Fred, Jefferson, Reynolds, Everson down in flames


 Religions > Atheism > Fred, Jefferson, Reynolds, Everson down in flames

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 1 of 1
Topic: Religions > Atheism
User: ""
Date: 05 Nov 2005 07:38:52 PM
Object: Fred, Jefferson, Reynolds, Everson down in flames
PART I I
These practices of the old world were transplanted to and began to thrive
in the soil of the new America. The very charters granted by the English
Crown to the individuals and companies designated to make the laws which
would control the destinies of the colonials authorized these individuals
and companies to erect religious establishments which all, whether
believers or non-believers, would be required to support and attend. 6
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[ Footnote 6 ] See e.g. the charter of the colony of Carolina which gave
the grantees the right of 'patronage and advowsons of all the churches and
chapels ... together with licence and power to build and found churches,
chapels and oratories ... and to cause them to be dedicated and
consecrated, according to the ecclesiastical laws of our kingdom of
England.' Poore, Constitutions (1878) II, 1390, 1391. That of Maryland gave
to the grantee Lord Baltimore 'the Patronages and Advowsons of all Churches
which ... shall happen to be built, together with Licence and Faculty of
erecting and founding Churches, Chapels, and Places of Worship ... and of
causing the same to be dedicated and consecrated according to the
Ecclesiastical Laws of our Kingdom of England, with all, and singular such,
and as ample Rights, Jurisdictions, Privileges, ... as any Bishop ... in
our Kingdom of England ever ... hath had. ...' McDonald, Documentary Source
Book of American History (1934) 31, 33. The Commission of New Hampshire of
1680, Poore, supra, II, 1277, stated: 'And above all things We do by these
presents will, require and comand our said Councill to take all possible
care for ye discountenancing of vice and encouraging of virtue and good
living; and that by such examples ye infidle may be invited and desire to
partake of ye Christian Religion, and for ye greater ease and satisfaction
of ye sd loving subjects in matters of religion, We do hereby require and
comand yt liberty of conscience shall be allowed unto all protestants; yt
such especially as shall be conformable to ye rites of ye Church of Engd
shall be particularly countenanced and encouraged.'
See also Town of Pawlet v. Clark, 9 Cranch 292.
http://www.justia.us/us/13/292/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An exercise of [330 U.S. 1, 10] this authority was accompanied by a
repetition of many of the old world practices and persecutions. Catholics
found themselves hounded and proscribed because of their faith; Quakers who
followed their conscience went to jail; Baptists were peculiarly obnoxious
to certain dominant Protestant sects; men and women of varied faiths who
happened to be in a minority in a particular locality were persecuted
because they steadfastly persisted in worshipping God only as their own
consciences dictated. 7
------------------------------------------------
[ Footnote 7 ] See e.g. Semple, Baptists in Virginia (1894); Sweet,
Religion in Colonial America, supra at 131-152, 322-339.
-------------------------------------------------
And all of these dissenters were compelled to pay tithes and taxes 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ Footnote 8 ] Almost every colony exacted some kind of tax for church
support. See e.g. Cobb, op. cit. supra, note 5, 110 (Virginia); 131 (North
Carolina ); 169 (Massachusetts); 270 (Connecticut); 304, 310, 339 (New
York); 386 ( Maryland); 295 (New Hampshire).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
to support government-sponsored churches whose ministers preached
inflammatory sermons designed to strengthen and consolidate the established
faith by generating a burning hatred against dissenters. [330 U.S. 1, 11]
These practices became so commonplace as to shock the freedom-loving
colonials into a feeling of abhorrence. 9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ Footnote 9 ] Madison wrote to a friend in 1774: 'That diabolical,
hell-conceived principle of persecution rages among some. ... This vexes me
the worst of anything whatever. There are at this time in the adjacent
country not less than five or six well-meaning men in close jail for
publishing their religious sentiments, which in the main are very orthodox.
I have neither patience to hear, talk, or think of anything relative to
this matter; for I have squabbled and scolded, abused and ridiculed, so
long about it to little purpose, that I am without common patience. So I
must beg you to pity me, and pray for liberty of conscience to all.' I
Writings of James Madison (1900) 18, 21.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The imposition of taxes to pay ministers' salaries and to build and
maintain churches and church property aroused their indignation. 10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ Footnote 10 ] Virginia's resistance to taxation for church support was
crystalized in the famous 'Parson's Case' argued by Patrick Henry in 1763.
For an account see Cobb, op. cit., supra, note 5, 108-111.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was these feelings which found expression in the First Amendment. No one
locality and no one group throughout the Colonies can rightly be given
entire credit for having aroused the sentiment that culminated in adoption
of the Bill of Rights' provisions embracing religious liberty. But
Virginia, where the established church had achieved a dominant influence in
political affairs and where many excesses attracted wide public attention,
p ovided a great stimulus and able leadership for the movement. The people
there, as elsewhere, reached the conviction that individual religious
liberty could be achieved best under a government which was stripped of all
power to tax, to support, or otherwise to assist any or all religions, or
to interfere with the beliefs of any religious individual or group.
The movement toward this end reached its dramatic climax in Virginia in
1785-86 when the Virginia legislative body was about to renew Virginia's
tax levy for the support of the established church. Thomas Jeffer- [330
U.S. 1, 12] son and James Madison led the fight against this tax. Madison
wrote his great Memorial and Remonstrance against the law. 11
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ Footnote 11 ] II Writings of James Madison, 183.
James Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance (June,1785)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/memorial.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In it, he eloquently argued that a true religion did not need the support
of law; that no person, either believer or non-believer, should be taxed to
support a religious institution of any kind; that the best interest of a
society required that the minds of men always be wholly free; and that
cruel persecutions were the inevitable result of government-established
religions. Madison's Remonstrance received strong support throughout
Virginia, 12
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ Footnote 12 ] In a recently discovered collection of Madison's papers,
Madison recollected that his Remonstrance 'met with the approbation of the
Baptists, the Presbyterians, the Quakers, and the few Roman Catholics,
universally; of the Methodists in part; and even of not a few of the Sect
formerly established by law.' Madison, Monopolies, Perpetuities,
Corporations, Ecclesiastical Endowments, in Fleet, Madison's 'Detached
Memorandum,' 3 William and Mary Q. (1946) 534, 551, 555.
Excerpts from James Madison's Detached Memoranda (written after 1817)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/detach.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and the Assembly postponed consideration of the proposed tax measure until
its next session. When the proposal came up for consideration at that
session, it not only died in committee, but the Assembly enacted the famous
'Virginia Bill for Religious Liberty' originally written by Thomas
Jefferson. 13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ Footnote 13 ] For accounts of background and evolution of the Virginia
Bill for Religious Liberty see e.g. James, The Struggle for Religious
Liberty in Virginia (1900); Thom, The Struggle for Religious Freedom in
Virginia; the Baptists (1900); Cobb, op. cit., supra, note 5, 74-115;
Madison, Monopolies, Perpetuities, Corporations, Ecclesiastical Endowments,
op. cit ., supra, note 12, 554, 556.
Jefferson's Bill for Religious Freedom (Passed December, 1785)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/statute.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The preamble to that Bill stated among other things that
'Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to
influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil
incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and
are [330 U.S. 1, 13] a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our
religion who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate
it by coercions on either . . .; that to compel a man to furnish
contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he
disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support
this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of
the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular
pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern ...'
And the statute itself enacted
'That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious
worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained,
molested, or burthened, in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on
account of his religious opinions or belief. . . .'14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ Footnote 14 ] 12 Hening, Statutes of Virginia (1823) 84; Commager,
Documents of American History (1944) 125.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This Court has previously recognized that the provisions of the First
Amendment, in the drafting and adoption of which Madison and Jefferson
played such leading roles, had the same objective and were intended to
provide the same protection against governmental intrusion on religious
liberty as the Virginia statute. Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S.
at page 164; Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679; Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333,
342 , 10 S.Ct. 299, 300. Prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment,
the First Amendment did not apply as a restraint against the states. 15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ Footnote 15 ] Permoli v. Municipality No. 1 of City of New Orleans, 3
How. 589.
http://www.justia.us/us/44/589/
Cf. Barron, for Use of Tiernan v. Mayor and City Council of City of
Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=32&invol=243
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of them did soon provide similar constitutional protections [330 U.S.
1, 14] for religious liberty. 16
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[ Footnote 16 ] For a collection of state constitutional provisions on
freedom of religion see Gavel, Public Funds for Church and Private Schools
(1937) 148- 149. See also 2 Cooley, Constitutional Limitations (1927)
960-985.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
But some states persisted for about half a century in imposing restraints
upon the free exercise of religion and in discriminating against particular
religious groups. 17
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[ Footnote 17 ] Test provisions forbade office holders to 'deny ... the
truth of the Protestant religion,' e.g. Constitution of North Carolina
1776, XXXII, II Poore, supra, 1413. Maryland permitted taxation for support
of the Christian religion and limited civil office to Christians until
1818, Id., I, 819, 820, 832.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In recent years, so far as the provision against the establishment of a
religion is concerned, the question has most frequently arisen in
connection with proposed state aid to church schools and efforts to carry
on religious teachings in the public schools in accordance with the tenets
of a particular sect. 18
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ Footnote 18 ] See Note 50 Yale L.J. (1941) 917; see also cases collected
Synod of Dakota v. State, 2 S.D. 366, 50 N.W. 632, 14 L.R.A. 418; 5 A.L.R.
879; 141 A.L.R. 1148
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Some churches have either sought or accepted state financial support for
their schools. Here again the efforts to obtain state aid or acceptance of
it have not been limited to any one particular faith. 19
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[ Footnote 19 ] See cases collected Synod of Dakota v. State, 2 S.D. 366,
50 N.W. 632, 14 L.R.A. 418; 5 A.L.R. 879; 141 A.L.R. 1148.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The state courts, in the main, have remained faithful to the language of
their own constitutional provisions designed to protect religious freedom
and to separate religious and governments. Their decisions, however, show
the difficulty in drawing the line between tax legislation which provides
funds for the welfare of the general public and that which is designed to
support institutions which teach religion. 20
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[ Footnote 20 ] Ibid. See also Cooley, op. cit., supra, note 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The meaning and scope of the First Amendment, preventing establishment of
religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, in the light of its
history and the evils it [330 U.S. 1, 15] was designed forever to
suppress, have been several times elaborated by the decisions of this Court
prior to the application of the First Amendment to the states by the
Fourteenth. 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ Footnote 21 ] Terrett v. Taylor, 9 Cranch 43; Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall.
679;
Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 , 10 S.Ct. 299;
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=133&invol=333
Cf. Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. 162 ;
Reuben Quick Bear v. Leupp, 210 U.S. 50 , 28 S.Ct. 690.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=210&invol=50
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The broad meaning given the Amendment by these earlier cases has been
accepted by this Court in its decisions concerning an individual's
religious freedom rendered since the Fourteenth Amendment was interpreted
to make the prohibitions of the First applicable to state action abridging
religious freedom. 22
-----------------------------------------------------------------
[ Footnote 22 ] Cantwell v. State of Conn., 310 U.S. 296 , 60 S.Ct. 900,
128 A.L.R. 1352;
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=310&invol=296
Jamison v. State of Texas, 318 U.S. 413 , 63 S.Ct. 669;
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=318&invol=413
Largent v. State of Texas, 318 U.S. 418 , 63 S.Ct. 667;
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=318&invol=418
Murdock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, supra;
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=319&invol=105
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 , 63 S.Ct.
1178, 147 A.L.R. 674;
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=319&invol=624
Follett v. Town of McCormick, 321 U.S. 573 , 64 S.Ct. 717, 152 A.L.R. 317;
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=321&invol=573
Marsh v. State of Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 , 66 S.Ct. 276;
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=326&invol=501
Cf. Bradfield v. Roberts, 175 U.S. 291 , 20 S.Ct. 121.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=175&invol=291
----------------------------------------------------------------
There is every reason to give the sam application and broad interpretation
to the 'establishment of religion' clause. The interrelation of these
complementary clauses was well summarized in a statement of the Court of
Appeals of South Carolina,23
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ Footnote 23 ] Harmon v. Dreher, 1843, Speer's Eq., S.C., 87, 120.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.

 

NEWER
pg.3585     pg.2749     pg.2106     pg.1612     pg.1232     pg.940     pg.716     pg.544     pg.412     pg.311     pg.234     pg.175     pg.130     pg.96     pg.70     pg.50     pg.35     pg.24     pg.16     pg.10     pg.6     pg.3     pg.1

OLDER