"Even before the Bill of Rights became an official part of the Constitution, Congressman James Madison objected to the 1790 census identifying citizens as ministers because, he said, "the general government is proscribed [prohibited] from the interfering, in any manner whatsoever, in matters respecting religion; and it may be thought to do this, in ascertaining who, and who are not, ministers of the gospel" (February 2, 1790, Papers, 13:16)."
CHURCH AND STATE SEPARATION
by Gene Garman
The principle of separation between religion and government was a part of America's history for over a century before the Constitution was written. From its beginning the principle has often been expressed in terms of "separation of church and state." However, those are not the terms used in the Constitution; rather, the word in the Constitution is "religious" and the word in the First Amendment is "religion." As a strict constructionist of the Constitution, I submit it is a "religious" test for public office which is prohibited (not a church test) and it is "religion" which is prohibited from being established by law (not a church). The Founding Fathers and the members of the Senate-House conference committee, which produced the final draft of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, wisely used broad terminology which includes more than just "church and state." Therefore, the constitutional terminology, by which to state the constitutional principle, as it now applies to all levels of government, is "separation between Religion and Government" (James Madison's words), not just separation of church and state. Those persons and organizations which promote the principle of separation in terms of "church and state" could eliminate much general and legal confusion by revising their terminology to conform to the wording of the Constitution.
Nevertheless, you will find both uses in the following quotations and events which are recorded in chronological order:
"When they have opened a gap in the . . . wall of separation between the Garden of the Church and the wildernes of the world, God hath ever . . . made his Garden a Wildernesse" (Roger Williams, 1644, Writings, 1:392).
In no state was the struggle for separation between religion and government more thoroughly documented than in Virginia , where Thomas Jefferson's "Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom" became law in 1786. No book has more thoroughly documented that effort than Separation of Church and State in Virginia by H. J. Eckenrode, who nevertheless concluded: "Separation of church and state in Virginia, instead of weakening Christianity, as the conservatives of the Revolution had feared, really aided it in securing a power over men far greater than it had known in the past."
The Founding Fathers could not have stated the principle of separation any more clearly than when they wrote: "No religious Test shall ever be required as a qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States" (U. S. Constitution, 1787, Art. 6, Sec. 3).
President Washington explained the reason for only one reference to religion in the Constitution: "I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe [credit] the absence of any regulation [law], respecting religion, from the Magna-Charta [Constitution] of our country" (George Washington, 1789, Papers, Presidential Series, 4:274).
The First Amendment was added to further guarantee the principle of separation and many historical references define its meaning, for example:
Even before the Bill of Rights became an official part of the Constitution, Congressman James Madison objected to the 1790 census identifying citizens as ministers because, he said, "the general government is proscribed [prohibited] from the interfering, in any manner whatsoever, in matters respecting religion; and it may be thought to do this, in ascertaining who, and who are not, ministers of the gospel" (February 2, 1790, Papers, 13:16).
Just six years after the First Amendment became an official part of the Constitution, the U.S. Senate read (in the English language) and ratified a treaty with Tripoli which included in Article 11 the following assertion: "The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion" (John Adams, 1797, Hunter Miller, ed., Treaties and other International Acts, 2:365).
Just over ten years after ratification of the First Amendment, President Jefferson, in his letter of reply to the Baptists of Connecticut, who were still being forced to pay taxes for support of other churches in Connecticut, wrote, "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" (January 1, 1802, Andrew A. Lipscomb, ed., Writings, 16:281).
In vetoing as unconstitutional a bill passed by Congress, Madison wrote, "Governments are limited by the essential distinction between civil and religious functions" (February 21, 1811, Gaillard Hunt, ed., Writings, 8:132).
In vetoing as unconstitutional another bill passed by Congress, Madison wrote: "The appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, [is] contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment'" (February 27, 1811, Writings, 8:133).
"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 its palladium [protection], . . . a Government which watches over . . . the equal interdict [prohibition] against encroachments and compacts [agreements] between religion and the state" (Madison, December 3,1816, Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1: 579-580).
"It was the Universal opinion of the Century [1600s] preceding the last [1700s], that Civil Govt could not stand without the prop of a Religious establishment, & that the Xn religion itself, would perish if not supported by a legal provision for its Clergy. The experience of Virginia conspicuously corroborates [supports with evidence] the disproof of both opinions. The Civil Govt . . . 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" (Madison, March 2, 1819, Writings, 8:431-432).
". . . I should suppose the Catholic portion of the people, as least, as a small & even unpopular sect in the U.S., would rally, as they did in Virg[ini]a when religious liberty was a Legislative topic, to its broadest principle. Notwithstanding [in spite of] the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, & the full establishment of it, in some parts of our Country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Govt & Religion neither can be duly supported. Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded ag[ain]st. And in a Govt of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together. It was the belief of all sects at one time that the establishment of Religion by law [emphasis added], was right & necessary; that the true religion ought to be established in exclusion of every other; And that the only question to be decided was which was the true religion. The example of Holland proved that a toleration of sects, dissenting from the established sect, was safe & even useful. The example of the Colonies, now States, which rejected religious establishments altogether, proved that all Sects might be safely & advantageously put on a footing of equal & entire freedom; and a continuance of their example since the declaration of Independence, has shewn that its success in Colonies was not to be ascribed to their connection with the parent Country. If a further confirmation of the truth could be wanted, it is to be found in the examples furnished by the States, which have abolished their religious establishments. I cannot speak particularly of any of the cases excepting that of Virg[ini]a where it is impossible to deny that Religion prevails with more zeal, and a more exemplary priesthood than it ever did when established and patronised by Public authority. We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Govt" (Madison, July 10, 1822, Writings, 9:101-103).
The following quotation includes several paragraphs:
"Waving the rights of Conscience, not included in the surrender implied by the social State, and more or less invaded by all religious Establishments, the simple question to be decided is whether a support of the best & purest religion, the Xn religion itself ought not so far at least as pecuniary [financial] means are involved, to be provided for by the Govt rather than be left to the voluntary provisions of those who profess it. And on this question experience will be an admitted Umpire, the more adequate as the connection between Govts & Religion have existed in such various degrees & forms, and now can be compared with examples where connection has been entirely dissolved.
"In the Papal System, Government and Religion are in a manner consolidated, & that is found to be the worst of Govts.
"In most of the Govts of the old world, the legal establishment of a particular religion and without or with very little toleration of others makes a part of the Political and Civil organization and there are few of the most enlightened judges who will maintain that the system has been favorable either to Religion or to Govt.
"Until Holland ventured on the experiment of combining a liberal toleration with the establishment of a particular creed, it was taken for granted, that an exclusive & intolerant establishment was essential, and notwithstanding the light thrown on the subject by that experiment, the prevailing opinion in Europe, England not excepted, has been that Religion could not be preserved without the support of Govt nor Govt be supported with[ou]t an established religion that there must be at least an alliance of some sort between them.
"It remained for North America to bring the great & interesting subject to a fair, and finally to a decisive test.
"In the Colonial State of the Country, there were four examples, R.I. N.J. Penna. and Delaware, & the greater part of N.Y. where there were no religious Establishments; the support of Religion being left to the voluntary associations & contributions of individuals; and certainly the religious condition of those Colonies, will well bear a comparison with that where establishments existed. . . .
"It is true that the New England States have not discontinued establishments of Religion formed under very peculiar circumstances; but they have by successive relaxations advanced towards the prevailing example; and without any evidence of disavantage either to Relgion or good Government.
"And if we turn to the Southern States where there was, previous to the Declaration of independence, a legal provision for the support of Religion; and since that event a surrender of it to a spontaneous support by the people, it may be said that the difference amounts nearly to a contrast in the greater purity & industry of the Pastors and in the greater devotion of their flocks, in the latter period than in the former. In Virginia the contrast is particularly striking, to those whose memories can make the comparison. It will not be denied that causes other than the abolition of the legal establishment of Religion are to be taken into view in account[in]g for the change in the Religious character of the community. But the existing character, distinguished as it is by its religious features, and the lapse of time now more than 50 years since the legal support of Religion was withdrawn[,] sufficiently prove that it does not need the support of Govt and it will scarcely be contended that Government has suffered by the exemption of Religion from its cognizance [knowledge and jurisdiction or responsibility], or its pecuniary [monetary] aid. . . .
"Under another aspect of the subject there may be less danger that Religion, if left to itself, will suffer from a failure of the pecuniary [financial] support applicable to it than that an omission of the public authorities to limit the duration of their Charters to Religious Corporations, and the amount of property acquirable by them, may lead to an injurious accumulation of wealth [emphasis added] from the lavish donations and bequests prompted by a pious zeal or by an atoning remorse. . . .
". . . I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions & doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation [exercising authority wrongfully] on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded ag[ain]st by an entire abstinance of the Govt from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, & protecting each sect ag[ain]st trespasses on its legal rights by others [emphasis added]" (Madison, to Rev. Jasper Adams, 1932, Writings, 9:485-487).
"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, undated, "Detached Memoranda," William and Mary Quarterly, 1946, 3:555).
"Religion . . . enjoys in this country . . . complete separation from the political concerns of the General Government" (Andrew Jackson, 1832, Correspondence, 4:447).
"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" (Alexis de Tocqueville, 1835, Democracy in America, 1:308).
"Perfect religious freedom [was] established in the United States, without any control exercised by the civil authority over spiritual concerns. In consequence of this, every denomination was . . . without . . . disadvantages arising from the connection of religion with secular policy" (Bird Wilson, 1839, Memior of the Life of the Right Reverend William White, 88).
"The divorce between Church and 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" (James A. Garfield, 1874, Congressional Record, 2: 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" (Ulysses S. Grant, 1875, Leo Pfeffer, Church, State, and Freedom, 1967, p. 337).
For further clarification regarding the Establishment Clause, read my essay in the May/Jun 1999 issue of Liberty magazine by clicking on the following url:
libertymagazine.org
Copyright 1996, 2000 Gene Garman |
