5000 Year Leap (42 page)

The Clergy Fuel the Flame of Freedom, Stress Morality and Alert the Citizenry to Dangerous Trends

The role of the churches to perpetuate the social and political culture of the United States provoked the following comment from de Tocqueville:

“The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other.... I have known societies formed by Americans to send out ministers of the Gospel into the new Western states, to found schools and churches there, lest religion should be allowed to die away in those remote settlements, and the rising states be less fitted to enjoy free institutions than the people from whom they came.” (Ibid., p. 317)

De Tocqueville discovered that while the clergy felt it would be demeaning to their profession to become involved in partisan politics, they nevertheless believed implicitly in their duty to keep religious principles and moral values flowing out to the people as the best safeguard for America’s freedom and political security. In one of de Tocqueville’s most frequently quoted passages, he stated:

“I sought for the greatness and genius of America in her commodious harbors and her ample rivers, and it was not there; in her fertile fields and boundless prairies, and it was not there; in her rich mines and her vast world commerce, and it was not there. Not until I went to the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because she is good and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”

The Founders’ Campaign for Equality of All Religions

One of the most remarkable attributes of the American Founders was undertaking to do something no other nation had ever successfully achieved —the task of providing legal equality for all religions, both Christian and non-Christian.

Jefferson and Madison were undoubtedly the foremost among the Founders in pushing through the first statutes in Virginia. Jefferson sought to dis-establish the official church of Virginia in 1776 but this effort was not completely successful until ten years later.

Meanwhile, in 1784, Patrick Henry was so enthusiastic about strengthening the whole spectrum of Christian churches that he introduced a bill “Establishing a Provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion.” (This document is reproduced in the supplementary appendix of Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 72.)

It was the intention of this bill to provide that each taxpayer would designate “to what society of Christians” his money should go. The funds collected by this means were to make “provision for a minister or teacher of the Gospel ... or the providing places of divine worship [for that denomination], and to none other use whatever....” (See the supplementary appendix of Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 72, p. 94.)

Madison immediately reacted with his famous Memorial and Remonstrance in which he proclaimed with the greatest possible energy the principle that the State government should not prefer one religion over another. Equality of religions was the desired goal. He wrote:

“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?... The bill violates that equality which ought to be the basis of every law.” (Letters and Other Writings of James Madison, 1865, 1:163-164)

Why the Founders Wanted the Federal Government Excluded From All Problems Relating to Religion and Churches

The Supreme Court has stated on numerous occasions that to most people freedom of religion is the most precious of all the inalienable rights next to life itself. When the United States was founded there were many Americans who were not enjoying freedom of religion to the fullest possible extent. At least seven of the states had officially established religions or denominations at the time the Constitution was adopted. These included: (Kruse, The Historical Meaning and Judicial Construction of the Establishment of Religion Clause of the First Amendment, 1962, Washburn, L. J., Vol. 2, pp. 65, 94-107.)

Connecticut (Congregational Church)
Delaware (Christian faith)
Maryland (Christian faith)
Massachusetts (Congregational Church)
New Hampshire (Protestant faith)
New Jersey (Protestant faith)
South Carolina (Protestant faith)

Under these circumstances the Founders felt it would have been catastrophic and might have precipitated civil strife if the federal government had tried to establish a national policy on religion or dis-establish the denominations which the States had adopted. Nevertheless, the Founders who were examining this problem were anxious to eventually see complete freedom of all faiths and an equality of all religions, both Christian and non-Christian. How could this be accomplished without stirring up civil strife?

Justice Story Describes the Founders’ Solution

In his famous Commentaries on the Constitution, Justice Story of the Supreme Court pointed out why the Founders as well as the States themselves felt the Federal Government should be absolutely excluded from any authority in the field of settling questions on religion. He states:

“In some of the states, Episcopalians constituted the predominant sect; in others, Presbyterians; in others, Congregationalists; in others, Quakers; and in others again, there was a close numerical rivalry among contending sects. It was impossible that there should not arise perpetual strife and perpetual jealousy on the subject of ecclesiastical ascendancy, if the national government were left free to create a religious establishment. The only security was in extirpating the power. But this alone would have been an imperfect security, if it had not been followed by a declaration of the right of the free exercise of religion, and a prohibition (as we have seen) of all religious tests. Thus the whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusive to the State Governments, to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice, and the State Constitutions....” (Article #1879 of the 1833 edition.)

This is why the First Amendment of the Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Jefferson and Madison Emphasize the Intent of the Founders

It is clear from the writings of the Founders as well as the Commentaries of Justice Story that the First Amendment was designed to eliminate forever the interference of the Federal government in any religious matters within the various states. As Madison stated during the Virginia ratifying convention: “There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it would be a most flagrant usurpation.” (The Elliot Debates, Vol. 3, p. 330)

Jefferson took an identical position when he wrote the Kentucky-Virginia Resolutions of 1798: “... it is true as a general principle ... that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the United States by the Constitution ... all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the States, or to the people.” (The Kentucky-Virginia Resolutions and Mr. Madison’s Report of 1799, at 15-82)

The Supreme Court as well as Congress Excluded from Jurisdiction Over Religion

In the Kentucky-Virginia Resolutions, Thomas Jefferson also made it clear that the Federal judicial system was likewise prohibited from intermeddling with religious matters within the States. He wrote:

“... special provision has been made by one of the amendments to the Constitution which expressly declares, the ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an Establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ... thereby guarding in the same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press, insomuch, that whatever violated either, throws down the sanctuary which covers the others, and that libels, falsehoods, and defamation, equally with hereby and false religions, are withheld from the cognizance of Federal tribunals.” (Ibid., p. 2-3 emphasis added)

The Federal “Wall” Between Church and State

When Thomas Jefferson was serving in the Virginia legislature he introduced a bill to have a day of fasting and prayer, but when he became President, Jefferson said there was no authority in the Federal government to proclaim religious holidays. In a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association dated January 1, 1802, he explained his position and said the Constitution had created “a wall of separation between church and State.” (Padover, The Complete Works of Jefferson, 1969, pp. 518-519)

In recent years the Supreme Court has undertaken to use this metaphor as an excuse for meddling in the religious issues arising within the various States. As we shall see later, it has not only presumed to take jurisdiction in these disputes, but has actually forced the States to take the same hands-off position toward religious matters even though this restriction originally applied only to the Federal government. This obvious distortion of the original intent of Jefferson (when he used the metaphor of a “wall” separating church and state) becomes entirely apparent when the statements and actions of Jefferson are examined in their historical context.

It will be recalled that Jefferson and Madison were anxious that the States intervene in religious matters until there was equality among all religions and that all churches or religions assigned preferential treatment should be disestablished from such preferment. They further joined with the other Founders in expressing an anxiety that all religions be encouraged in order to promote the moral fiber and religious tone of the people. This, of course, would be impossible if there were an impenetrable “wall” between church and state on the state level. Jefferson’s “wall’ was obviously intended only for the Federal government, and the Supreme Court application of this metaphor to the states has come under severe criticism. (Dallin Oaks, editor, The Wall Between Church and State, 1963, pp. 2-3)

Religious Problems Must Be Solved Within The Various States

In Thomas Jefferson’s second inaugural address, he virtually signaled the States to press forward in settling their religious issues since it was within their jurisdiction and not that of the Federal government:

“In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general government. I have therefore undertaken, on no occasion, to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of state or church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies.”

Jefferson, along with the other Founders, believed that it was within the power of the various States to eliminate those inequities which existed between the various faiths and then pursue a policy of encouraging religious institutions of all kinds because it was in the public interest to use their influence to provide the moral stability needed for “good government and the happiness of mankind.” (Northwest Ordinance, Article 3)

Jefferson’s Resolution for disestablishing the Church of England in Virginia was not to set up a wall between the State and the Church but simply, as he explained it, for the purpose of “taking away the privilege and preeminence of one religious sect over another, and thereby [establishing] ... equal rights among all.” (J. Boyd, editor, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, p. 531, note 1)

Affirmative Programs to Encourage All Religions on the State Level

In view of the extremely inflexible and rigid position which the U.S. Supreme Court has taken in recent years concerning the raising up of a “wall” between State government and religion, it is remarkable how radically different the Founders looked upon such matters.

Take, for example, their approval of religious meetings in tax-supported public buildings. With the Founders there was no objection as to the propriety of using public buildings for religious purposes for that was to be encouraged. The only question was whether or not the facilities could be made available equally to all denominations desiring them. Notice how Jefferson reflects his deep satisfaction in the way the churches were using the local courthouse in Charlottesville, near Jefferson’s home:

“In our village of Charlottesville, there is a good degree of religion, with a small spice only of fanaticism. We have four sects, but without either church or meeting-house. The court-house is the common temple, one Sunday in the month to each. Here, Episcopalian and Presbyterian, Methodist and Baptist, meet together, join in hymning their Maker, listen with attention and devotion to each others’ preachers, and all mix in society with perfect harmony.” (Ford, editor, Works of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. 12, pp. 270-271)

One cannot help asking the modern Supreme Court: “Where is the wall of separation between church and state when the courthouse is approved for the common temple of all the religious sects of a village?”

Of course, Jefferson would be the first to require some other arrangement if all of the churches could not be accommodated equally, but so long as they were operating equally and harmoniously together, it was looked upon as a commendable situation. The fact that they were utilizing a tax-supported public building was not even made an issue.

Jefferson Proposes Accommodations For Religious Instructions at a State School

Not only did the Congress of the Founders’ day provide in the Northwest Ordinance that the basic tenets of religion and the fundamentals of morality should be taught in the public schools, but Jefferson proposed that the University of Virginia extend its facilities to the various denominations so that each student could worship and study in the church of his choice. As Jefferson had written:

“Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed (by eliminating religious instruction) their only firm basis — a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?” (Ibid., Vol. 4, p. 83)