Greatest American Treasure

The Pearl of Great Price

The True Treasure of the United States of America

A Quest Journey of Cosmic Dimensions

All that is implied by the three-part title to this work is embodied in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. The remainder of this text is offered to explain how and why.

Amendment 1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I believe that the true treasure, the change of cosmic dimensions, is in the first phrase:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

For 1,450 years, from 340 to 1790, European law supported European traditions, and the central tradition of European civilization was the Roman Catholic religion. This was the Christian religion and the only Christian religion until about 1520, when the Protestant Movement entailed rebellion by many Christians against corrupt church practices and the rigid authoritarian rule of Rome. Although people in city states and the countryside were falling away from the leadership of Rome, none of them would have said that they were leaving the Christian religion. Indeed, it is telling even in our current times that the fundamentalist Protestant "Christians" do not consider the Catholic Church to be Christian. Protestant theologians rarely or never claimed to be in opposition to the Christian religion. They insisted that they were determined to return to the true teaching of Christ, and to be real Christians, which required a carefully defined separation from the intractable corruption of the ancient and sinful city of Rome.

Many would argue, including myself, that from a political and legal viewpoint this provision is almost trivial in what the language means legally. It is essentially a reference to the legal principle that we call "separation of church and state." This principle is widely misunderstood as implying that the conduct of the state should not and will not be complicated by moral considerations. Such a principle is inherently ridiculous. Of course the state is to be guided by ethical standards and the moral principles supported by the population. This has come to be referenced in law as "community standards" whenever the courts are called upon to render a decision as to whether an agency of government is improperly imposing a religious belief on the people. The courts apply known community standards of morality and ethics to any type of behavior that is either required or forbidden by law. The central concept, which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court, is that the government does not impose moral standards on the society or the culture, the law is expected to support or be compatible with the moral standards that are measurable in the community.

The enforcement of a proper separation of church and state is accomplished as simply as a matter of accounting practice. So long as the civil authority uses its power of taxation only to support civil government and civil projects, the separation is sufficiently protected. To effectively observe the commitment to "make no law respecting an establishment of religion" all that needs to be maintained is that accounting separation. The religious organizations solicit and accept donations for religious exercises and religious projects; and the state imposes taxes to pay for the civil projects approved by the populace. To cope with any more subtle or complex issue that may arise where it appears that the government might be supporting a religious institution, the guide provided by judicial decisions, including those of the Supreme Court, is: "the government may not favor one religion over another, and the government may not favor religion over no religion."

This principle of separation of church and state, also described as "freedom of religion," is generally perceived as a doctrine or concept in "political science" or a legal principle that is an essential element of true democracy. This common viewpoint implies that these ideas belong in the academic fields of political science and law, and in the public school class we know as "social studies" or "civics." But I will argue that the meaning of this legal concept is cosmic in its scope and impact, and that it defines a radical break with the past and a new principle, what could be suitably identified as a "new order of the ages." It is actually a break with the Ten Commandments and serves as the foundation of a new human civilization. Let me explain.

Let's begin with the New Testament and a challenging passage attributed to Jesus: "Do not think I have come to send peace upon the earth; I have come to bring a sword, not peace. For I have come to set a man at variance with his father, and a daughter with her mother, … and a man's enemies will be those of his own household." (Matthew 10: 34-36) Why would the benevolent teaching of Jesus put children "at variance" with their parents? Jesus did not overturn the Ten Commandments. He affirmed the ancient commandments, saying that he did not come to reject the law but to add to it. Therefore the Fourth Commandment: Honor thy mother and thy father, was still valid. But what exactly does it mean to "honor" your parents? It cannot be defined as to "obey" ones parents because we all leave the house of our parents and make a home of our own. We question our parent's habits, decisions and beliefs. And children become adults, adults whose beliefs are different from their parents, in some cases radically different from their parents. People leave churches and other religious institutions and organizations. How often does one hear from a friend or acquaintance: "I went to church with my parents but when I grew up and lost all interest in organized religion. It doesn't make sense to me." We might just as often hear the opposite: "My parents were both college professors and we never went to church or talked about God. But I believe in the story of Jesus and everything he did. I hope to live my life according to the teaching of Jesus and I find solace in the rituals of the church."

For most Americans, stories of religious beliefs evolving over a lifetime, of people who say they are not religious but they are "spiritual" is a familiar experience. We meet people who meditate and people who claim to have had a religious or "paranormal" experience or have a story of an event that we call "miraculous." We do not necessarily "inherit" our religion. Apparently this has been the way for Americans long enough that we have lost touch with how different we are from the 7,000 generations that lived before 1790 (if we count a generation as 20 years). Think of the latin root of our English word "father." It is "pater," and one's fatherland or country is "patria" or "patriam." To love one's country is to be "patriotic" and our social system is called "patrilineal" or "patriarchal," because traditionally the father is the head of the family and the person who gives the family and its children their name. Do we see now why Jesus said his teaching would put a child at variance with his or her parents? It is because Jesus did not teach only morality or moral philosophy. He taught science, including social science and the political science of equality and democracy. His teaching implied that old beliefs might no longer be appropriate, that new knowledge can discredit the beliefs of the past. When a new generation formulates its belief system on new knowledge, the children will no longer adhere to the old belief systems of their ancestors. They can reject beliefs about the ultimate purpose of life, and the meaning of death. They can reject old definitions of sinful behavior and adopt new moral precepts. They can rewrite history and rewrite the laws that are intended to protect society from crime and dispense justice to those who are wronged or treated unfairly. This is familiar to us, consistent with the statement attributed to Thomas Jefferson that a healthy society should have a revolution every forty years. He did not mean a revolutionary war every forty years, but a revolution in knowledge and social life. Note that every forty years would be every two generations, suggesting that the beliefs of a generation of adults would likely be different, if people are free, from the beliefs of their grandparents. All this means, inescapably, that children in a free society can and do reject the religious beliefs of their grandparents. This does not mean they reject basic and universal concepts of justice and fairness in human civilization. It means the children may reject rituals and formulas for what is socially acceptable, for what is a personal or private matter and what should be subject to community regulation.

All this, including the rejection of the concept of "nobility" and the inheritance of class status, is all supported by that First Amendment. What freedom could be so basic and so influential over a society than that one does not have to accept and perpetuate the religion of their ancestors. Remember, it was only a few centuries back that one who rejected the state-sponsored religion, the ancestor-sponsored religion, was found guilty of a crime and punished by a painful execution. In America and Europe in 1790 we changed from death to those who disagree to freedom for those who disagree. The reason the First Amendment authorizes and protects a social change that is cosmic in scope, and a change in human conduct that redefines human civilization, is because it supports the right of children to reject the beliefs of their parents and ancestors. The First Amendment was viewed by most of the people of 1790 as a law that protects freedom of religion. That it is. But the purpose and effect of the First Amendment was and is to make the new American society safe for science. The only way a society can be safe for science is when religious beliefs are defined legally as a personal choice. In a real democracy there is no institution that defines "God" or "religion" or "religious" or "spiritual" as a matter of law. This is a change in human thought and practice that amounts to a new beginning. That's why the canon of the Bible was divided into an Old Testament and a New Testament, because Jesus set a father at variance with his son. And in 1790, the founders of the United States of America proposed that the new country, deliberately planned and designed to be truly separate from its European heritage, referred to America as a "new order of the ages." In a real democracy, children have rights, and that includes the right to change everything.

The impact of the First Amendment is not only political and legal; it is psychological and sociological and scientific. It changes the roles of religion and science in civilization and implies a cosmic change in the life of human society. With the First Amendment religion is a personal choice and the laws that govern the public conduct and relationships of the people will be guided by science. Some Americans talk and act like they want to repeal the First Amendment. The revolution of the First Amendment is ongoing and it still needs to be defended. It is the greatest moral value we have. If it is lost, America is lost.