Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T01:51:13.031Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What's Wrong with the Williamsburg Charter

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 April 2015

John M. Swomley
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

“In … recent times, … constitutional jurisprudence has tended, in the view of many, to move toward the de facto semi-establishment of a wholly secular understanding of the origin, nature and destiny of humankind and of the American nation. During this period, the exclusion of teaching about the role of religion in society, based partly upon a misunderstanding of First Amendment decisions, has ironically resulted in giving a dominant status to such wholly secular understandings in many national institutions.”

— The Williamsburg Charter

The Williamsburg Charter rightly focuses attention on the American contribution to religious liberty, which is a part of our Constitutional heritage. It has the virtue of trying to achieve consensus around issues of deep disagreement in various religious, education and political communities. For this reason, it makes a significant beginning in our thinking about religious pluralism.

It is not, of course, a perfect document and therefore needs critical evaluation. The original Constitution itself, although hailed in the opening paragraphs of the Charter as “the most wonderful work,” is not without its flaws. For example, the original Constitution tolerated human slavery and indentured service, and it limited the franchise to white, property-owning males.

Type
I. Commentary on The Williamsburg Charter
Information
Journal of Law and Religion , Volume 8 , Issue 1-2 , 1990 , pp. 161 - 173
Copyright
Copyright © Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. The Williamsburg Charter, 6 above.

2. US Const, Amend X:

3. US Const, Art VI, § 3.

4. Stokes, Anson Phelps, 1 Church and State in the United States 527 (Harper, 1950)Google Scholar.

5. See Ford, Paul L., ed, Essays on the Constitution of the United States 168 (Historical Printing Club, 1892)Google Scholar.

6. Id at 208.

7. Jefferson, Thomas, Notes on the State of Virginia 152 (Harper & Row, 1964)Google Scholar.

8. The Virginia Bill of Rights of 1776 provides: “That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force and violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practise Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.” Poore, Benjamin, ed, 2 The Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters, and other Organic Laws of the United States 1909 (Government Printing Office, 1878)Google Scholar.

9. US Const, Amend IX.

10. 1 Stat 1 (1776).

11. US Const, Art VI, § 3.

12. The Williamsburg Charter, 14 above.

13. Id.

14. Sweet, William W., The Story of Religion in America 7 (Scribner's, 1939)Google Scholar.

15. Id.

16. The Williamsburg Charter, 9 above.

17. Editor's note: The text of the Charter seems to me to refer not only to the brutal ideologues of American history mentioned by Professor Swomley, but also to the massive abuses of human rights committed in this century by totalitarian ideologues of the Right such as Hitler and of the Left such as Stalin. The Charter condemns the “crimes against conscience” that occurred both in the gas chambers and the gulags.

18. See, e.g., Brock, Peter, Pacifism in the United States From the Colonial Era to the First World War (Princeton, 1968)Google Scholar.

19. See, e.g., Manwaring, David R., Render unto Caesar: The Flag Salute Controversy (Chicago, 1962)Google Scholar.

20. The Williamsburg Charter, 9-10 above.

21. Id at 10.

22. Id.

23. Id at 9.

24. See, e.g., Sherbert v Verner, 374 US 398 (1963).

25. The Williamsburg Charter, 14 above.

26. Id.

27. Id at 15.

28. Id at 13.

29. Id at 14.

30. Id.

31. Religion in Public Schools, Policy Guide of American Civil Liberties Union 161 (06 1989)Google Scholar.

32. Id.

33. See, e.g., Mozert v Hawkins County Bd of Educ, 827 F2d 1058 (6th Cir 1987), cert denied, 484 US 1066 (1988).

34. The Wiliamsburg Charter, 20 above.

35. Id.

36. See, e.g., Thomas, Norman, After the New Deal What? (Macmillan, 1936)Google Scholar; What is Our Destiny? (Doubleday, 1944)Google Scholar; The Test of Freedom (Norton, 1954)Google Scholar; Socialism Re-examined (Norton, 1963)Google Scholar.

37. See, e.g., Harrington, Michael, The New American Poverty (Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1984)Google Scholar; The Politics at God's Funeral (Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1983)Google Scholar; The Twilight of Capitalism (Simon & Schuster, 1976)Google Scholar; Socialism (Saturday Review Press, 1972)Google Scholar; The Other America (Penguin, 1963)Google Scholar.

38. Editor's note: For a discussion of the application of religion to the subjects identified by Professor Swomley, see Kelley, Dean M., The Intermeddling Manifesto, Or the Role of Religious Bodies in Affecting Public Policy in the United States, 85 aboveGoogle Scholar.

39. Editor's note: According to the Charter, the result of avoiding both establishment of any faith and exclusion of faith from public life “is neither a naked public square where all religion is excluded, nor a sacred public square with any religion established or semi-established. The result, rather, is a civil public square in which citizens of all religious faiths, or none, engage one another in the continuing democratic discourse.” The Williamsburg Charter, 18 above (emphasis supplied).

40. As cited in The Catholic Reporter (Kansas City, Mo.), 08 3, 1962Google Scholar.

41. The Williamsburg Charter, 19 above.

42. Editor's note: The Charter states that “a right for one is a right for another and a responsibility for all. A right for a Protestant is a right for an Orthodox is a right for a Catholic is a right for a Jew is a right for a Humanist is a right for a Mormon is a right for a Muslim is a right for a Buddhist — and for the followers of any other faith within the wide bounds of the republic.” Id at 18 (emphasis supplied). For a discussion of the importance of the shift within American pluralism “beyond the predominance of Protestant-Catholic-Jewish [to] include sizeable numbers of almost all the world's great religions (Buddhist and Muslim, in particular),” see Guinness, Os, Tribespeople, Idiots or Citizens?: Religious Liberty and the Reforging of the American Public Philosophy, 33 aboveGoogle Scholar. The Williamsburg Charter Survey disclosed increasing signs of tolerance for Muslims and Buddhists; see Hunter, James Davison, Religious Pluralism: Past and Present, 273 belowGoogle Scholar. See also the Muslim-Roman Catholic Statement on Religious Freedom in America, 319 below.