novak addressed the Library of Congress in 1998,
he was asked, "Can an atheist be a good American?"
His answer was, "Yes. That has been done many times.
But," he continued, "Can American liberties survive
if most of our nation is atheist?" The most common, almost
universal judgement of the Founders was that it could not.
The time has come for men and women to build a new consensus
about religion's proper place in the public square. But the
answer to the folly of the naked public square is not a reassertion
of the sacred public square, such as the domination of Protestantism
in the nineteenth century. Those of us who are Catholics or
Jews know too much about that. In the pluralistic society
of today, neither the naked, nor the sacred, public square
is workable. But, rather, I believe we should begin working
towards what some have referred to as a civil public square,
in which citizens of all faiths, and none, are free to enter
in and engage in public life, within Constitutional first
principles and the common vision of the common good.
At a time when morality and virtue are in such short supply,
religion must play a greater, not lesser, role in our national
life. If it does, the future for America is as bright as it
was when the Founders drafted all those wonderful documents.
If it does not, the consequences might be summed up in three
words, as familiar to the framers as they were to the ancients:
"decline and fall."
Religious liberty is far more than just liberty for the religious.
It is vital for all citizens to put religion back where the
Framers intended it. And it is not just a policy item on the
same order of tax cuts, health care, and missile defense.
It is taking care of our foundation. Religion in America is
far from an inviolably private issue. Essentially, religion
is a national issue.
So, I repeat the question, does America really need religion?
I believe that it is not too much to say, that as faith goes
in America, so goes freedom. Long may faith and freedom march
hand-in-hand in America, and long may Thomas Aquinas College
be champions of both.
-- Qtrly Newsletter, Spring 2003
|
