Opinion
Law & Courts Opinion

Jefferson’s ‘General Religion’

By Peter N. Berger — February 15, 2005 5 min read
  • Save to favorites
  • Print
No religion deserves equal time for its doctrines in school because no religion is entitled to any time.

Thomas Jefferson believed that religion was private, “solely between man and his God.” For our national life he recommended simply a “general religion” of “peace, reason, and morality.” Today his benign hope is eluding us.

The First Amendment prohibits our government from imposing an official religion or preventing any citizen from worshipping according to his beliefs. In fact, religious freedom is the First Amendment’s first order of business. Jefferson saw this “wall of separation between Church and State” as an essential safeguard against the “ceaseless strife” of religious intolerance that “soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.” That bloody legacy explains why George Washington opposed “any species of religious persecution.” It’s why James Madison regarded the “distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both.”

Partisans at both extremes are currently testing the wall. A Pennsylvania school board recently required teachers to include “intelligent design” in their science classes, and officials in other states are pursuing the same course. Intelligent design, an alternative to evolution, implies a role for a Creator in nature without actually mentioning God. Explicitly teaching Genesis would qualify as creationism, which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional in 1987.

Meanwhile, in response to intelligent-design proposals, a federal judge in Georgia has ruled that schools can’t place labels in textbooks describing evolution as “a theory, not a fact” that needs to be “approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”

Have we really reached the fevered point at which open minds, careful study, and critical thinking are out of place in a science class? When it comes to approaching Darwin’s ideas with an open yet critical mind, I doubt Mr. Darwin would object. On the other hand, while the judge was overreacting, it’s clear what he was overreacting against. The label had a point that went beyond a simple reminder that students need to think.

Darwin isn’t a secular rebuttal to the first verse of Genesis. That’s why his book is titled The Origin of Species, not the origin of everything. Evolution shouldn’t be taught as if it disproves the existence of God.

It also shouldn’t be suppressed as heresy. The only heresy in a public school science class is bad science. And most scientists, not most atheist scientists, endorse Darwin’s conclusions. His theory may conflict with a literal interpretation of Genesis, but that doesn’t make it bad science. It doesn’t even necessarily make it bad religion.

Evolution doesn’t deal with the origin of the primordial soup, the first cause of the big bang, or the breath of God. Neither should science classes. They also shouldn’t teach Bishop Ussher’s 17th-century creationist calculation that the universe is 6,009 years old—not because he was a bishop, but because it’s bad science.

Public schools are an instrument of government. Requiring them to alter what they teach or do to satisfy any group’s religious convictions is wrong. No religion deserves equal time for its doctrines in school because no religion is entitled to any time. Evolution should be taught in terms of what it credibly explains. Parents and churches, not schools, should deal with what it doesn’t explain.

Our nation’s founders weren’t antagonistic toward religion. Washington viewed it as “indispensable.” Jefferson lamented his contemporaries’ religious ignorance as a dangerous “chasm.” But he and Madison agreed it was even more dangerous to license public officials, like school boards, to “dictate modes or principles of religious instruction.” My assurance of religious freedom rests on my commitment to religious freedom for everybody else. If I allow you to lose yours, losing mine isn’t far behind.

This proper caution has led some to question whether even a reference to God should be purged from government discourse and documents. A new federal lawsuit filed in California is seeking to remove “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance.

The Founding Fathers never recited the pledge. It was written in 1892 by a socialist, Congress adopted it in 1942, and just one year later the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that students couldn’t be compelled to recite it. They can even leave the room. “Under God” wasn’t added until 1954, as a rebuke to Communism.

Religious freedom isn’t a matter of proselytizing under government auspices or censoring occasional references to God.

The lawsuit’s plaintiffs contend that atheist students shouldn’t have to choose to leave the room to escape the reference to God. The court made a similar point in 1962, when the justices banned school prayer.

The court was right. Prayer is an explicitly and entirely religious exercise. But if we accept the premise that the pledge’s reference to God is a comparable intrusion of religion, what then do we make of the motto on our money, “In God We Trust”? Is our currency a violation of the First Amendment?

If you think it is, you’ve got some editing ahead of you, starting with the Declaration of Independence. That’s where our revolution rests on “the laws of Nature and Nature’s God.” It’s where the “Creator” endows us with rights. It’s where the founders appeal to the “Supreme Judge of the world” and rely on “the protection of Divine Providence.”

You’ll also need to gut Lincoln’s second inaugural address, which invokes the purposes of “the Almighty,” the “providence of God,” and the “judgments of the Lord.” You’ll need to strip away its concluding exhortation, “With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right.”

Wilson’s call to make the world “safe for democracy” and FDR’s response to the “infamy” of Pearl Harbor will need expurgating, too. Both include a reference to God.

If you can justify all that in the name of the U.S. Constitution, you’ve still got another document you’ll have to cut. It’s the Constitution, which pointedly dates itself “in the year of our Lord.”

Washington was adamant that religion be left out of the Constitution. Apparently he didn’t view a simple reference to God as a violation of religious liberty. Neither apparently did Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln, Wilson, or Roosevelt.

Free speech isn’t about stretching the limits of obscenity. It’s about the right to speak your mind on public issues without fear of government suppression. Similarly, religious freedom isn’t a matter of proselytizing under government auspices or censoring occasional references to God. It’s about worshipping freely without fear that we’ll lose our rights, our homes, or our lives because of what we believe. The more we yield to fervor and cater to hypersensitivity, the more we’ll degrade the protection and endanger the rights the First Amendment was framed to guarantee.

Madison conceded it wasn’t always easy “to trace the line of separation” between religion and government. But excessive zeal at either extreme just inflames the other. Our rights were never meant to be understood or enjoyed in the absence of common sense and tolerant restraint.

Related Tags:

A version of this article appeared in the February 16, 2005 edition of Education Week as Jefferson’s ‘General Religion’

Events

Jobs Virtual Career Fair for Teachers and K-12 Staff
Find teaching jobs and other jobs in K-12 education at the EdWeek Top School Jobs virtual career fair.
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Teaching Webinar
Challenging the Stigma: Emotions and STEM
STEM isn't just equations and logic. Join this webinar and discover how emotions fuel innovation, creativity, & problem-solving in STEM!
Content provided by Project Lead The Way
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Professional Development Webinar
Leveraging Student Voice for Teacher Retention & Development
Join our webinar on using student feedback to improve teacher performance, retention & student achievement.
Content provided by Panorama Education

EdWeek Top School Jobs

Teacher Jobs
Search over ten thousand teaching jobs nationwide — elementary, middle, high school and more.
View Jobs
Principal Jobs
Find hundreds of jobs for principals, assistant principals, and other school leadership roles.
View Jobs
Administrator Jobs
Over a thousand district-level jobs: superintendents, directors, more.
View Jobs
Support Staff Jobs
Search thousands of jobs, from paraprofessionals to counselors and more.
View Jobs

Read Next

Law & Courts Supreme Court Declines Case on Selective High School Aiming to Boost Racial Diversity
Some advocates saw the K-12 case as the logical next step after last year's decision against affirmative action in college admissions
7 min read
Rising seniors at the Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology gather on the campus in Alexandria, Va., Aug. 10, 2020. From left in front are, Dinan Elsyad, Sean Nguyen, and Tiffany Ji. From left at rear are Jordan Lee and Shibli Nomani. A federal appeals court’s ruling in May 2023 about the admissions policy at the elite public high school in Virginia may provide a vehicle for the U.S. Supreme Court to flesh out the intended scope of its ruling Thursday, June 29, 2023, banning affirmative action in college admissions.
A group of rising seniors at the Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology gather on the campus in Alexandria, Va., in August 2020. From left in front are, Dinan Elsyad, Sean Nguyen, and Tiffany Ji. From left at rear are Jordan Lee and Shibli Nomani. The U.S. Supreme Court on Feb. 20 declined to hear a challenge to an admissions plan for the selective high school that was facially race neutral but designed to boost the enrollment of Black and Hispanic students.
J. Scott Applewhite/AP
Law & Courts School District Lawsuits Against Social Media Companies Are Piling Up
More than 200 school districts are now suing the major social media companies over the youth mental health crisis.
7 min read
A close up of a statue of the blindfolded lady justice against a light blue background with a ghosted image of a hands holding a cellphone with Facebook "Like" and "Love" icons hovering above it.
iStock/Getty
Law & Courts In 1974, the Supreme Court Recognized English Learners' Rights. The Story Behind That Case
The Lau v. Nichols ruling said students have a right to a "meaningful opportunity" to participate in school, but its legacy is complex.
12 min read
Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court William O. Douglas is shown in an undated photo.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, shown in an undated photo, wrote the opinion in <i>Lau</i> v. <i>Nichols</i>, the 1974 decision holding that the San Francisco school system had denied Chinese-speaking schoolchildren a meaningful opportunity to participate in their education.
AP
Law & Courts Supreme Court Declines to Hear School District's Transgender Restroom Case
The case asked whether federal law protects transgender students on the use of school facilities that correspond to their gender identity.
4 min read
People stand on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court on Feb. 11, 2022, in Washington, D.C.
People stand on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court on Feb. 11, 2022, in Washington, D.C.
Mariam Zuhaib/AP