A good reminder from Fr. Robert Sirico about the fullness of Catholic social teaching

As the Acton Institute's blog points out, the reverend father was on t.v. recently reminding viewers of that without economic liberty there can be no social justice.  A very helpful and timely reminder.  Catholic social theory is often criticized by many on the libertarian Right as being big-government statism in a cassock.  That is far from true.  At its core, Catholic social teaching is about the dignity of the human person, a dignity that can only flourish within a society that acknowledges ordered liberty.  While the "order" part of that equation gets a lot of attention, the "liberty" part is of equal importance.

Mister, we could use a man like Thomas Aquinas again

Not to rebuild a golden age that never existed, but to reform our own society in light of the wisdom of the Scholastics, as this review of Fr. Bede Jarrett's book Social Theories of the Middle Ages makes plain.  As the reviewer, John Medaille, contends, learning from the wisdom of the Middle Ages shouldn't be geared to recreating that time in western history, but building on its lessons to create something both truly modern and in continuity with the wisdom of the past.  That is the great project that awaits doing, a project that the medievals themselves had accomplished in regard to their own relationship with the classical world.  As Medaille writes:

[I]t is enough, for our present purposes, to know that there had been a unity, and that what held true then can be rediscovered. Not, indeed, in the same form, because the modern age does represent real advances. It is not true traditionalism, but mere antiquarianism, that attempts to do no more than reproduce the past rather than transform the present. It is precisely this task of transformation that is now forced upon us; and so it is a truly opportune moment to look to an age that achieved a certain unity—however imperfectly it may have been achieved— which we have lost.

Related item:  The Imaginative Conservative has posted a wonderful essay by the late Russell Kirk exploring the classical heritage of the American founders:  What Did Americans Inherit From the Ancients?  It is a lengthy essay for a blog post, but well worth reading.

Is the fight against drugs like Prohibition?

Peter Hitchens (the late Christopher Hitchens' younger and wiser brother) dispatches one of the favorite arguments of the libertine Left and many of its equally libertine libertarian allies when it comes to marijuana legalization. Well worth listening to the debate linked at Hitchens' blog. While Hitchens' comments are directed towards the situation in the UK, when it comes to the craze for de facto marijuana legalization, his comments are largely applicable to the US as well.

It pays to be connected in the new economic order

That's the take-away message from this revealing story posted at Bloomberg online:  How Political Clout Made Banks Too Big to Fail. As the article notes, the problem started back in the 1970's, a decade which appears to be the efficient cause of most of the social and political problems facing our nation.

Statesmanship and the example of John Adams

"At root, Adams wanted to foster people’s devotion to virtue, to acting as they should, and to serving the public good. Only a virtuous people, he noted more than once, could be free." So writes Bruce Frohnen in this well-worth reading post over at the The University Bookman:  On Statesmanship:  The Case of John Adams. Frohnen does a very good job of explaining both the importance of Adams at the time of the Revolution and his monumental impact as a politician once the Constitution as ratified.

I have long thought that Adams was seriously under-ranked as far as our presidents go. Frohnen's post helps to solidify the case that Adams is a far more significant player in our national history than is usually acknowledged. Patriot, Federalist, conservative and traditionalist, Adams deserves a far closer look by those who would seek to maintain order and tradition without falling into the poison trap of ideology.

A prayer for the dead on Memorial Day

From the 1928 Book of Common Prayer:

Almighty God, our heavenly Father, in whose hands are the living and the dead; We give thee thanks for all those thy servants who have laid down their lives in the service of our country. Grant to them thy mercy and the light of thy presence, that the good work which thou hast begun in them may be perfected; through Jesus Christ thy Son our Lord.

Amen.

Questions for Memorial Day

• What should be the goals of American foreign policy? One of the great lights of the conservative movement in the first half of the 20th century, Senator Robert A. Taft, provides an overview in this essay reposted over at The American Conservative: What Are the Purposes of a Foreign Policy? As Taft rightly notes, there are two: peace and security. We could use more of that wisdom in our foreign policy discussions nowadays. As this holiday reminds us, U.S. foreign policy requires a very high price from those men & women who serve our country in uniform, and for many it requires the highest price this side of heaven: the price of their lives.  On this holiday, it is proper for commemorate that fact and to remember those who have given their lives in our nation's military service. 

• How can we best honor those veterans who have given their lives in defense of our country on this holiday? This article on Memorial Day has some great suggestions:  How to Observe Memorial Day. Kenneth Anderson has some related thoughts posted over at the Volokh Conspiracy (hat tip to Instapundit). While today is a day to honor the dead, I agree with Anderson that it is also a day to commemorate the accomplishments of the men & women who are serving our country, and defending it from those who would do it harm.  As such, it is appropriate to embrace celebration as part of this holiday, both for the living and the dead.  Thus, it isn't a bad idea to spend a little time this holiday to think about those who have served and who have returned. And that leads to my last question... 

• How are the men and women who have fought for our nation and returned being treated as they transition to civillian life?  One of the keys to reintegrating our returning warriors into civillian society is their ability to find productive and meaningful work in the private sector. As this story notes, however, returning veterans are having more and more difficulty finding just such work: Returning vets find job search can be a battle. The solution isn't another government program or bureaucracy, but a vibrant private sector that is willing and able to hire these men & women who have served our country, often at great, great cost to themselves.  

Stephen Fry on the genius of classical music

Classical music is, functionally at least, beyond fashion and outside time, (though of course it can be studied in quite the reverse way). To engage you need know nothing, only to be able to sit and listen. To make the journey and visit the places the music takes you.

So writes the English author, actor and techno-wizard in this lengthy blog-post: Take me to your Lieder.  Fry also explains the nature of classical music as art, rather than mere background noise, and comments on the snobbery of popular culture towards one of the noblest expressions of western civilization:

Sometimes if I so much as connect Spotify or some other music service to Twitter and a follower sees that I am listening to a piece of classical music, they will tweet something charming like “posh twat”, “Why do you listen to that boring rubbish?” or “who are you trying to impress?” I’m beyond being bothered by such tragically irremediable rudeness and intolerance, but I do hope sane, open people will give themselves time to listen to music. Classical music isn’t to be danced to, it doesn’t necessarily remind you of your first snog or your first bust up – those inestimable, moving and essential services are certainly part of popular music’s draw and connective power. Classical music, since that is what we must call it, is something else. It must be payed attention to.  It is not wallpaper or “the soundtrack to one’s life” as much other music in my life (happily) is.  It is Art.  There, I said it and I can’t and won’t apologise for making that distinction. I’d go the gallows for it. And while you may think me an elitist, I have never in my 40 years of engaging with such music encountered the snobbery that is routine amongst listeners to popular sounds, who tell you with absolute cutting certainty that this artist is “crap” and this one is “god”. I can remember the embarrassed parties at which older teenagers would muscle up to my hopeful record deck and sneer “Haven’t you got any decent music?” Some people in the classical sphere will always prefer Couperin to Alkan or Debussy to Rossini, naturally, but it’s very very rare to find the equivalent curled lip condescension as one’s music collection or playlists are “inspected” by some self-appointed schoolboy DJ. I suppose “highlights” and endless versions of Pachabel’s Canon and The Lark Ascending might cause the odd eyebrow to raise, but not from me or anyone I’d give houseroom to. Let people love One Direction and let them love Laurie Anderson, or Mahler, Reich, Kate Rusby or Alfie Boe, but don’t they DARE make anyone feel small for their loves.

Fry has previously talked about the modern prejudice against classical music, perhaps most notably in this speech at the Cambridge Union:



Fry has also made a documentary detailing his life-long interest in the music of controversial 19th century German composer Richard Wagner:

The future of the Catholic Church in America

That's the topic of this fascinating blog post over at A Conservative Blog for Peace.  Be sure to check out the links provided in the post -- great reading.  While the Church will no doubt be smaller and more persecuted, it is likely to be more energetic and more in continuity with its history and mission than it is currently.  Perhaps God writes with crooked lines?

Update:  link was broken but thanks to Serge over at A Conservative Blog for Peace, I now have the correct link.  Here it is.  Enjoy!

The nanny state cannot stand in the way of home-baked cookies!

Yes, even here in bluest of blue Washington State, the liberty to bake cookies at home is well one the march.  Well, more like the liberty to both bake and sell cookies that you make yourself.  Here's the story, courtesy of Slate magazine.  It seems somehow fitting to me that this blow against the nanny state is coming from one of the great advances of human civilization: home-baked cookies.  Onward, comrades!

Liberals, conservatives and the inability to understand the need for limits

That's the topic of this interesting post by Thomas Storck over at The Distributist Review:  The Contradictions of Liberals and Conservatives. As Storck writes, the two political parties have now evolved largely into flip sides of each other:

[E]ach of them is conscious of the claims of the common good and firmly committed to restraint of human passions, backed up even by the authority of law, in one sphere or area of human life, and equally committed to a laissez-faire policy in another sphere. While each group seems to be aware of the dangers that unrestrained acquiescence in human weakness poses to the social good in one area, each is equally blind to those same dangers in another and equally crucial sphere of life. 

It must be noted that Storck's criticism of the liberals and conservatives only applies to the ideologically degraded examples on display in much of the modern media and in the political arena.  There are writers and thinkers who belong to both camps who evade the trap that Storck describes, men like Christopher Lasch on the Left and Russell Kirk on the Right.

Both of those men, and countless other writers, embrace the notion of limits in public and private life, including limits on the power of government.  They propose balanced regimes that incorporate respect for religion, custom and tradition, while not ignoring the need for vigorous and active government in its proper sphere.  Tradition, faith, boundaries, community and, yes, politics & law, were and are a part of this deeper tradition of American political discourse.  This deeper tradition is conservative in its respect for order and the Permanent Things; it is liberal -- in the sense that Edmund Burke was a liberal -- in its willingness to embrace reform and government action in light of the common good.   And this deeper tradition still exists, although it is becoming rarer and rarer to find, with negative consequences for us all.

Russell Kirk's approach to liberal education

Is explained in detail in this wonderful blog post over at The Imaginative Conservative: Russell Kirk Would Have Been a Great Headmaster. Well worth a read. Kirk had a good deal of insight about the intellectual collapse of the humanities in the last half of the 20th century, having walked away from his teaching job at a college he would later refer to as "Behemoth U."

Of course, the problems with the modern American university have their origin further back than the middle of the 20th century, but it was after World War II that the mass rot set in. The combination of the democratization of university education with the ideological radicalization of the faculty in the 1960's appears to have been the catalyst for the problems we find ourselves in today.  The "higher education bubble" that many write about today is simply the latest symptom of the disease that Kirk was so apt to diagnose back in the day.

California bullet train chewing up the cash

Gov. Jerry Brown is blowing through the tatters of the state budget pushing a high-speed rail system from San Francisco to L.A. Here's the story, and here's the summary of what's gone wrong up to this point:

A project that was originally to cost $33 billion, now over $100 billion, where the state can't afford to electrify the tracks, where the state is $16 billion in the red, and there is no revenue plan that would make the train profitable.

The sad thing is, Jerry Brown used to be considered a good government reformer on the Left -- committed to competent and trustworthy government as a vehicle for improving the lives of ordinary people. His second round in the governor's mansion has already done some massive damage to that image. This high-speed rail fiasco isn't helping things.

Oklahoma federal district court rejects compelled religious speech claim regarding an obscure religious symbol

The always-interesting Religion Clause law blog has the story. The moral of the tale appears to be that the government can compel people to engage in religious speech, so long as the religious speech is sufficiently obscure so as to be "imprecise." Got it. You know, the one thing that Catholicism is filled with is obscure saints and relatively unknown religious references...

"Why defeat an evil empire -- and then embrace a stupid one?"

That's the title of this blog-post by Peter Hitchens (the late Christopher Hitchens' younger and wiser brother), lamenting the state of the EU. Of course, Mr. Hitchens' question could well be asked by any prudent observer of world affairs after the end of the Cold War. Sadly, the defeat of the Soviet Union unhinged the West to embark on a series of what now appear to have been utopian fantasies of empire & order: the EU for the Europeans, and for us, our adventures in nation building from Haiti to Bactria.

Was Jefferson a conservative? Not in matters of religion

There is a considerable ongoing debate on the Right side of the blogosphere about whether Thomas Jefferson should be included within the ranks of conservative thinkers.  One aspect of the discussion regards Jefferson's religious views. And any inspection of Jefferson's views on religion reveal a man who was a radical and not a traditionalist -- somebody who was deeply and fundamentally alienated not only from orthodox, creedal Christianity in any of its historic variants (Protestant, Catholic and eastern Orthodox) but also from Judaism. No where is this more evident than in his letters to various correspondents. Those who would argue that Jefferson held to traditional or otherwise orthodox views regarding either Judaism or Christianity need to be able to explain passages like the following:

His object was the reformation of some articles in the religion of the Jews, as taught by Moses.  That sect had presented for the object of their worship, a being of terrific character, cruel, vindictive, capricious, and unjust.  Jesus, taking for his type the best qualities of the human head and heart, wisdom, justice, goodness and adding to them power, ascribed all of these, but in infinite perfection, to the Supreme Being, and formed him really worthy of their adoration.  Moses ad either not believed in a a future state of existence, or had not thought it essentially to be explicitly taught to his people.  Jesus inculcated that doctrine with emphasis and precision.  Moses had bound the Jews to many idle ceremonies, mummeries, and observances of no effect toward producing the social utilities which constitute the essence of virtue; Jesus exposed their futility and insignificance.  The one instilled into his people the most anti-social spirit toward other nations; the other preached philanthropy and universal charity and benevolence.  The office of reformer of the superstitions of a nation, is ever dangerous.  Jesus had to walk on the perilous confines of reason and religion; and a step to right or left might place him within the grasp of the priests of the superstition, a blood-thirsty race, as cruel and remorseless as the being whom they represented as the family God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob, and the local God of Israel.  They were constantly laying snares, too, to entangle him in the web of the law.  He was justifiable, therefore, in avoiding these by evasions, by sophisms, by misconstructions and misapplication of scraps of the prophets, and in defending himself with these their own weapons, as sufficient, ad homines, at least.  That Jesus did not mean to impose himself on mankind as the son of God, physically speaking, I have been convinced by the writings of men more learned than myself in that lore.  But that he might conscientiously believe himself inspired from above, is very possible.  The whole religion of the Jew, inculcated on him from his infancy, was founded in the belief of divine inspiration.  The fumes of the most disorded [sic] imaginations were recorded in their religious code, as special communications from the Deity; and as it could not but happen that in the course of ages, events would now and then turn up to which some of these vague rhapsodies might be accommodated by the aid of allegories, figures types, and other tricks upon words, they have not only persevered their credit with the Jews of all subsequent times, but are the foundation of much of the religions of those who have schismatized from them.  Elevated by the enthusiasm of a warm and pure heart, conscious of the high strains of an eloquence which had not been taught him, he might readily mistake the coruscations of his own fine genius for inspirations of an higher order.  This belief carried, therefore, no more personal imputation, than the belief of Socrates, that himself was under the care and admonitions of a guardian Daemon.

- Thomas Jefferson,Letter to William Short, Aug. 4, 1820, reprinted inIn God We Trust: The Religious Beliefs and Ideas of the American Founding Fathers, edited by Norman Cousins (Harper & Brothers: 1958), pgs. 153-154.

An appeal to the principles of Edmund Burke

Published by the editors of the The American Conservative:  Back to Burke.  (Hat tip to The Pittsford Perennialist.)  As the editors of that magazine write:

The biggest loss conservatives suffered in recent years was not the election of Barack Obama in 2008 or the defeat of the last Republican Congress in 2006. It wasn’t the passage of the president’s healthcare reform or nearly $1 trillion stimulus package, nor any other legislative setback. Conservatives had already lost something far more basic—their moorings.

Indeed. The most consequential trend in modern conservatism has been to flitter dangerously close to the trap that has all-but-destroyed the progressive/liberal tradition: the conflation of ideology with principle. Conservatives, eager to defend the heritage of our civilization and the benefits of the American experiment in ordered liberty, have too often mistaken the expediencies of the moment with the policies of statesmanship, falling into a cramped and narrow vision of what it means to be conservative. Ideology fuses with and eventually overwhelms principle.  Talk radio is a good example of this tendency, as is the sound-bite driven politics that often drives much conservative commentary on the internet and in serious media outlets.  

Yet, no matter how many conservatives are ensnared by the trap of ideology, there is hope. The old masters remain: Aristotle, Aquinas, the Founders, Burke, Lincoln, Kirk, Weaver, and others. And beyond the old masters, there sits the hand of Providence, calling and guiding men back to the Permanent Things, if only we have the heart to hear and the will to follow the promptings of the Spirit.  What has been lost can be regained. Ideology -- that enemy of faith & tradition -- can be repelled and principle restored to her rightful throne.  

Jefferson on bad and good religion

If by religion we are to understand sectarian dogmas, in which no two of them agree, then your exclamation on that hypothesis is just, "that this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it."  But if the moral precepts, innate in man, and made a part of his physical constitution, as necessary for a social being, if the sublime doctrines of philanthropism and deism taught us by Jesus of Nazareth, in which all agree, constitute a true religion, then, without it, this would be, as you again say, "something not fit to be named, even indeed, a hell."

- Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, dated May 5, 1817, reprinted in In God We Trust:  The Religious Beliefs and Ideas of the American Founding Fathers, edited by Norman Cousins (Harper & Bros.: 1958), pg. 283.

[Cross-posted at American Creation.]

Progressive ideology and the Constitution

Matthew Spalding discusses the anti-foundational approach of progressive ideology to the federal Constitution in this article posted over at First Principles:  A New Republic:  The Progressive Assault on the Founders' Principles.  Spalding provides a good overview of the difference between the progressive mindset and the mindset of the Founding generation.  And he does a good job of showing that Abraham Lincoln, far from being a herald of the new progressive era (as many liberal and some libertarian writers contend), harkened back to the Founders' vision of the Constitution bounded by the moral order of natural law and civic virtue enshrined in the Declaration of Independence.

Thinking like a lawyer: the difference between interpreting and construing the Constitution

Libertarian legal scholar Randy Barnett explains that topic in this informative post on legal reasoning and originalism over at The Volokh Conspiracy.  Well worth a read.

Democracy should not be turned into an ideology

"On the face of things, it appears that the triumph of democracy, far from preserving or enlarging freedom, has brought to power a host of squalid oligarchs."  So writes the late Russell Kirk in this essay from the late 1980's, posted over at The Imaginative Conservative:  Popular Government and Intemperate Minds: Democracy as Ideology. Kirk argues that democracy is simply a system, and like any system, can be used for good or bad ends.  The key components to a regime of ordered liberty can exist in a democracy, but they can also exist in other types of regimes:  limited government, the rule of law, individual liberty, and the restraining hand of tradition, in short, as Kirk puts it, "order, and justice, and freedom."

Dethroning democracy as an ideology is an essential step toward recovering a more substantive view of liberty, one grounded in principle rather than in the formulaic mantras of democratized ideology.  This is not to say that democracy is an improper system or somehow defective, it is rather to say that it should not be idealized and universalized to apply everywhere and to all.  As Kirk writes: 

Then let us not worship an abstraction called democracy.  Let us come to understand that democracy may be procedurally useful but does not present a moral ideal.  The democratic political forms are one means for attaining a tolerable civil social order; but those forms are not the only means for enabling human beings to live together in peace.  In some ages and some circumstances, democratic forms may be suitable means for social organization; in other times and conditions, democratic form may not function at all.

Something to ponder as we ponder anew the role of the United States in world affairs.  

Mother's Day as a day of peace

That's part of the history of the people behind the holiday, as this post over at the Pittsford Perennialist points out. Well worth a read on this day that celebrates the love and care that mothers provide their children.

For Greater Glory

Can't wait to see this:



Viva Christo Rey!

Nat Hentoff on the civil liberties situation in New York

The long-time civil rights advocate, pro-life activist, and liberal columnist for the Village Voice takes issue with the fusion of police state and nanny state happening in New York City. A helpful reminder that order does not mean uniformity and oppression.  The first law that any law & order politician should be concerned about enforcing is the Constitution.

Mitt Romney's speech at Liberty University

Appears to have been well-received by Evangelicals, who were the target audience of the speech.  The New York Times reports on Romney's speech here.  As this story from Politico notes, Romney has had trouble connecting to Evangelical voters, but he appears to be making great strides at reaching out to that critical voting bloc.  Social issues are a crucial link that Romney can use to appeal to Evangelical voters, the bulk of whom embrace values that overlap with those of Romney's Mormon faith.

Should churches continue to receive tax-exempt status?

That's the topic of this blog post over at the Acton Institute.  The question of whether churches should be tax-exempt is an old one in our polity, and the post over at the Acton Institute does a good job explaining the different sides in the debate.  Interestingly enough, this issue often crosses partisan and jurisprudential lines, as the quote in the post from Justice Kagan, appointed to the Supreme Court by Pres. Obama, demonstrates.

Brother Charles is headed to Italy!

Brother Charles, who blogs as A Minor Friar, just got a new assignment in the Capuchin Order:  he is heading to Rome to become the order's English language secretary there.  Congratulations, Brother Charles, on your new assignment and bella fortuna in the Eternal City.

George Weigel's commencement address at Benedictine College

Is posted over at National Review Online.  Well worth a read for his measured reflections on the role of faith in the American experiment and the place of Catholicism in American life.  At a time when the Church is under increasing pressure and persecution, both socially and from the current administration, Weigel's call for Catholics to embrace the defense of religious liberty is both timely and timeless.

John Dickinson and American constitutionalism

That's the topic explored in this fascinating post over at The Imaginative Conservative.  Did you know that the Federalist Papers weren't the only defense of our Constitution at the time of its proposal?  American founding father John Dickinson wrote a set of articles, under the pen name Fabius, in defense of the proposed Constitution.  How powerful was Dickinson's argument in favor of the Constitution?  Powerful enough to earn the praise of the Father of Our Country, George Washington.  Read the entire post by George S. Ahern to learn more.  And I now have another book to add to my queue at the local public library!

Mel Bradford on the Founders, religious establishment and the First Amendment

The late Mel Bradford (d. 1994) was one of the leading paleo-conservative scholars of the South, teaching at the University of Dallas until his unexpected death due to complications from surgery.  Bradford's scholarly work was primarily in the field of Southern literature (his writings on Faulkner received particular attention), although he branched out from literary studies to tackle historical writing as well, particularly historical writing relating to the American Founding and the Civil War.  In 1981 Bradford was in the running to be Ronald Reagan's appointee to lead the National Endowment for the Humanities, but due to controversy regarding his views toward Abraham Lincoln, Bradford was passed over and the NEH post went to William Bennett.  Bradford was a friend to several notable paleo-conservative writers, most notably Russell Kirk (who also died in 1994) and the historian and Calhoun scholar Clyde Wilson.  Towards what would be the end of his life, Bradford also was closely associated with historian Forrest McDonald.  And it was MacDonald who had the strongest influence on what would be Bradford's last book, Original Intentions:  On the Making and Ratification of the United States Constitution, sadly now out of print but available in libraries and in the used book marketplace.

Original Intentions is an amazing book, made all the more amazing in that it was written not by a professional historian but by a professional literary scholar.  Yet it is precisely Bradford's mastery of the craft of literary analysis that lends insight to his work.  It is beyond the scope of this blog-post to offer a complete review of the book, but it is worth noting that Bradford's literary background gave him a deep appreciation that the Founders had not one single set of motivations or intentions but multiple ones when they came together to draft a new charter for the young American Republic.  Far from seeking an original intent (in the singular), Bradford sought to introduce his readers to the complexity of the views of the Founders, looking not only at their intellectual influences but on their political, economic and social contexts when examining the forces and ideas that shaped the Founders' work.  This is not simplified history or partisan history, but a serious, conservative approach to examining the perspectives, views and concerns of the men who drafted and ratified the main text of our nation's current Constitution.  And it bears in critical ways the marks of Forrest McDonald's influence on Bradford's later examination of American history.

Nowhere is this more evident than in Bradford's examination of the religious views of the Founders who participated in the Philadelphia Convention, found in chapter 7 of Original Intentions.

Bradford begins his discussion by noting that much of modern Establishment Clause jurisprudence regarding the First Amendment distorts the original purposes behind our Constitution's protections for religious freedom.  The justices of the Supreme Court, Bradford writes, "lost their way" and have been unable to find anew a path to understanding and applying the First Amendment in light of its proper historical and cultural context at the time of its ratification.

Bradford does a very thorough job of identifying the intellectual temptations that can thwart a truly originalist view of the First Amendment's provisions regarding religion.  From the great-man theory of the Constitution, to a selective and ideological reading of the text, to an anachronistic reading of the text in light of modern intellectual concerns, Bradford sees a host of difficulties the navigation of which necessitate a properly contextualized view of the background of the First Amendment.

To provide such a contextualized view, Bradford provides what he calls "a collective portrait" that draws upon evidence usually overlooked when discussing religion and the Constitution.  Bradford gives great weight to the confessional affiliation of most of the Framers of the First Amendment, the ardent Christian faith of many of the Founding generation -- including those who insisted on a Bill of Rights to supplement the original text of the Constitution.  The faith of men often overlooked, like John Jay and James Mason, are important to Bradford as an example of the overall nature of religious views by those men of prominence who are often ignored or relegated to the fringes of historical examination.  The conviction in divine Providence was strong not only among those who, thanks to a later following, figure large in our contemporary imaginations regarding the Founding Era.

Of particular interest in Bradford's study is his detailed overview of the significance of swearing oaths.  The swearing of an oath, and the constitutional requirement that office-holders swear them, was seen as an acknowledgement of the government's subordination to divine authority.  Both Oliver Wolcott of Connecticut and James Iredell of North Carolina (a future Supreme Court justice) argued for this understanding of swearing an oath, with Wolcott going so far as to argue that requiring a religious test for holding office was redundant because the requirement for office-holders to swear an oath was itself a sufficient test in that regard.  To require an additional test of faith was, as Bradford puts it, "a pious redundancy."

Bradford brings his skills as a literary critic to bear in his discussion of the use of the term "establishment" in the First Amendment.  Far from being a term of indefinite or general meaning, Bradford demonstrates that the word was a term of art with a very specific context and usage in 18th century English law, a law with which the Framers of the First Amendment were quite familiar.  This usage was concerned not so much with religious activity influencing the government but with the government's overt sanctioning of specific religious institutions.  Combined with this technical reading of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, Bradford notes, is the jurisdictional language at the beginning of the Amendment, prohibiting the federal government from addressing religion in the states through congressional action.  What the Framers meant the Establishment Clause to do was, quite simply, prevent the creation of a national church with the power to enforce doctrine and demand direct support through taxation.  As Bradford writes,

In 1789 a religious establishment was, in Anglo-American parlance, sensu stricto, an institution able (with the assistance of government) to promulgate a creed or dogma, to require official assent to that doctrine, to collect rates or some other tax in support of that religion, and to require, at least from time to time, attendance at worship.  According to the limits of the definition, all religious activity not comprehended under this list of characteristics but encouraged or supported by the state or conducted under its auspices signified nothing concerning an establishment.  Neither would the fact that a particular activity not sectarian in purpose happened to benefit one denomination more than another.  

Far from seeking to curtail religion, the push towards limitation of religious establishment at the national level sought to promote both tolerance and piety, seeking to avoid "the repetition of sectarian animosity among Christians living on these shores," an animosity that "would ultimately undermine the status of religion among us."  Bradford details quite effectively that the purpose behind the First Amendment was not to hobble or limit religion -- or even less to abolish it -- but rather was to protect and nurture it, even when it existed in quasi-established form in the states.

Thus, while insisting on precluding a national establishment of religion, the Framers of the First Amendment rejected Madison's call for a limitation on state establishments. Let the states, informed by the specific cultures and the specific needs of their own circumstances determine the role that religion would play in their own polities.  And even Madison agreed that the prohibition of a national establishment "should not prevent the federal government from giving nondiscriminatory assistance to religion, as long as the assistance is incidental to the performance of a power delegated to the government."

Far from seeking to overturn an existing consensus within American society, the First Amendment was designed, as far as its provisions concerning religion are concerned, to constitutionalize an already existing relationship between religion and the government.  The point of the First Amendment was not and is not to secularize America or to abolish Christianity from the public square.  Rather, those men who framed the First Amendment sought to protect a tolerant but identifiably Christian culture from government overreach at the federal level.

In light of this understanding, at the end of his discussion Bradford takes aim on the judicial doctrine of incorporation, whereby provisions of the Bill of Rights are imposed upon the states through the 14th Amendment.  Bradford sees the doctrine of incorporation as problematic, a position that has at least some merit in light of the overall context of the First Amendment and its express jurisdictional limitation on the authority of Congress.  While it is highly unlikely, to say the least, that the Supreme Court will revisit whether the First Amendment can legitimately be incorporated against the states, there is no question that the First Amendment as originally understood applied only to the federal government and not to the states in their separate & individual capacities.