“Religion” in the Original Constitution Meant…”
Jonathan Rowe on Jun 1st 2007 10:56 am |
“Religion,” not “the Christian Religion,” just as the text of the Consitution says.
The Constitution mentions religion in Article VI, section 3 (“no religious tests”) and then again in the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses. It’s fairly uncontroversial among scholars, and among all current members of the Supreme Court, that religious rights apply to “religion” which includes all religions. So it puzzles me why the Christian Nation crowd argues that the “religion” which the Constitution protects only meant “Christianity.”
If the Framers meant to endow the Christian religion only they could have worded the text that way (which is, by the way, how many states at that time worded their constitutions) but they didn’t. The debates over Article VI’s “no religious tests” clause particularly show that the ratifers knew “religion” meant all religions. Indeed, many cautioned against ratification because they knew that by prohibiting religious tests for public office, non-Christians would be able to secure election. But, since the Constitution ultimately was ratified, their view lost.
A North Carolina minister, for instance, in his state’s ratification debate, noted that Article VI was “an invitation for Jews and pagans of every kind to come among us.”
North Carolina delegate Mr. HENRY ABBOT stated:
The exclusion of religious tests is by many thought dangerous and impolitic. They suppose that if there be no religious test required pagans, deists, and Mahometans might obtain offices among us, and that the senators and representatives might all be pagans. Every person employed by the general and state governments is to take an oath to support the former. Some are desirous to know how and by whom they are to swear, since no religious tests are required –whether they are to swear by Jupiter, Juno, Minerva, Proserpine, or Pluto. We ought to be suspicious of our liberties. We have felt the effects of oppressive measures, and know the happy consequences of being jealous of our rights. I would be glad some gentleman would endeavor to obviate these objections in order to satisfy the religious part of the: society. Could I be convinced that the objections were well founded, I would then declare my opinion against the Constitution….
In New York, the New York Daily Advertiser featured an anti-constitutional article which attacked Art. VI. The author stated the no religious test clause would allow for the election of
“Ist. Quakers, who will make the blacks saucy, and at the same time deprive us of the means of defence–2dly. Mahometans, who ridicule the doctrine of the Trinity–3dly. Deists, abominable wretches–4thly. Negroes, the seed of Cain–Sthly. Beggars, who when set on horse back will ride to the devil–6thly. Jews etc. etc.”
Finally, the author noted since the President headed the military “should he hereafter be a Jew, our dear posterity may be ordered to rebuild Jerusalem.”
At the Massachusetts convention, one speaker noted that unless the President was forced to take a religious oath, “a Turk, a Jew, a Roman Catholic, and what is worse than all, a Universalist, may be President of the United States.” Cornell professors, Isaac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore, in The Godless Constitution note:
Amos Singletary, another delegate to the Massachusetts ratification convention, was upset at the Constitution’s not requiring men in power to be religious “and though he hoped to see Christians [in office], yet by the Constitution, a papist, or an infidel was as eligible as they.” (p. 32)
From FEBRUARY 4, 1788, MASS. STATE RATIFYING CONVENTION:
Major LUSK…passed to the article dispensing with the qualification of a religious test, and concluded by saying, that he shuddered at the idea that Roman Catholics, Papists, and Pagans might be introduced into office, and the popery and the inquisition may be established in America.
That is just a taste. There is much more. See these pages put together by Jim Allison. The case is indisputable: The ratifers knew that the term “religion” unqualified by “Christian” meant all religions. Thus, whatever “rights” or “prohibitions” attach to religion, attach to “religion in general” not the Christian sects only.
Finally each of the key Founders — Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin — not only knew the term “religion” meant all religions, but believed all religions were equally protected under the unalienable rights of conscience.
First Jefferson, commenting on his Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom:
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 word “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.
Madison helped to pass such bill into law in Virginia. And here he confirms Jefferson’s account:
In the course of the opposition to the bill in the House of Delegates, which was warm & strenuous from some of the minority, an experiment was made on the reverence entertained for the name & sactity of the Saviour, by proposing to insert the words “Jesus Christ” after the words “our lord” in the preamble, the object of which, would have been, to imply a restriction of the liberty defined in the Bill, to those professing his religion only. The amendment was discussed, and rejected by a vote of agst (See letter of J. M. to Mr Jefferson dated ) The opponents of the amendment having turned the feeling as well as judgment of the House agst it, by successfully contending that the better proof of reverence for that holy name wd be not to profane it by making it a topic of legisl. discussion, & particularly by making his religion the means of abridging the natural and equal rights of all men, in defiance of his own declaration that his Kingdom was not of this world [my emphasis].
Next Franklin, who involved himself in supporting and even building churches. Yet, this unitarian supported Trinitarian churches because he believed in “religion” in general, so much so that he didn’t distinguish between his friend George Whitfield’s orthodox Christianity and Islam.
Both house and ground were vested in trustees, expressly for the use of any preacher of any religious persuasion who might desire to say something to the people at Philadelphia; the design in building not being to accommodate any particular sect, but the inhabitants in general; so that even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a missionary to preach Mohammedanism to us, he would find a pulpit at his service.
Next Adams:
“It has pleased the Providence of the first Cause, the Universal Cause, that Abraham should give religion not only to Hebrews but to Christians and Mahomitans, the greatest part of the modern civilized world.”
- John Adams to M.M. Noah, July 31, 1818.
But Adams defines “religion” much broader than the Abrahamic faiths. He also finds it in Hinduism:
Where is to be found Theology more orthodox or Phylosophy more profound than in the Introduction to the Shast[r]a [a Hindu Treatise]? “God is one, creator of all, Universal Sphere, without beginning, without End. God Governs all the Creation by a General Providence, resulting from his eternal designs — Search not the Essence and the nature of the Eternal, who is one; Your research will be vain and presumptuous. It is enough that, day by day, and night by night, You adore his Power, his Wisdom and Goodness, in his Works.”
– To Thomas Jefferson, December 25, 1813
And in pagan Greek worship:
θÎμίς was the Goddess of honesty, Justice, Decency, and right; the Wife of Jove, another name for Juno. She presided over all oracles, deliberations and Counsells. She commanded all Mortals to pray to Jupiter, for all lawful Benefits and Blessings.
Now, is not this, (so far forth) the Essence of Christian devotion? Is not this Christian Piety? Is it not an Acknonowledgement [sic] of the existence of a Supream Being? of his universal Providence? of a righteous Administration of the Government of the Universe? And what can Jews, Christians, or Mahometans do more?
…Moses says, Genesis. I. 27. ["]God created man in his own image.” What then is the difference between Cleanthes and Moses? Are not the Being and Attributes of the Supream Being: The Resemblance, the Image the Shadow of God in the Intelligence, and the moral qualities of Man, and the Lawfulness and duty of Prayer, as clear[l]y asserted by Cleanthes as by Moses? And did not the Chaldeans, the Egyptians the Persians the Indians, the Chinese, believe all this, as well as the Jews and Greeks?…I believe Cleanthes to be as good a Christian as Priestley.
– To Thomas Jefferson Oct. 4, 1813
For more on Adams see.
Finally Washington. Note, these key Founders differed on establishment policy. Though they believed all religions were equally protected under the unalienable rights of conscience, Jefferson and Madison believed strict separation was needed to secure such rights, while Washington and Adams thought a mild establishment didn’t violate equal rights. So for instance, in commenting on Patrick Henry’s bill to promote Christianity in general (which Madison remonstrated against and the contents of which were made illegal in Virginia according to Jefferson’s Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom) Washington stated:
I am not amongst the number of those who are so much alarmed at the thoughts of making people pay towards the support of that which they profess, if of the denomination of Christians; or declare themselves Jews, Mahomitans or otherwise, and thereby obtain proper relief. As the matter now stands, I wish an assessment had never been agitated, and as it has gone so far, that the Bill could die an easy death; because I think it will be productive of more quiet to the State, than by enacting it into a Law; which, in my opinion, would be impolitic, admitting there is a decided majority for it, to the disquiet of a respectable minority.
In other words, he was against the bill not because he thought, in principle, it violated natural rights, but rather because it was “impolitic.” But while he believed that state governments could, by right, support Christianity in general, because men of non-Christian religions have equal rights, they are, by right, entitled to “obtain proper relief.”
Filed in Uncategorized
So it puzzles me why the Christian Nation crowd argues that the “religion” which the Constitution protects only meant “Christianity.” >>
The Christian nation does not say that. Article VI refers to the federal govt. having no say whatsoever in the realm of religion. “Religion is left to the states.”
Thomas Jefferson
The first amendment refers only to a national (denomination)church being established by the federal govt. Only Christianity could be the established church. Buddhism or any other ism didn’t have the chance to be the national church.
“the successful experiment made under the prevalence of that delusion on the clause of the constitution, which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity thro’ the U.S.; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians & Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly;”
Thomas Jefferson To Dr. Benjamin Rush
(September 23, 1800)
“the First Amendment, which was written “not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity.” Rather, it was designed “to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government” (1833, ii: 728). The goal was not the freedom to foster religious diversity, but the avoidance of a “national ecclesiastical establishment,” such as the Church of England.
Joseph Story-Father of American Jurisprudence, foremost authority on the Constitution
“Only Christianity could be the established church. Buddhism or any other ism didn’t have the chance to be the national church.” This is the ultimate red herring. Why does that matter?
So since the First Amendment only applies to Christianity if the government of the United States wants to make Islam the national Church they could, because it is not covered by the First Amendment? That’s where your logic leads.
And none of what you write refutes any of my meticulously researched evidence showing that the ratifiers understood the word “religion” meant more than just “Christian.”
Story’s sentiment may shed light on one of the “underlying purposes” of the First Amendment. But that is, by in large, irrelevant to the case. The original meaning of the text controls. And the text refers to “religion” not “the Christian religion.”
And none of what you write refutes any of my meticulously researched evidence showing that the ratifiers understood the word “religion” meant more than just “Christian.”>>
The state constitutions refute your intention rather nicely.
So since the First Amendment only applies to Christianity if the government of the United States wants to make Islam the national Church they could, because it is not covered by the First Amendment? That’s where your logic leads.>>
The Federal govt. is exempt from religion altogether.
In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government.
Thomas Jefferson Second Inaugural Address, 1805, Annals of the Congress of the United States (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1852, Eighth Congress, Second Session, p. 78, March 4, 1805; see also James D. Richardson, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897 (Published by Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. I, p. 379, March 4, 1805.
The original meaning of the text controls. And the text refers to “religion” not “the Christian religion.”>>
Only a sect of Christianity could be established as the national church, evidenced by Christianity, as the established religion of the states. The first amendment prohibits ONLY A NATIONAL CHURCH BEING SET UP BY THE FEDERAL GOVT, of which, only a sect of christianity had that chance.
“Only a sect of Christianity could be established as the national church, evidenced by Christianity, as the established religion of the states. The first amendment prohibits ONLY A NATIONAL CHURCH BEING SET UP BY THE FEDERAL GOVT, of which, only a sect of christianity had that chance.”
This is irrelevant. The Founders wrote a Constitution which they knew would last perhaps hundreds or more years. Who knew if enough Muslims immigrated or converted, that a particular state could have erected a Mosque as their established religion. In fact, the ratifiers of Article VI explicitly contemplated this.
http://candst.tripod.com/testban6.htm
“It is apprehended that Jews, Mahometans, pagans. &c., may he elected to hold offices under the government of the United States. Those who are Mahometans, or any others who are not professors of the Christian religion, can never be elected to the office of President:, or other high office, but in one of two cases. First, if the people of America lay aside the Christian religion altogether. It may happen. Should this unfortunately take place, the people will choose such men as think as they do themselves.”
Do you see where he says, “It may happen.”
“Another case is, if any persons of such descriptions should, notwithstanding their religion, acquire the confidence and esteem of the people of America by their good conduct and practice of virtue, they may be chosen. I leave it to gentlemen’s candor to judge what probability there is of the people’s choosing men of different sentiments from themselves.”
In other words, if Christians want to elect a Muslim or a Jew or a Christian or a whatever, that’s their right.
Nothing in the state constitutions refutes my claim that “religion” in the US Constitution meant “religion,” not the “Christian religion,” if for no other reason than they used different words. Or, if you want to look at which wording of which state constitutions looked closest to the wording in the federal Constitution, it was Virginia and Rhode Island, the two states with secular governments.
In other words, if Christians want to elect a Muslim or a Jew or a Christian or a whatever, that’s their right>.
Correct.
Or, if you want to look at which wording of which state constitutions looked closest to the wording in the federal Constitution, it was Virginia and Rhode Island, the two states with secular governments.>>
With the other states(majority) choose Christianity as the religion of their states. The first amendment prohibits a national denomination as Thomas Jefferson claimed.
“the successful experiment made under the prevalence of that delusion on the clause of the constitution, which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity thro’ the U.S.; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians & Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly;”
Thomas Jefferson To Dr. Benjamin Rush
(September 23, 1800)
James J. Goswick wrote: “The first amendment refers only to a national (denomination) church being established by the federal govt.”
That is a common perception … however, it is a misconception … although not in total. Certainly the founders were greatly concerned about one Christian denomination becoming officially established by the federal government. Such an act would come at the expense of all other “denomination”s, as well as all other religions.
Fortunately, the 1st amendment’s protections of religious liberty were/are much broader than that.
Madison who presided over the congressional debates and ultimately over the ratification of the 1st amendment wrote at long length over this subject. Below are some references.
I encourage each reader to browse through these links and make up their minds for themselves.
Study Guide for “Original Intent”
Congressional Debates: Religious Amendments, 1789
James Madison on Separation of Church and State
Exerpts from Madison’s Detached Memoranda
Separation of Church and State: A Most Important Decision
Separation of church and state in the United States
Plus, if Mr. Goswick wants to cite Jefferson as authority for the First Amendment he could have quoted from his letter to the Danbury Baptists:
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions58.html
“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 prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”
Ben,
Good point. Madison was such an extreme separationist he believed that Congressional Chaplains violated the Establishment Clause.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions64.html
“Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom?
“In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion….The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles….”
Hi Janathan,
It is unfortunate that Madison’s “Detached Memoranda” was not discovered until 1946.
… pardon my speculation, but it is possible that Madison sought to keep this private during his life time due to concerns with respect to its potential unpopularity, or because he, himself, violated some of those very principles while holding the office of president … specifically religious proclamations by the government.
In any event, since Madison is the man who fathered the US Constitution, authored the Bill of Rights (he was certainly as inspired by Jefferson and George Mason), and presided over the debate and ratification of both, his opinion with respect to the original intent of the religious clauses is of great importance.
Further, since the Founders/Framers, other than Madison and Jefferson, did not make clear statements of of their intentions, their intent, assuming there was one, is a subject of speculation.
Ben
# Jonathan Rowe wrote:
“Good point. Madison was such an extreme separationist he believed that Congressional Chaplains violated the Establishment Clause.”
The monotheism claim is just as incompatable with various non-Christian religious beliefs and with anti-religion belief as it is essential for Christian belief. It should be obvious that Congressional Chaplains violate the Establishment Clause, as do the monotheistic National Motto and Pledge of Allegiance. Military Chaplains can be justified on free exercise grounds, but not Congressional Chaplains. Ultimately, the real justification for these violations of the Establishment Clause is that public opinion, the state legislatures, the Executive, and Congress won’t consent or cooperate with the non-establishment of monotheism. Instead of labeling Madison’s view extreme, we would do better to address the pro-establishment of monotheism bias in public opinion.
Fortunately, the 1st amendment’s protections of religious liberty were/are much broader than that.>>
Not at all.
“Religion is left to the states” Thomas Jefferson
James Madison on Separation of Church and State>>
Madison and Jefferson violated separation of church and state, so we know your viewpoint is incorrect.
And on December 23, 1803, Jefferson’s administration negotiated – and the Senate ratified – a treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians that stated “the United States will give annually for seven years one hundred dollars for the support of a priest” to minister to the Indians (i.e., federal funds for Christian evangelism!) Jefferson also signed presidential documents, closing them with the appellation, “In the Year of our Lord Christ.” There are many similar surprising facts about Jefferson that are fully documented historically, but that have been ignored for the past 50 years.
In 1789, Madison served on the Congressional committee which authorized, approved, and selected paid Congressional chaplains.
1 Debates and Proceedings 109 (1834 ed.) (April 9, 1789).
In 1812, President Madison signed a federal bill which economically aided a Bible Society in its goal of the mass distribution of the Bible.
Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States 1325, 12th Cong., 2nd Sess. (Washington: Gales & Seaton 1853) (“An Act for the relief of the Bible Society of Philadelphia. Be it enacted, &c., That the duties arising and due to the United States upon certain stereotype plates, imported during the last year into the port of Philadelphia, on board the ship Brilliant, by the Bible Society of Philadelphia, for the purpose of printing editions of the Holy Bible, be and the same are hereby remitted, on behalf of the United States, to the said society: and any bond or security given for the securing of the payment of the said duties shall be cancelled. Approved February 2, 1813.”)
Throughout his Presidency (1809-1816), Madison endorsed public and official religious expressions by issuing several proclamations for national days of prayer, fasting, and thanksgiving.
1 James D. Richardson, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897, 513 (Published by Authority of Congress 1899) (July 9, 1812), 532-533 (July 23, 1813), 558 (November 16, 1814), and 560-561 (March 4, 1815).
In any event, since Madison is the man who fathered the US Constitution, authored the Bill of Rights (he was certainly as inspired by Jefferson and George Mason), and presided over the debate and ratification of both, his opinion with respect to the original intent of the religious clauses is of great importance.>>
“That George Mason was the author of the bill of rights, and the constitution founded on it, the evidence of the day established fully in my mind”
Thomas Jefferson
To Henry Lee Monticello, May 8, 1825
Madison was a hypocrite, so his opinion should be deferred to the other founders. Born Again Christian Elias Boudinot was chair of the house first amendment committee, as well as Born Again Christian Roger Sherman was senior over Madison. They shelved Madison’s recommendation on the first amendment.
There was no mention at the constitutional convention of any separation of church and state, only the anti-establishment clause. We see this is true because they immediately hired Christian chaplains, issued Christian religious proclamations, promoted Christianity amongst the Indians, used government buildings for Christian church services, used the bible as a textbook in federally run public schools, set aside land for Christian religious purposes and continuousy thanked God for his blessings, guidance, and protection. Don’t have to claim to be Under God when you promote that fact every day.
Ben: Fortunately, the 1st amendment’s protections of religious liberty were/are much broader than that.>>
James: Not at all.
James, during the founding period the 1st amendment applied only to the federal government.
However, since then the 14th amendment was ratified. The 14th amendment extended most of the protections respecting individual liberty to all forms of government.
I had assumed you were already aware of this.
There are many online sites that discuss this point. For anyone who’d like to learn more check out this article by Jon Roland, Intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to Protect All Rights.
Ben
James: Madison was a hypocrite.
I do not agree. He was a man who originally didn’t even see the need for to safe guard individual liberty … after all the constitution did not grant the right of infringing rights of man to the government.
Jefferson and Mason (among others) changed his mind.
In the case of congressional chaplains and such, it was the fulfillment of Jefferson’s and Mason’s concerns that drove Madison to become the staunchest guardian of Liberty.
James added: There was no mention at the constitutional convention of any separation of church and state, only the anti-establishment clause.
Please note note that the establishment clause is accompanied by the free-exercise clause. In addition, the original religious clauses only respected establishment. As the debates progressed the clauses become more broad.
Anyone interested can read some excerpts here; Congressional Debates: Religious Amendments, 1789.
James wrote:
I believe, the “bill of rights” and “constitution” being referred to by Jefferson is that of Virginia, not of the United States. If not that Jefferson is taken of out context. There is no question as to who wrote both the US Constitution, the US Constitutions Bill of Rights, and who presided over the ratification of both. Madison is this individual.
Explicit statements to this fact can be found in Wikipedia’s entry for James Madison, as well as many other places, such as the Whilte House’s site on US History.
After ratification of the original US Constitution, Mason boycotted further participation in objection to the lack of a Bill of Rights. His actions had a great influence on Madison who then choose to adapt the Virginia Bill of Rights (Mason’s) for application to the US Constitution. For that reason, Mason is often referred to as the Father of the Bill of Rights (respecting both the Virginia and the US Constitutions).
Ben
James wrote:
James, there are various web sites that itemize All the recorded references to the religion clauses during the drafting of the Bill of Rights by the First Congress.
Boudinot was the chair, and Sherman did think the clauses should be struck out since the government had ‘no authority whatever delegated to them by the Constitution to make religious establishments; he would, therefore, move to have it struck out.’
Madison’s original version of the 1st amendment was
In my opinion, Madision’s original version is somewhat unclear in extent and context.
The final version was much much clearer … a very broad.
As such it would appear that the debates of the Framers (Boudinot and Sherman among them) resulted in protections of religious liberty, and others, that were much broader than those originally proposed by Madison.
The ratified version of the 1st amendment doesn’t just restrict laws establishing religion, but “[... laws] respecting an establishment of religion [...]“.
I expect that it was, in part, due to such experiences that Madison became a more serious proponent of religious liberty.
Ben
However, since then the 14th amendment was ratified. The 14th amendment extended most of the protections respecting individual liberty to all forms of government.>>
The question is would the framer’s have allowed this? The answer is no.
In addition, the original religious clauses only respected establishment. As the debates progressed the clauses become more broad.>>
But the spirit is the same, it’s very simple. The Federal govt. is never to have any say whatsoever in religion. The difference is only semantics.
I believe, the “bill of rights” and “constitution” being referred to by Jefferson is that of Virginia, not of the United States.>>
Ultimately, Mason is the Father of the Bill of Rights in any context, correct?
There is no question as to who wrote both the US Constitution, the US Constitutions Bill of Rights, and who presided over the ratification of both. Madison is this individual.>>
He would disagree with you.
“Dear Sir,–Your letter of the 18th Ult. was duly received. You give me a credit to which I have no claim, in calling me ” the writer of the Constitution of the U. S.” This was not, like the fabled Goddess of Wisdom, the offspring of a single brain. It ought to be regarded as the work of many heads & many hands.”
James Madison-TO WILLIAM COGSWELL. … MAD. MSS.
Montpellier, March 10, 1834.
The final version was much much clearer … a very broad.>.
Only in words, not in context.
The ratified version of the 1st amendment doesn’t just restrict laws establishing religion, but “[... laws] respecting an establishment of religion [...]“.>>
You’re mentioning two different things when only one concept is given,ie. “Congress shall make no law making an establishment of religion” It has nothing to do with relgious expression, but only an establishment of a NATIONAL religion as Madsion correctly worded.
Regards
Ben wrote : “The 14th amendment extended most of the protections respecting individual liberty to all forms of government.”
James asked: “The question is would the framer’s have allowed this?”
If the framers did not intend that the constitution be amended, then they could’a/should’a/would’a framed it in that way! ;-)
James, you’re speculating. The question isn’t what the framers may have agreed or may not have agreed with the 14th amendment, the question is whether or not they entrusted the responsibility of the country to the generations of the future.
If we are to reject the 14th amendment, are we also to reject all law that has followed the founding period?
Regarding the proposed wording of the 1st amendment becoming broader during the congressional debates, James responds: “But the spirit is the same, it’s very simple. The Federal govt. is never to have any say whatsoever in religion. The difference is only semantics.”
That is a rather poor “hand-wave” :-(
If there were no value for an individual, in a free and democratic society, to enjoy a freedom of choice, you’d have a point. However, how may a society embrace freedom and choice if individuals are not permitted to think for themselves.
Ben wrote: “There is no question as to who wrote both the US Constitution, the US Constitutions Bill of Rights, and who presided over the ratification of both. Madison is this individual.”
James responds: He would disagree with you.
That Madison was a humble man (this is the man you called a hypocrite, correct?), and that his work was subject to sanction and review by a majority of the other framers does not erase his most substantial role as a framer.
James concludes: “You’re mentioning two different things when only one concept is given,ie. ‘Congress shall make no law making an establishment of religion’ It has nothing to do with relgious expression, but only an establishment of a NATIONAL religion as Madsion correctly worded.”
hmmm … I notice you dropped the word “respecting” from your version of the 1st Amendment. The debates which eventually settled on the respecting phraseology have little documentation. However, Madison did chair the discussions/debate between the house and senate, and his opinion is written down for the historic record.
To be clear the 1st Amendment is
To grasp the importance of the word, respecting, consider “God”. Has his existence been “established” by anything other than religion?
James, you’re speculating. The question isn’t what the framers may have agreed or may not have agreed with the 14th amendment, the question is whether or not they entrusted the responsibility of the country to the generations of the future.>>
It’s not speculating, it’s what the framer’s believed. If their interpretations are neglected, then the Constitution doesn’t work. And that’s what you have right now.
If we are to reject the 14th amendment, are we also to reject all law that has followed the founding period?>>
Exactly.
However, how may a society embrace freedom and choice if individuals are not permitted to think for themselves.>>
It has nothing to do with the Fed having no say in religion.
does not erase his most substantial role as a framer.>>
He wasn’t the most substantial, without George Washington the convention would have failed, so he was the most substantial. Madison’s version was shelved.
”he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any Manner contrary to their conscience.” 1 Annals of Congress 730 (August 15, 1789)
To be clear the 1st Amendment is
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; [...]>>
Madison claimed it was a national religion, which is the same as a national church, as the church of England. That is what the context is.
respecting, consider “God”. Has his existence been “established” by anything other than religion?
We know respecting means establishing a church because Madison and Jefferson respected the christian religion.
[...] As I noted in this past post, “religion” in the original Constitution meant and still means “religion” not “the Christian religion.” Thus whatever rights or restrictions attach to “religion” in the Constitution attach to Islam, Hinduism, Christianity, or whatever qualifies as a “religion.” This is uncontroversial among both liberal and conservative scholars. As far as I know, every single member of the Supreme Court believes this. When I saw Gerard V. Bradley, one of the most notable religious conservative law professors, speak at Princeton and someone asked whether “lowering the wall of separation” (what he argues for) would mean Islamic schools could get voucher $$, his reply was simple: Yes. Islam is a “religion,” therefore such schools would be entitled to government aid which can go to religious schools. Period. (For his exact words, see the lecture to which I am referring.) [...]
As I noted in this past post, “religion” in the original Constitution meant and still means “religion” not “the Christian religion.” Thus whatever rights or restrictions attach to “religion” in the Constitution attach to Islam, Hinduism, Christianity, or whatever qualifies as a “religion.”>>
I’ll believe Thomas Jefferson over any liberal there is, and this is all the matters:
“the successful experiment made under the prevalence of that delusion on the clause of the constitution, which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity thro’ the U.S.; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians & Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly;”
Thomas Jefferson To Dr. Benjamin Rush
(September 23, 1800)
Regards