  |
Separation of Church & State
|
|
|
Let’s explore the notion that American government and society are, or should be, based on the Bible and that the teachings of the Bible should be sponsored by government institutions. As I said in the introduction to this book, these comments are exiled to appendices, since they are merely other people’s opinion and cannot be objectively tested. Perhaps they will come in handy when arguing the point with your friends, politicians, and editorial columns.
 No inference can legitimately be made that anything in these appendices endorses any restriction on the free exercise of religion by any individual or group (freedom of thought and freedom of action within the law); but in order to guarantee this freedom of thought, no governmental interference can be tolerated. Any legal restrictions on the actions of any religious group must also be applicable to the population as a whole. Law may regulate action but not thought.
Many public figures say that government support of these commandments (Ex 20:3-12; Deut 5:7-16) doesn’t conflict with the proper roles of church and state. Is that true?
The first four commandments have no social utility. They apply only to religious observances. As U.S. laws, they would all violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The other commandments are standards of civilized behavior which need no divine insight or command to establish their desirability. They were probably included because they codified existing social standards, not because they were new or different ideas at the time. Even so, how useful are they as standards of modern, civilized behavior?
The First Commandment violates our free exercise of religion. As a law, it would violate the First Amendment to the Constitution.
I. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
The Second Commandment codifies religious bigotry, it punishes the innocent, and it violates our free exercise of religion. It would also violate the generally accepted principle of free artistic expression, a debatable form of free speech. As a law, it would violate the First, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
II. "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth, Thou shalt not bow down thyself to [the graven images], nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third an fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments."
The Third Commandment violates our right to free speech. As a law, it would violate the First Amendment to the Constitution.
III. "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain."
The Fourth Commandment requires that everyone take Saturday off every week, but modern society couldn’t function if everyone took the same day off. Think fire fighting, police, medicine, military, utilities, traffic signals…televised church services. Even pious Christians violate this by observing Sunday as the sabbath. (Chapter 26) There are differences in the two versions in brackets below. This commandment established a religious observance. As a statute, it would violate the First Amendment.
IV. "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou. [And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day. (Deut)] [For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. (Ex)]"
The Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Commandments don’t define "kill," "adultery," or "steal" well enough to be used as standards of behavior much less legal specifications. Does "kill" include judicial punishment? self-defense? murder only? Do we apply the complicated, contradictory Biblical standards of adultery? (Chapter 19) The ambiguity of these commandments, if enacted as statutes, would undoubtedly violate the Constitution.
V. "Thou shalt not kill."
VI. "Thou shalt not commit adultery."
VII. "Thou shalt not steal."
The Eighth Commandment is ethnocentric in that it forbids false witness only against one’s associates, which originally meant fellow Hebrews. This violates the Fourteenth Amendment.
VIII. "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour."
The Ninth Commandment is a blatant violation of the fundamental tenets of law in a free society-it regulates thought, not behavior. There are differences in the two versions in brackets below. If enacted as a statute, it would undoubtedly violate the Constitution.
IX. "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, [nor his field (Deut)] thou shalt not [covet (Ex)] [desire (Deut)] thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s."
The Tenth Commandment may seem highly desirable; but it overlooks things like child abuse, neglect, and other acts of unworthy parents. It also says that the reason for the commandment as a religious observance, a violation of the First Amendment if enacted into law.
X. "Honour thy father and thy mother, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee; that thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with thee, in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee."
It’s clear that the commandments were intended mainly to enforce the worship of the Hebrew God, with a few social standards thrown in to enhance the clergy’s political power by giving them some authority over secular behavior. There is nothing in these commandments which can be used as a unique standard for the foundation of a free society. Indeed, most of the commandments would violate the U.S. Constitution if they were enacted into law.
Besides, God and the Patriarchs in the Old Testament violated every one of them. Why should Americans think they can do any better?
|
|
|
 |
All laws in the United States are subservient to the Constitution, the most direct statement of the principles of American society. It was a unique attempt by the citizens and the States to specify the limits, functions, and authorities of a Federal Government in order to protect their own liberties. Since Biblical literalists have played fast and loose with the real meaning of this, the second most important document ever written, let’s clearly understand what the Constitution says.
Two years before the First Amendment’s freedom of religion and establishment clauses were drafted, Article 6, Section 3, clearly mandated that government authority was not instituted on the basis of religion. This was not considered a strong enough guarantee, so the First Amendment was enacted to make it absolutely clear. These men said what they meant and meant what they said.
The prohibition of a religious test for public office.
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several State legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." (U.S. Constitution, Article 6, Section 3, 1788)
The establishment and freedom of religion.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…" (U.S. Constitution, Amendment 1, 1791)
Notice that the words "national" or "a national" do not appear before the word "religion." It was specifically excluded by the conference committee in 1789. If "religion" did mean national religion, then "the free exercise thereof" clause would be nonsense since "thereof" refers to "religion." Go ahead, substitute those words and see if it doesn’t turn into nonsense. Therefore, the establishment clause forbids the government from making any law respecting the establishment of religion in general terms (either any particular religion or religion in general) not just a national religion.
Does this mean that no law can prohibit a religious practice or rite? No. The law applies whether a forbidden act is religious or not. Mormons may not practice polygamy, and Indians [Native Americans, Amerinds, American Aboriginals…] may not smoke peyote legally. I expect Meso-American human sacrifice and various-societies’ cannibalism would not survive a court test either. Voodoo rites and other animal butcherings have also been questioned. Jefferson wrote that the
"…legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions…" (Jefferson, Autobiography, 510)
One might think that, because of their publicly demonstrated patriotic fervor, Fundamentalists would have an unbroken loyalty to the U.S. Constitution. This is not necessarily so. Consider the following:
"Any law which contradicts biblical revelation is illegitimate…The higher law is clearly expressed in God’s revelation as ultimately found in the Bible…The higher law values of the Declaration [of Independence] are incorporated into the Constitution by its preamble. If we recognize that the Constitution presupposes the Declaration and the higher, fundamental law to which the Declaration witnessed, then we will understand the Constitution…If we see the Constitution as standing alone, and forget or deny that it presupposes the Declaration, we will misunderstand the Constitution." (Whitehead, Revolution, 74-75)
The only interpretation I can give is that Whitehead considers the First Amendment a misunderstanding and, therefore, illegitimate. He believes the words of the First Amendment should be changed to read:
"The federal government shall make no law having anything to do with supporting a national denominational church, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion." (Whitehead, Revolution, 98)
First, that’s not what the First Amendment says or was meant to say. Second, this would be a calamitous revision to the Constitution. The resulting ambiguity would eventually lead to civil war or tyranny.
|
|
|
|
The following examples demonstrate that the separation of church and state has been clearly established by the Courts.
"Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territories which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation. Religious freedom is guaranteed everywhere…The word religion is not defined in the Constitution. We must go elsewhere, therefore, to ascertain its meaning, and nowhere more appropriately, we think, than to the history of the times in the midst of which the provision was adopted…[President Jefferson then defined the religion clauses in terms of a ‘wall of separation between church & State.’]…Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions…in violation of social duties or subversive of good order." (Reynolds, 98 U.S. 162 (1879))
"The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation.’" (Everson, 330 U.S. 15 (1947))
"We have staked the very existence of our country on the faith that complete separation between the state and religion is best for the state and best for religion." (Everson, 330 U.S. 59 (1947) & McCollum, 333 U.S. 232 (1948))
"The state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them…It is not the business of government in our nation to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine…" (Burstyn, 343 U.S. 505 (1952))
"It is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people…." (Engel, 370 U.S. 425 (1962))
"Religious exercises, required by the States [are] in violation of the command of the First Amendment that the Government maintain strict neutrality…the concept of neutrality…does not permit a State to require a religious exercise even with the consent of the majority of those affected…." Abington, 374 U.S. 225-226 (1963).
"There is and can be no doubt that the First Amendment does not permit the State to require that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma. (Epperson, 393 U.S. 106 (1968))
|
|
|
|
There is no support for the claim that the founding fathers intended that American society be based on the Bible or a "Judeo-Christian ethic." The God in the Declaration of Independence was more of a universally palatable deity — God as found in nature — not the God of the Bible (see Appendix B).
Other notes show that the new government and its constitution explicitly avoided any tie-in with any religion or church. In order to clearly understand this, read the introductory paragraph to the Declaration of Independence. "…to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them…"
They signed up to the laws of nature and nature’s God. No Bible, no Christ, no Buddha, no ancestors, no mystery, no magic — just nature.
|
|
|
|
Although Washington was clearly a devout Christian, he wanted the new government to have no truck with religion, any religion.
"…the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation respecting religion from the [Constitution] of our country. 1789 (Washington, Programs, 45)
"…no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution." 1789 (Washington, Writings, 30:321)
|
|
|
|
In the January 3, 1797 Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and subjects of Tripoli of Barbary, John Adams included in this law of the land the statement that,
"The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion…"
|
|
|
|
|
Jefferson believed in the separation of church and state as the main protection for free men in their safety and freedom of opinion as well as the injustice of being forced to pay for religious opinions they disagreed with.
"…the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions…thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." 1802 (Jefferson, Autobiography, 510)
"That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical… that our civil rights have no dependance on our religious opinions…that the opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction…all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion…" 1779 (Jefferson, Papers, 2:545-546)
"…this loathsome combination of church and state…" 1815 (Jefferson, Extracts, 364)
In a letter to Rev. Samuel Miller, Jefferson further illuminated his thinking on the separation of church and state.
"I consider the government of the U.S. as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment, or free exercise, of religion, but from that also which reserved to the states the powers not delegated to the U.S. Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the general government…I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct it’s exercises, it’s discipline, or it’s doctrines; nor of the religious societies that the general government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them…and this right can never be safer than in their own hands, where the constitution has deposited it…[Reason] tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the U.S. and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents." 1808 (Jefferson, Autobiography, 1186-1187)
In a letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, Jefferson made it abundantly clear that British common law (upon which American law is founded) was not based on either the Bible or Christianity and that the tendency to think so has resulted in bad government.
"The truth is that Christianity and Newtonianism…are protected under the wings of the common law from the dominion of other sects, but not erected into dominion over them. [He cites an analogy.] The common law protects both opinions, but enacts neither into law." 1808 (Jefferson, Autobiography, 1326)
"In truth, the alliance between Church and State in England has ever made their judges accomplices in the frauds of the clergy; and even bolder than they are." 1808 (Jefferson, Autobiography, 1328)
|
|
|
|
Jefferson wrote an enlightening sentiment about the separation between church & state in a famous letter to a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut.
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibition the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. [italics mine] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem." 1802 (Jefferson, Autobiography, 510)
|
|
|
|
This statute was one of the things Jefferson was most proud of, and he specified that this sentiment be inscribed on his tombstone.
"Here was buried Thomas Jefferson: Author of the Declaration of American Independence, of the Statute of Virginia for religious freedom, & Father of the University of Virginia.." 1826 (Jefferson, Autobiography, 706)
"I. WHEREAS Well aware that the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds; Almighty God hath created the mind free; and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint; [the lined-out phrases are not in the enacted version]
"that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do;
"that the impious presumptions of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endevouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time;
"that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical;
"that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind;
"that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry;
"that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of these privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow-citizens he has a natural right;
"that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours an emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it;
"that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way;
"that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinions, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own;
"that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order;
"and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them:
"II. Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief;
"but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
"III. And though we well know that this Assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act to be irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right." 1786 (Jefferson, Autobiography, 346-348)
Just to be sure we know that this statute was meant to protect us from the tyranny of any single religious viewpoint, Jefferson penned the following clear justification for its universal application (although there is no record in the Journal of this amendment):
"Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the words ‘Jesus Christ,’ so that it should read, ‘a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion.’ The insertion was rejected by a great majority in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination." (Jefferson, Papers, 2:552)
|
|
|
|
|
Madison was no fan of the clergy, and he wanted to avoid its tyranny by assuring that they wouldn’t gain a foothold in the new country.
"…I have nothing to brag of as to the State and Liberty of my Country. Poverty and Luxury prevail among all sorts: Pride ignorance and Knavery among the Priesthood and Vice and Wickedness among the Laity. This is bad enough But It is not the worst I have to tell you. That diabolical Hell conceived principle of persecution rages among some and to their eternal Infamy the Clergy can furnish their Quota of Imps for such business. This vexes me the most of any thing whatever. There are at this time in the adjacent County not less than 5 or 6 well meaning men in close Gaol for publishing their religious Sentiments which in the main are very orthodox. I have neither patience to hear talk or think of any thing relative to this matter, for I have squabbled and scolded abused and ridiculed so long about it…that I am without common patience. So…pity me and pray for Liberty of Conscience…" 1774 (Madison, Papers, 1:106)
Madison’s attitude became a lot more optimistic after the adoption of the principle of the separation of church and state.
"The Civil [Government]…functions with complete success; whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State. 1819 (Madison, Writings, 8:432)
Madison said that the freedom of religion and freedom from religion in government were important to liberty and the constitution.
"…all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience…"1776 (Madison, Papers, 1:175)
"The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man…it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much, soon to forget it…During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution…If Religion be not within the cognizance of Civil Government, how can its legal establishment be said to be necessary to Civil Government? What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. 1785 (Madison, Papers, 8:299-302)
"The general government is proscribed from the interfering, in any manner whatever, in matters respecting religion." 1790 (Madison, Papers, 13:16)
"And may I not be allowed to…read in the character of the American people, in their devotion to true liberty and to the Constitution which is the palladium…a Government which watches over…the equal interdict against encroachments and compacts between religion and the state." 1816 (Madison, Compilation, 1:565)
"Notwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of [religious] liberty…there remains…a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between [Government] & Religion neither can be duly supported. Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such is its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded against…Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance." 1822 (Madison, Writings, 9:101-102)
"Here the separation between the authority of human laws, and the natural rights of Man excepted from the grant on which all political authority is founded…This act is a true standard of Religious liberty: its principle the great barrier agst usurpations on the rights of conscience. As long as it is respected & no longer, these will be safe. Every provision for them short of this principle, will be found to leave crevices at least thro’ which bigotry may introduce persecution; a monster, that feeding & thriving on its own venom, gradually swells to a size and strength overwhelming all laws divine & human." (Madison, WMQ, 1946, 3:554,555)
"Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history." (Madison, WMQ, 1946, 3:555)
"But besides the danger of a direct mixture of Religion & civil Government…" (Madison, WMQ, 1946, 3:556)
"Is the appointment of [tax-paid] Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure priinciple of religious freedom? Instrictness the answer on both points must be in the negative." (Madison, WMQ, 1946, 3:558)
"[Religion] is, for the honor of America, perfectly free and unshackled. The government has no jurisdiction over it." 1788 (Madison, Papers, 1:105)
Madison acted on his principles.
"I now [veto] the bill [incorporating an Episcopal church]…Because the bill exceeds the rightful authority to which governments are limited by the essential distinction between civil and religious functions, and violates in particular the article of the Constitution of the United States which declares that "Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment." 1811 (Madison, Writings, 8:132)
"I now [veto the bill]…Because the bill in reserving a certain parcel of land of the United States for the use of said Baptist Church comprises a principle and precedent for the appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that "Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment." 1811 (Madison, Writings, 8:133)
|
|
|
|
The following was one of Madison’s major writings about the separation of church & state. His sentiments are clear and eloquent.
"We the subscribers, citizens of the said Commonwealth, having taken into serious consideration, a Bill printed by order of the last Session of General Assembly, entitled ‘A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion,’ an conceiving that the same if finally armed with the sanctions of a law, will be a dangerous abuse of power, are bound as faithful members of a free state to remonstrate against it, and to declare the reasons by which we are determined. We remonstrate against the said bill,
1. BECAUSE, We hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and degree of obligation, to the claims of civil society. Before any man can be considered as a member of civil society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe: And if a member of civil society, who enters into any subordinate association, must always do it with a reservation of his duty of the general authority; much more must every man who becomes a member of any particular civil society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of religion, no mans right is abridged by the institution of civil society and that religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.
2. BECAUSE, If religion be exempt from the authority of the society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and viceregents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: It is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power may be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great barrier which defends the rights of the people. The rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are tyrants. The people who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.
3. BECAUSE, It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late revolution. The freemen of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much, soon to forget it. Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish, with the same ease, any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?
4. BECAUSE, The Bill violates that equality which ought to be the basis of every law, and which is more indispensable, in proportion as the validity or expediency of any law is more liable to be impeached. If "all men are by nature equally free and independent," all men are to be considered as entering into society on equal conditions; as relinquishing no more, and therefore retaining no less, one than another, of their natural rights. Above all are they to be considered as retaining an "equal title to the free exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience. "Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered. As the Bill violates equality by subjecting some to peculiar burdens, so it violates the same principle, by granting to others peculiar exemptions. Are the Quakers and Menonists the only sects who think a compulsive support of their religions unnecessary an unwarrantable? Can their piety alone be intrusted with the care of public worship? Ought their religions to be endowed above all others with extraordinary privileges by which proselytes may be enticed from all others? We think too favorably of the justice and good sense of these denominations to believe that they either covet pre-eminencies over their fellow citizens or that they will be seduced by them from the common opposition to the measure.
5. BECAUSE, The Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent judge of religious truth; or that he may employ religion as an engine of civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation.
6. BECAUSE, The establishment proposed by the Bill is not requisite for the support of the Christian religion. To say that it is, is a contradiction of the Christian religion itself, for every page of it disavows a dependence on the powers of this world: it is a contradiction to fact; for it is known that this religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them, and not only during the period of miraculous aid, but long after it had been left to its own evidence and the ordinary care of Providence. Nay, it is a contradiction in terms; for a religion not invented by human policy, must have pre-existed and been supported, before it was established by human policy. It is moreover to weaken in those who profess this religion a pious confidence in its innate excellence and the patronage of its Author; and to foster in those who still reject it, a suspicion that its friends are too conscious of its fallacies to trust it to its own merits.
7. BECAUSE, Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. Enquire of the teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest lustre; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its incorporation with civil policy. Propose a restoration of this primitive state in which its teachers depended on the voluntary rewards of their flocks, many of them predict its downfall. On which side ought their testimony of have greatest weight, when for or when against their interest?
8. BECAUSE, The establishment in question is not necessary for the support of civil government. If it be urged as necessary for the support of civil government only as it is a means of supporting religion, and it be not necessary for the latter purpose, it cannot be necessary for the former. If religion be not within the cognizance of civil government how can its legal establishment be said to be necessary to civil government? What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny, in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government instituted to secure and perpetuate it needs them not. Such a government will be best supported by protecting every citizen in the enjoyment of his religion with the same equal hand which protects his person and his property; by neither invading the equal rights of any sect, nor suffering any sect to invade those of another.
9. BECAUSE, The proposed establishment is a departure from that generous policy, which, offering an asylum to the persecuted and oppressed of every nation and religion, promised a lustre to our country, and an accession to the number of its citizens. What a melancholy mark is the Bill of sudden degeneracy? Instead of holding forth an asylum to the persecuted, it is itself a signal of persecution. It degrades from the equal rank of citizens all those whose opinions in religion do not bend to those of the legislative authority. Distant as it may be in its present form from the Inquisition, it differs from it only in degree. The one is the first step, the other the last in the career of intolerance. The magnanimous sufferer under this cruel scourge in foreign regions, must view the Bill as a beacon on our coast, warning him to seek some other haven, where liberty and philanthropy in their due extent, may offer a more certain repose from his troubles.
10. BECAUSE, It will have a like tendency to banish our citizens. The allurements presented by other situations are every day thinning their number. To superadd a fresh motive to emigration by revoking the liberty which they now enjoy, would be the same species of folly which has dishonoured and depopulated flourishing kingdoms.
11. BECAUSE, It will destroy that moderation and harmony which the forbearance of our laws to intermeddle with religion has produced among its several sects. Torrents of blood have been spilt in the old world, by vain attempts of the secular arm, to extinguish religious discord, by proscribing all difference in religious opinions. Time has at length revealed the true remedy. Every relaxation of narrow and rigorous policy, wherever it has been tried, has been found to assuage the disease. The American theatre has exhibited proofs that equal and compleat liberty, if it does not wholly eradicate it, sufficiently destroys its malignant influence on the health and prosperity of the state. If with the salutary effects of this system under our own eyes, we begin to contract the bounds of religious freedom, we know no name that will too severely reproach our folly. At least let warning be taken at the first fruits of the threatened innovation. The very appearance of the Bill has transformed that "Christian forbearance, love and charity," which of late mutually prevailed, into animosities and jealousies, which may not soon be appeased. What mischiefs may not be dreaded, should this enemy to the public quiet be armed with the force of law?
12. BECAUSE, The policy of the Bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift ought to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind. Compare the number of those who have as yet received it with the number still remaining under the dominion of false religions; and how small is the former! Does the policy of the Bill tend to lessen the disproportion? No; it at once discourages those who are strangers to the light of revelation from coming into the region of it; and countenances by example the nations who continue in darkness, in shutting out those who might convey it to them. Instead of leveling as far as possible, every obstacle to the victorious progress of truth, the Bill with an ignoble and unchristian timidity would circumscribe it with a wall of defence against the encroachments of error.
13. BECAUSE, Attempts to enforce by legal sanctions, acts obnoxious to so great a proportion of citizens, tend to enervate the laws in general, and to slacken the bands of society. If it be difficult to execute any law which is not generally deemed necessary or salutary, what must be the case, where it is deemed invalid and dangerous? And what may be the effect of so striking an example of impotency in the government, on its general authority?
14. BECAUSE, A measure of such singular magnitude and delicacy ought not to be imposed, without the clearest evidence that it is called for by a majority of citizens, and no satisfactory method is yet proposed by which the voice of the majority in this case may be determined, or its influence secured. "The people of the respective counties are indeed requested to signify their opinion respecting the adoption of the Bill to the next Session of Assembly." But the representation must be made equal, before the voice either of the representatives or of the counties will be that of the people. Our hope is that neither of the former will, after due consideration, espouse the dangerous principle of the Bill. Should the event disappoint us, it will still leave us in full confidence, that a fair appeal to the latter will reverse the sentence against our liberties.
15. BECAUSE, Finally, "the equal right of every citizen to the free exercise of his religion according to the dictates of conscience" is held by the same tenure with all our other rights. If we recur to its origin, it is equally the gift of nature; if we weigh its importance, it cannot be less dear to us; if we consult the "Declaration of those rights which pertain to the good people of Virginia, as the basis and foundation of government," it is enumerated with equal solemnity, or rather studied emphasis.
Either then, we must say, that the will of the Legislature is the only measure of their authority; and that in the plenitude of this authority, they may sweep away all our fundamental rights; or, that they are bound to leave this particular right untouched and sacred. Either we must say, that they may control the freedom of the press, may abolish the trial by jury, may swallow up the executive and judiciary powers of the state; nay that they may despoil us of our very right of suffrage, and erect themselves into an independent and hereditary assembly or, we must say, that they have no authority to enact into law the Bill under consideration. We the Subscribers say, that the General Assembly of this Commonwealth have no such authority: and that no effort may be omitted on our part against so dangerous an usurpation, we oppose to it, this remonstrance; earnestly praying, as we are in duty bound, that the Supreme Lawgiver of the Universe, by illuminating those to whom it is addressed, may on the one hand, turn their councils from every act which would affront his holy prerogative, or violate the trust committed to them: and on the other, guide them into every measure which may be worthy of his blessing, may redound to their own praise, and may establish more firmly the liberties, the prosperity and the happiness of the Commonwealth." 1785 (Madison, Writings, 2:183-191)
|
|
|
|
"All national institutions of churches…appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit. I do not mean…to condemn those who believe otherwise. They have the same right to their belief as I have to mine. But it is necessary to the happiness of man, that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving: it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe. It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief…that mental lying has produced in society." (Paine, Age, 666)
"The adulterous connection of church and state, wherever it had taken place…effectually prohibited…every discussion upon established creeds, and upon first principles of religion…but [if the system of government were changed], a revolution in the system of religion would follow. Human inventions and priest-craft would be detected; and man would return to the pure, unmixed, and unadulterated belief of one God, and no more." (Paine, Age, 667)
"Every national church or religion has established itself by pretending some special mission from God communicated to certain individuals…as if the way to God was not open to every man alike." (Paine, Age, 667)
"…pure and simple deism does not answer the purpose of despotic governments. They cannot lay hold of religion as an engine, but by mixing it with human inventions, and making their own authority a part; neither does it answer the avarice of priests, but by incorporating themselves and their functions with it, and becoming, like the government, a party in the system. It is this that forms the otherwise mysterious connection of church and state. The church human, and the state tyrannic." (Paine, Age, 825,826)
|
|
|
|
"…the security which religion now enjoys in this country in its complete separation from the political concerns of the General Government." 1832 (Jackson, , 4:447)
|
|
|
|
"The divorce between the church and the state ought to be absolute. It ought to be so absolute that no Church property anywhere in any state or in the nation should be exempt from equal taxation; for if you exempt the property of any church organization, to that extent you impose a tax upon the whole community." 1874 (Garfield, 5384)
|
|
|
|
"Leave the matter of religion to the family, the altar, the church, and the private school, supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church and state forever separate." 1875 (Pfeffer, 289)
|
|
|
|
Senator John F. Kennedy, soon to become the first Catholic President of the United States, was clear about the separation of church and state in a speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association.
"It is apparently necessary for me to state…not what kind of church I believe in…but what kind of America I believe in. I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute-where no Catholic prelate would tell the President…how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote-where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference-and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs form the President…or the people who elect him. I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish…and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all. For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew-or a Quaker-or a Unitarian-or a Baptist. It was Virginia’s harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson’s statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim-but tomorrow it may be you-until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril. Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end…where Catholics, Protestants and Jews… [will] promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood. …[I would not] look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Atricle VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test-even by indirection-for it… This is the kind of America that I believe in…And in fact this is the kind of America for which our forefathers died-when they fled here to escape religious test oaths that denied office to members of less favored churches-when they fought for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom…" 1960 (Kennedy, 208-209)
|
|
|
|
"The Church of the Jews under the Old Testament…and the Church of the Christians under the New Testament…were both separate from the world; and that when they have opened a gap in the…wall of Separation between the Garden of the Church and the wilderness of the world. God hath ever broke down the wall…and made his Garden a Wilderness, as at this day." 1644 (Williams, 1:392)
"It is the will and command of God, that…the most Paganish, Jewish, Turkish, or Antichristian consciences and worships, be granted to all men in all Nations…God requireth not an uniformity of Religion to be…enacted and enforced in any civil state; which enforced uniformity (sooner or later) is the greatest occasion of civil War, ravishing of conscience, persecution…and of the hypocrisy and destruction of millions…An enforced uniformity of Religion throughout a Nation… confounds the Civil and Religious, denies the principles of Christianity and civility…" 1644 (Williams, 3:3-4)
|
|
|
|
"On my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things. In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united…I questioned the members of all the different sects; I sought especially the society of the clergy…As a member of the Roman Catholic Church, I was more particularly brought into contact with several of its priests…I found that they differed upon matters of detail alone, and that they all attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country mainly to the separation of church and state. I do not hesitate to affirm that during my stay in America I did not meet a single individual, of the clergy or the laity, who was not of the same opinion on this point." 1835 (Tocqueville, 1:308)
|
|
|
|
"It is proper here to view the situation of the Episcopal church at the termination of the revolutionary war…The advantages…were of much importance…One arose from the perfect religious freedom established in the United States, without any control exercised by the civil authority over spiritual concerns. In consequence of this, every denomination was held to possess the full power of regulating for itself the ecclesiastical government, discipline, and worship within it; and of promoting, by every lawful means, its religious welfare and improvement, without being subject to obstructions, or other disadvantages arising from the connection of religion with secular policy. On these subjects our constitution gave no powers to the civil government. Its protection was extended to all; and their religious privileges were secured, and guarded from the encroachment of others." 1839 (Wilson, 88-89)
|
|
|
