Interestingly enough, that quote from Locke's Second Treatise on Civil Government (1689, chapter 11) is in fact not Locke's words, but quoted by Locke in a footnote: for Richard Hooker's Of the Lawes of Ecclesiastical Politie (1594-97).
Hooker, writing on church government ("ecclesiastical polity"), mentions God and Scripture; Locke in his own text, adapting Hooker's general principles of a government of laws-not-men to the issue of civil government, does not mention God or Scripture at all, but refers to "promulgated standing laws, and known authorized judges". The Founders agreed with Locke that the history of legal precedent, "promulgated laws", should stand as the legal foundation of the new Republic, Hooker's biblical authority had nothing to do with it.
People who quote the passage as if Locke rather than Hooker wrote it are presenting a distorted image of how Locke influenced the founders. A more useful Locke piece would be the
Letter Concerning Toleration (1689) in which he aimed to "distinguish exactly the business of civil government from that of religion" and advocated a proliferation of different religious beliefs--though not going so far as to include atheism or Roman Catholicism as within the range of tolerability; he
may eventually have changed his mind about the atheists, but the Catholics remained beyond his pale.
His influence on the authors of the Constitution doesn't mean they were against Catholics too: it means what they accepted, once again, was Locke's general principle that church and government have separate functions and must be considered separate institutions and not interfere with each other.
This is why Hooker's use of the Bible, useful for church government, would not be useful for civil government, and why the Founders took Locke's position to the radical, but logical conclusion of turning his administrative separation of church and state into a full-scale and irrevocable divorce. Too bad Carson and other American theocrats can't understand that but run around cherry-picking footnotes in order to contradict it.
No comments:
Post a Comment