The Supreme Court declares America a Christian nation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
HOLY TRINITY CHURCH v. U.S.
143 U.S. 457, 12 S.Ct. 511, 36 L.Ed. 226
Feb. 29, 1892
"These and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of
unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a
Christian nation."
Mr. Justice Brewer delivered the opinion of the court.
. . . .
But, beyond all these matters, no purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any
legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people. This is historically true. From the
discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation.
The commission to Christopher Columbus, prior to his sail westward, is from "Ferdinand and
Isabella, by the grace of God, king and queen of Castile," etc., and recites that "it is hoped that
by God's assistance some of the continents and islands in the [496] ocean will be discovered,"
etc. The first colonial grant, that made to Sir Walter Raleigh in 1584, was from "Elizabeth, by
the grace of God, of England, Fraunce, and Ireland, queene, defender of the faith," etc.; and
the grant authorizing him to enact statutes of the government of the proposed colony provided
that "they be not against the true Christian faith nowe professed in the Church of England." The
first charter of Virginia, granted by King James I. in 1606, after reciting the application of
certain parties for a charter, commenced the grant in these words: "We, greatly commending,
and graciously accepting of, their Desires for the Furtherance of so noble a Work, which may,
by the Providence of Almighty God, hereafter tend to the Glory of His Divine Majesty, in
propagating of Christian Religion to such People, as yet live in Darkness and miserable
Ignorance of the true Knowledge and Worship of God, and may in time bring the Infidels and
Savages, living in those parts, to human Civility, and to a settled and quiet Government; DO, by
these our Letters-Patents, graciously accept of, and agree to, their humble and well-intentioned
Desires."
Language of similar import may be found in the subsequent charters of that colony from the
same king, in 1609 and 1611; and the same is true of the various charters granted to the other
colonies. In language more or less emphatic is the establishment of the Christian religion
declared to be one of the purposes of the grant. The celebrated compact made by the pilgrims
in the Mayflower, 1620, recites: "Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement
of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first
Colony in the northern Parts of Virginia; Do by these Presents, solemnly and mutually, in the
Presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body
Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid."
The fundamental orders of Connecticut, under which a provisional government was instituted in
1638-39, commence with this declaration: "Forasmuch as it hath pleased the Allmighty God by
the wise disposition of his diuyne pruidence [467] so to order and dispose of things that we the
Inhabitants and Residents of Windsor, Hartford, and Wethersfield are now cohabiting and
dwelling in and vppon the River of Conectecotte and the Lands thereunto adioyneing; And well
knowing where a people are gathered togather the word of {515} God requires that to
mayntayne the peace and union of such a people there should be an orderly and decent
Gouerment established according to God, to order and dispose of the affayres of the people at
all seasons as occation shall require; doe therefore assotiate and conioyne our selues to be as
one Publike State or Commonwelth; and doe, for our selues and our Successors and such as
shall be adioyned to vs att any tyme hereafter, enter into Combination and Confederation
togather, to mayntayne and presearue the liberty and purity of the gospell of our Lord Jesus
wch we now prfesse, as also the disciplyne of the Churches, wch according to the truth of the
said gospell is now practised amongst vs." In the charter of privileges granted by William Penn
to the province of Pennsylvania, in 1701, it is recited: "Because no People can be truly happy,
though under the greatest Enjoyment of Civil Liberties, if abridged of the Freedom of their
Consciences, as to their Religious Profession and Worship; And Almighty God being the only
Lord of Conscience, Father of Lights and Spirits; and the Author as well as Object of all divine
Knowledge, Faith, and Worship, who only doth enlighten the Minds, and persuade and
convince the Understandings of People, I do hereby grant and declare," etc.
Coming nearer to the present time, the declaration of independence recognizes the presence of
the Divine in human affairs in these words: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men
are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." "We, therefore, the
Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to
the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name and by
Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare," etc.; "And for
the [468] support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine
Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."
If we examine the constitutions of the various states, we find in them a constant recognition of
religious obligations. Every constitution of every one of the 44 states contains language which,
either directly or by clear implication, recognizes a profound reverence for religion, and an
assumption that its influence in all human affairs is essential to the well-being of the community.
This recognition may be in the preamble, such as is found in the constitution of Illinois, 1870:
"We, the people of the state of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political, and
religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing
upon our endeavors to secure and transmit the same unimpaired to succeeding generations,"
etc.
It may be only in the familiar requisition that all officers shall take an oath closing with the
declaration, "so help me God." It may be in clauses like that of the constitution of Indiana,
1816, art. 11, S4: "The manner of administering an oath or affirmation shall be such as is most
consistent with the conscience of the deponent, and shall be esteemed the most solemn appeal
to God." Or in provisions such as are found in articles 36 and 37 of the declaration of the rights
of the constitution of Maryland, (1867): "That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God in
such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection
in their religious liberty: wherefore, no person ought, by any law, to be molested in his person
or estate on account of his religious persuasion or profession, or for his religious practice,
unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace, or safety of the state,
or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil, or religious rights; nor
ought any person to be compelled to frequent or maintain or contribute, unless on contract, to
maintain any place of worship or any ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be
deemed incompetent as a witness or juror on account of his religious belief: provided, he [469]
believes in the existence of God, and that, under his dispensation, such person will be held
morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefor, either in this world or
the world to come. That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any
office or profit or trust in this state, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God;
nor shall the legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this
constitution." Or like that in articles 2 and 3 of part 1 of the constitution of Massachusetts,
(1780:) "It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society publicly, and at stated seasons, to
worship the Supreme Being, the Great Creator and Preserver of the universe. * * * As the
happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially
depend upon piety, religion, and morality, and as these cannot be generally diffused through a
community but by the institution of the public worship of God and of public instructions in piety,
religion, and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness, and to secure the good order and
preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their
legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time,
authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic or
religious societies to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the
public worship of God and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of
piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provisions shall not be made voluntarily."
Or, as in sections 5 and 14 of article 7 of the constitution of Mississippi, (1832:) "No person
who denies the being of a God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any
office in the civil department of this state. * * * Religion {516} morality, and knowledge being
necessary to good government, the preservation of liberty, and the happiness of mankind,
schools, and the means of education, shall forever be encouraged in this state." Or by article 22
of the constitution of Delaware, (1776,) which required all officers, besides an oath of
allegiance, to make and subscribe the following declaration: "I, A.B., do profess [470] faith in
God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for
evermore; and I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be
given by divine inspiration."
Even the constitution of the United States, which is supposed to have little touch upon the
private life of the individual, contains in the first amendment a declaration common to the
constitutions of all the states, as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," etc., - and also provides in
article 1, S 7, (a provision common to many constitutions,) that the executive shall have 10
days (Sundays excepted) within which to determine whether he will approve or veto a bill.
There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all,
having one meaning. They affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not
individual sayings, declarations of private persons. They are organic utterances. They speak the
voice of the entire people. While because of a general recognition of this truth the question has
seldom been presented to the courts, yet we find that in Updegraph v. Comm., 11 Serg. & R.
394, 400, it was decided that, "Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part
of the common law of Pennsylvania; * * * not Christianity with an established church and tithes
and spiritual courts, but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men." And in People v.
Ruggles, 8 Johns. 290, 294, 295, Chancellor KENT, the great commentator on American law,
speaking as chief justice of the supreme court of New York, said: "The people of this state, in
common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity as the rule
of their faith and practice; and to scandalize the author of those doctrines in not only, in a
religious point of view, extremely impious, but, even in respect to the obligations due to society,
is a gross violation of decency and good order. * * * The free, equal, and undisturbed
enjoyment of religious opinion, whatever it may be, and free and decent discussions on any
religious [471] subject, is granted and secured; but to revile, with malicious and blasphemous
contempt, the religion professed by almost the whole community is an abuse of that right. Nor
are we bound by any expressions in the constitution, as some have strangely supposed, either
not to punish at all, or to punish indiscriminately the like attacks upon the religion of Mahomet
or of the Grand Lama; and for this plain reason that the case assumes that we are a Christian
people, and the morality of the country is deeply ingrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the
doctrines or worship of those impostors." And in the famous case of Vidal v. Girard's Ex'rs, 2
How. 127, 198, this court, while sustaining the will of Mr. Girard, with its provisions for the
creation of a college into which no minister should be permitted to enter, observed: "it is also
said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of the common law of Pennsylvania."
If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life, as expressed by its laws, its
business, its customs, and its society, we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth.
Among other matters note the following: The form of oath universally prevailing, concluding
with an appeal to the Almighty; the custom of opening sessions of all deliberative bodies and
most conventions with prayer; the prefatory words of all wills, "In the name of God, amen;" the
laws respecting the observance of the Sabbath, with the general cessation of all secular
business, and the closing of courts, legislatures, and other similar public assemblies on that day;
the churches and church organizations which abound in every city, town, and hamlet; the
multitude of charitable organizations existing everywhere under Christian auspices; the gigantic
missionary associations, with general support, and aiming to establish Christian missions in
every quarter of the globe. These and many other matters which might be noticed, add a
volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian
nation. In the face of all these, shall it be believed that a congress of the United States intended
to make it a misdemeanor for a church of this country to contract for the services of a Christian
minister residing in another nation?
[472] Suppose, in the congress that passed this act, some member had offered a bill which in
terms declared that, if any Roman Catholic church in this country should contract with Cardinal
Manning to come to this country, and enter into its service as pastor and priest, or any
Episcopal church should enter into a like contract with Canon Farrar, or any Baptist church
should make similar arrangements with Rev. Mr. Spurgeon, or any Jewish synagogue with
some eminent rabbi, such contract should be adjudged unlawful and void, and the church
making it be subject to prosecution and punishment. Can it be believed that it would have
received a single vote? Yet it is contended that such was, in effect, the meaning of this statute.
The construction invoked cannot be accepted as correct. It is a case where there was
presented a definite evil, in view of which the legislature used general terms with the purpose of
reaching all phases of that evil; and thereafter, unexpectedly, it is developed that the general
language thus employed is broad enough to reach cases and acts which the whole history and
life of the country affirm could not have been intentionally legislated against. It is the duty of the
courts, under those circumstances, to say that, however {517} broad the language of the
statute may be, the act, although within the letter, is not with the intention of the legislature, and
therefore cannot be within the statute.
The judgment will be reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings in accordance
with the opinion.
|
