Religion & Law

HBO's "John Adams"

By Rick Garnett

Last night, I watched the first episode -- "Join or Die" -- of the HBO mini-series, "John Adams."  (The series is based on the popular David McCullough biography.)   Paul Giamatti -- an excellent actor, in my view -- plays Adams, and Laura Linney plays Abigail Adams.  I've been looking forward to the series ever since I first heard about it and, so far, I'm not disappointed.

Last night's episode focused on Adams's role as a defense lawyer for British soldiers charged in connection with the 1770 Boston Massacre.  There were more than enough stirring "rule of law" and "importance of zealous counsel for the accused" moments to justify recommending the episode to first-year law students.  The episode ended with a dramatic speech on "liberty" by Adams (in a church), and with his departure for (I gather) the First Continental Congress.   So far, the show seems to be doing a good job of highlighting Adams's struggle to keep-in-balance his "conservative" (that is, his unease-with-revolution) instincts with his "liberty" commitments.  I'm looking forward to more! 

Of particular interest to MOJ readers, in connection with John Adams, might be this essay, by John Witte, which compares the views of Adams and Jefferson on religion.

At precisely the same time that Jefferson was at work defending his 1779 Bill for the Establishment of Religious Freedom for Virginia, John Adams was at work drafting the Massachusetts Constitution. ?It can no longer be called in question,? he wrote, that ?authority in magistrates and obedience of citizens can be grounded on reason, morality, and the Christian religion,? without succumbing to ?the monkery of priests or the knavery of politicians.? It also could no longer be called into question that peace and justice required the state to guarantee religious liberty to all. The best constitutional formula to attain these two goals, Adams concluded, is for the state to balance the freedom of many private religions with the establishment of one public religion.

On the one hand, every society must protect a plurality of peaceable private religions?the rights of which are limited only by the parallel rights of other religions and the duties of the established public religion. The notion that a state could coerce all persons into adherence to a common public religion was for Adams a philosophical fiction. Persons would make their own private judgments in matters of faith. Any attempt to coerce their consciences would only breed hypocrisy and resentment.

Moreover, the maintenance of religious plurality was essential for the protection of civil society and civil liberties. ?Checks and balances, Jefferson,? Adams later wrote to his friend at Monticello, ?are our only Security, for the progress of Mind, as well as the Security of Body. Every Species of Christians would persecute Deists, as either Sect would persecute another, if it had unchecked and unbalanced Power. Nay, the Deists would persecute Christians, and Atheists would persecute Deists, with as unrelenting Cruelty, as any Christians would persecute them or one another. Know thyself, Human nature!?

Full post as published by Mirror of Justice on March 17, 2008 (boomark / email).