The US Constitution and First Amendment were written for the future, and the future is now.
We are deeply troubled that the Bush Administration would turn the clock back to much earlier times. Ellen Alderman and Caroline Kennedy address this very point in their book "In Our Defense:"
US Constitution
Article VI
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
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.
Article VI
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
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.
"The Puritans of Massachusetts sought to build their 'City on a Hill,' Lord Baltimore founded Maryland as a colony where Catholics and Protestants would live together and prosper, William Penn led the Quakers to Philadelphia, and the Virginia planters were strong supporters of the Church of England.
"The reality of religious life in the colonies, often did not fulfill these ideals. Those who did not share the beliefs of the dominant group were often banished, imprisoned, ruined, and persecuted. They were also taxed and compelled to attend government-sponsored churches whose ministers preached inflammatory sermons designed to bolster the established religion by stirring hatred against the dissenters. By the time of the American Revolution, every colonial government imposed religious tests for public office, and eight of the thirteen colonies had established an official religion.
"After Independence, though the United States remained essentially a Protestant nation, state-established religion met with increasing opposition."
"The reality of religious life in the colonies, often did not fulfill these ideals. Those who did not share the beliefs of the dominant group were often banished, imprisoned, ruined, and persecuted. They were also taxed and compelled to attend government-sponsored churches whose ministers preached inflammatory sermons designed to bolster the established religion by stirring hatred against the dissenters. By the time of the American Revolution, every colonial government imposed religious tests for public office, and eight of the thirteen colonies had established an official religion.
"After Independence, though the United States remained essentially a Protestant nation, state-established religion met with increasing opposition."
James Madison was the father of the "Separation of Church and State" provision in the First Amendment.
In response to a "surprise" introduction of a bill [times have not changed!] in the legislature of Virginia to tax the populace for training teachers of Christian religion, Madison crafted his "Memorial and Remonstrance". It was akin to a referendum, to be signed by theologians and citizens of Virginia. They overwhelmingly approved its provision for not allowing the State to use tax moneys to establish "Teachers of Religion." That success and Jefferson's bill (proclaiming religious freedom, banning compulsory attendance or support of any religious institution) that passed the legislature provided the impetus behind the First Amendment.
Madison explained further in his "Letter to General LaFayette," November 1826:
"The Anglican hierarchy existing in Virginia prior to the Revolution was abolished by an early act of the Independent Legislature. In the year 1785, a bill was introduced under the auspices of Mr.[Patrick] Henry, imposing a general tax for the support of 'Teachers of the Christian Religion.' It made a progress, threatening a majority in its favor. As an expedient to defeat it, we proposed that it should be postponed to another session, and printed in the meantime for public consideration. Such an appeal in a case so important and so unforeseen could not be resisted. With a view to arouse the people, it was thought proper that a memorial should be drawn up, the task being assigned to me, to be printed and circulated throughout the State for a general signature. The experiment succeeded. The memorial was so extensively signed by the various religious sects, including a considerable portion of the old hierarchy, that the projected innovation was crushed, and under the influence of the popular sentiment thus called forth, the well-known Bill prepared by Mr. Jefferson, for 'Establishing Religious freedom,' passed into a law, as it now stands in our code of statutes."
Madison's "Memorial and Remonstrance" contained fifteen valid arguments why states should not meddle in religious affairs. His basic position was that taxes imposed by the state should not be used to support religious activity. It is good for neither the state nor religion.
For the complete original text of an abridged version that follows, visit:
A Memorial and Remonstrance -- University of Oklahoma Law Center
Madison's arguments for the separation of church and state are as valid today as they ever were. We quote.
Introduced into the
"Independent Legislature"
by Patrick Henry
"A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion"
Madison responded [excerpts]...
We remonstrate against the said Bill,
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..."
Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body.
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.
Because the Bill violates the 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.
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.
Because the establishment proposed by the Bill is not requisite for the support of the Christian Religion.
Because experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation.
Because the establishment in question is not necessary for the support of Civil Government.
Because the proposed establishment is a departure from the generous policy, which, offering an Asylum to the persecuted and oppressed of every Nation and Religion, promised a luster to our country, and an accession to the number of its citizens.
Because it will have a like tendency to banish our Citizens.
Because it will destroy that moderation and harmony which the forbearance of our laws to intermeddle with Religion has produced among its several sects.
Because the policy of the Bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity.
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.
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.
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.
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..."
Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body.
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.
Because the Bill violates the 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.
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.
Because the establishment proposed by the Bill is not requisite for the support of the Christian Religion.
Because experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation.
Because the establishment in question is not necessary for the support of Civil Government.
Because the proposed establishment is a departure from the generous policy, which, offering an Asylum to the persecuted and oppressed of every Nation and Religion, promised a luster to our country, and an accession to the number of its citizens.
Because it will have a like tendency to banish our Citizens.
Because it will destroy that moderation and harmony which the forbearance of our laws to intermeddle with Religion has produced among its several sects.
Because the policy of the Bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity.
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.
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.
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 there is a cornerstone in American freedom, it is the First Amendment. Freedoms of religion, speech, reporting, assembly, and petition add up to what is different about America. These rights are not merely right, they are powerful. Americans are free to ask questions of scientists, politicians and thier clergy alike. In our times, cultures in decline are those that permit to few or none of these freedoms.
Amendment I
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
The Bush Initiative to extend government funding to religious groups amounts to "compulsory support" the American taxpayers must provide to religions, whether or not of their choice or design. We make this statement in an attempt to redress a grievance, in the spirit of the First Amendment.
We are not alone in appreciating the power and significance of the First Amendment. Lee Hamilton, a 17-term congressman (now Director of The Center on Congress at Indiana University) has this to say about the Independent Legislature (Congress) in our times.
"You have to remember that the Founders who drew up our Constitution didn't want any single person able to impose his will on the country. They had just fought a war with England over the subject, and they were quite apprehensive about recreating a monarchy on American soil. Just as important, they understood that even an elected leader, or group of leaders, shouldn't have too much power. That's why they divided the federal government. A balance among the various powers of government, they reasoned, would most firmly protect citizens' liberties. In particular, they believed freedom would be meaningless without a legislature that is independent of the President, able to represent the people of the United States in checking his desires.
"An independent legislature is a key test of freedom in our country, or any country. Indeed, I am doubtful whether freedom can exist or ever has existed in a country without a free and independent parliament. So ever since it was first set up by the Founders as the "First Branch" in our system of government, the historic mission of Congress has been to maintain freedom in the country."
"An independent legislature is a key test of freedom in our country, or any country. Indeed, I am doubtful whether freedom can exist or ever has existed in a country without a free and independent parliament. So ever since it was first set up by the Founders as the "First Branch" in our system of government, the historic mission of Congress has been to maintain freedom in the country."
The key words are "Independent Legislature." It happens to be our lot to live at a time where this independence no longer exists. Just as the Plutocrats and theocrats hoped, in 2000 American voters swallowed the propaganda that got us into a big mess. To their credit, however, they recinded their support in the 2006 by-elections.
How ever this works out, Hamilton's wisdom has stood the test of time, even if it is being ignored by Bush and his people. Islam and its many trials with religious governance cannot point to a single enduring success story through the ages.
Why try to turn the clock back?
^^^^^^^^
End Note: Patrick Henry was a great patriot. He said: "I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death." But in matters of governance, at least, he was not up to Jeffersonian or Hamiltonian standards.
Posted by RoadToPeace on Monday, August 08, 2005.
Rate this article: 
| 
(current rating: 56)
Who we are
Comments
To be able to post comments, please register on the site.