The Tufts Federalist Society held a debate on Sept. 19 discussing the rise of Christian nationalism nationwide and whether the U.S. was founded as a secular nation. Dr. Vincent Muñoz, a professor of political science and law at the University of Notre Dame, and Dr. Paul Polgar, a history lecturer at Tufts, discussed the historical context of the founding of the U.S., the role of religion in public life and the ever-evolving concept of separation of church and state. The conversation was moderated by Trent Bunker, one of the society’s presidents.
Polgar argued that, to determine whether America was founded as a secular nation, one must first consider the historical context of the U.S.’ founding. He emphasized that recognizing the emergence of the need for separation of church and state during the Enlightenment period is essential for understanding the ideological foundations of the U.S.
“Enlightenment ideas … in so many ways come out of a response to church and state being connected for millenia in Europe,” Polgar said.
Polgar also recognized the ways in which early government policies and documents, such as the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776, represented such Enlightenment ideals while still reflecting the religious undertones of early American society.
“[The Pennsylvania Constitution] reflects a lot of these Enlightenment and non-overtly religious ideals. It also argues for freedom of religion: the right to worship or not. But if you look at that document, it also says that office-holders are required to affirm a belief in God and a belief in the Old and the New Testaments,” Polgar added.
When asked about the role of religion in public life, Muñoz highlighted the importance of morality in society. He suggested that the founders viewed religion as a means to foster morality among the governed.
“How did people become moral? The founders agreed to religion as a great aid to a cultivation of morality,” Muñoz said.
After establishing that religion was part of the key to morality in the founding era of the U.S., Muñoz questioned the necessity of ties between religion and government.
“Does religion need the help of government?” he asked.
To answer this question, Muñoz described the relationship between religion and state, explaining how government funding and support leads to religion having increased power within a country which can be wielded in anti-libertarian ways. He noted that this notion rings as true in American society today as it did when the founders were crafting the primary principles of the nation.
“Whoever pays ultimately controls. The argument was, if the state is funding religion, then religious officials are going to line up, and they’re going to try to control the state,” Muñoz said. “They’re going to try to do what public-sector unions do. They’re going to be anti-competitive. They’re going to start licensing ministers just like we license schools. It’s the same argument we have today.”
Building on this relational notion of religion and state, Bunker inquired into the contemporary relevance of the concept of the “wall of separation,” a metaphor for the separation between church and state, which was most popularized by Thomas Jefferson.
Polgar noted that the First Amendment allows for the concept of the separation of church and state to evolve, reflecting societal changes over time.
“The First Amendment gives this structure to change that interpretation over time to fit with changing context. It is worth pointing out that what separation of church and state means is very different in 1790 than in 1990. Even if the principles are still there, the interpretation and the application of it is not the same,” Pogar said.
To develop the foundations and modern applications of the “wall of separation,” Muñoz examined the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, which the Supreme Court has referenced in its rulings on the separation of church and state. He noted a general consensus in favor of separation of church and state but pointed out the discrepancies that arise in interpreting what that separation actually entails.
“What is the law of separation? Even in [Everson v. Board of Education], it was a 5-4 decision. Everyone agreed with the wall of separation; they just disagreed with what the wall meant in the case,” Muñoz said.
After the event, Nicholas Rishi, the Federalist Society’s vice president, spoke with the Daily about the club’s motivations for hosting the discussion.
“There’s a rise in Christian nationalism on the right, and this is leading to an equal pushback on the left. I think it’s an important conversation, and a conversation that is not really being had on campus or in class on campus, and so we sought to provide a space for it,” Rishi explained.
