| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
08 Jun 2005 04:00:06 AM |
| Object: |
No wall of separation between C&S |
--- In HRSepCnS@yahoogroups.com, "HumanCarol" <humanist@a...> wrote:
This says there is no wall of separation between church and state:
http://www.legendgames.net/showstory.asp?page=blognews/stories/UP0000279.txt
There is a comment form at bottom of the page.
Good. You can use the followint for referecnes and notes to write and
submit a comment (grin)
SEPTEMBER 1789
Representative Thomas Tucker on Church and State
Thomas Tucker of South Carolina made a revealing statement about his
beliefs concerning church/state separation toward the end of the first
session of the first Congress to meet under the Constitution. Mr.
Tucker's comments were occasioned by a proposal from Representative
Boudinot of New Jersey to ask the President to proclaim a day of
thanksgiving in honor of Congress' completion of its first session.
The following is taken from the Annals of Congress, Vol I, 1789, pp.
914-15 (entry for Friday, September 25).
MR. BOUDINOT, a Representative from the State of New Jersey said he
could not think of letting the session pass over without offering an
opportunity to all citizens of the United States of joining with one
voice, in returning to Almighty God their sincere thanks for the many
blessings he had poured down upon them. With that view, therefore, he
would move the following resolution:
RESOLVED, That a joint committee of both Houses be directed to wait
upon the President of the United States, to request that he would
recommend to the people of the United States a day of public
thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging, with
grateful hearts, that many signal favors of almighty God, especially
by affording them the opportunity peaceably to establish a
Constitution of government for their safety and happiness.
MR. BURKE, a Representative from South Carolina said he did not like
this mimicking of European customs, where they make a mere mockery of
thanksgivings. Two parties at war frequently sung TE DEUM for the same
event though for one it was a victory, and to the other a defeat.
MR. TUCKER, a Representative from the State of South Carolina, thought
the House had no business to interfere in a matter which did not
concern them. Why should the president direct the people to do what,
perhaps, they have no mind to do? They may not be inclined to return
thanks for a constitution until they have experienced that it promotes
their safety and happiness. We do not yet know but they may have
reason to be dissatisfied with the effects it has already produced;
but whether this be so or not, it is a business with which Congress
have nothing to do, it is a religious matter, and, as such is
proscribed to us [emphasis ours]. If a day of thanksgiving must take
place, let it be done by the authority of the several states; they
know best what reason their constituents have to be with the
establishment of this Constitution.
MR. SHERMAN justified the practice of thanksgiving, on any signal
event, not only as a laudable one in itself, but as warranted by a
number of precedents in HOLY WRIT: for instance the solemn
thanksgivings and rejoicings which took place in the time of Solomon,
after the building of the temple, was a case in point. This example he
thought, worthy of Christian imitation on the present occasion; and he
would agree with the gentleman who moved the resolution.
Mr. BOUDINOT quoted further precedents from the practice of the late
Congress; and hoped the motion would meet a ready acquiescence. The
question was not put on the resolution, and was carried in the
affirmative: and Messers. Boudinot, Sherman, and Sylvester, were
appointed a committee on the part of the House.
(Source of information: "The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress
of the United States" Annals of Congress) September 25, 1789, Vol. I,
Joseph Gales, published by Gales and Seaton, Washington, 1834, pp 914-15)
At the time of Tucker's comments, the amendments to the Constitution,
with its religious clauses, had been passed and were ready to be sent
to the states for debate and ratification or rejection. The religion
clauses would not become a part of the laws of this nation for another
two years. Even though he lost the vote that day, Tucker was reminding
his fellow Representatives that they were prohibited by the unamended
Constitution from involvement with matters concerning religion.
Tucker's acknowledgment of the principle of separation of church and
state in September 1789 in the First Federal Congress is a part of the
official record of that Congress.
No mention was made of what the vote count was for and against the
proclamation; however, the vote on the very next issue discussed was
recorded and shows that at least 50 members were present. It is
interesting that no tally is shown for the Thanksgiving issue. Only a
simple majority was needed, so we have no idea how many voted, who
voted or how.
The events of Friday, September 25, 1789 reveal several things: No
power or authority was given Congress to involve itself in religious
matters by the unamended constitution, as pointed out by Tucker and
not refuted by any member on record. The religious clauses of the
future Bill of Rights were not creating any new religious liberty
protections, but were reinforcing that which had been created with the
unamended Constitution. Finally, politicians, then as now, were more
than willing to do as they pleased, rather than as they should - by
following the rules.
Tucker lost the day, and Congress did pass a resolution asking that
Washington issue such a proclamation, but that doesn't change the fact
that Tucker was correct when he said, "But whether this be so or not,
it is a business with which Congress have nothing to do, it is a
religious matter, and, as such is proscribed to us." [emphasis ours].
********************************************************************************\
*********
February 2, 1790
.. . . a very interesting debate in the House of Representatives,
February 2, 1790, when the question of the Federal census was under
consideration. The bill, as reported, provided for the enumeration of
farmers, mechanics, and other groups, but did not include the learned
professions. Theodore Sedgwick of Massachusetts (1746-1813) suggested
that it should "specify every class of citizens, into which the
community was divided, in order to ascertain the actual state of the
society." Mr. Madison, in his reply, said:
The gentleman from Massachusetts has asked, why the learned
professions were not included? I have no objection to giving a column
to the general body. I think the work would be rendered more complete
by the addition, and if the decision of such a motion turned upon my
voice, they shall be added. But it may nevertheless be observed, that
in such a character they can never be objects of legislative attention
or cognizance. As to those who are employed in teaching and
inculcating the duties of religion, there may be some indelicacy in
singling them out, as the General Government is proscribed from
interfering, in any manner whatever, in matters respecting religion;
and it may be thought to do this, in ascertaining who, and who are not
ministers of the Gospel. Conceiving the extension of the plan to be
useful however, and not difficult, I hope it may meet the ready
concurrence of this House. (295)
Footnote:
295. Gales, Joseph, Sr. Debates and Proceedings of the Congress of
the United States (Washington , 1834) I, 1106-1108
Source of Information Church and State in the United States, Anson
Phelps Stokes, D.D., L.L.D, Harper & Bros, N Y (1950) Vol. I, p. 346
1790
*******************************************************************************
March 5, 1798
GENERAL + A U R O R A + ADVERTISER
MONDAY MARCH 5, 1798
Take notice! Something very like this happened on the 4th of
March, 1797. The American Constitution has no relation to the
Christian religion: Yet Mr. Adams, before taking his oath of office,
made a long exordium to this purpose: viz, that, although the
constitution makes no distinction in favour of the Christian religion,
yet that he (Mr. Adams) in nominating to public offices would always
have a special eye to that point. This truth was thereafter sent to
the press.
In July or August last, when the author of the history of 1796 or
in plain terms. when Hamilton came to Philadelphia to vindicate his
character by a confession of adultery, this identical and most
Christian president invited him to a family dinner with Mrs. Adams.
Such is his selection of company for the entertainment of his wife!
Oh, Johnny! Johnny!
Source of Information General Aurora Advertiser, March 5, 1798. MFILM
N.S. 12516 HF5862.A9
********************************************************************************\
***
May 9, 1798
GENERAL + AURORA + ADVERTISER
PHILADELPHIA
WEDNESDAY, MAY 9. 1798
The other papers of this city have chosen to be silent this day,
because the President has recommended a fast. We do not follow their
example:
Because there is nothing in the constitution giving authority to
proclaim fasts .
Because, if any such power can be considered, by implication, as
vested by the constitution, it would rather belong to the Legislators.
Because prayer, fasting, and humiliation are matters of religion
and conscience, with which government has nothing to do, but which
every individual is to attend to at such times, and in such manner, as
he shall deem fit.
And Because we consider a connection between state and church
affairs as dangerous to religious and political freedom and that,
therefore, every approach towards it should be discouraged.
Source of Information General Aurora Advertiser, May, 9, 1798,
Philadelphia, Penna. MFILM N.S. 12516 HF5862.A9
1800
********************************************************************************\
***
April 14, 1800
The Gazette
Philadelphia
Monday Evening, April 14.
The condition of Church and State in America is such as to fill
every considerate mind with the most unhappy sensations. In spite of
that vanity and fastidiousness which led the Federal Convention, in
founding their government, to preclude any connection, it will appear
in the end, even by our own deplorable example, that a strict and
indissoluble alliance of religion to government has been ordained in
the nature of things. Though formally sundered by Constitution and
laws; together they decline and together (it would seem) they are
likely to perish.
Source of Information The Gazette of the United States, April 14,
1800.Jan 1, 1800 TO Dec.31, 1800 MFILM N.S. 10953 AP2.05
January 1833
********************************************************************************\
*********
"The remaining part of the clause declares, that 'no religious
test shall ever be required, as a qualification to any office or
public trust, under the United States.' This clause is not introduced
merely for the purpose of satisfying the scruples of many respectable
persons, who feel an invincible repugnance to any test or affirmation.
It had a higher object; to cut off for ever every pretence of any
alliance between church and state in the national government. The
framers of the constitution were fully sensible of the dangers from
this source, marked out in history of other ages and countries; and
not wholly unknown to our own.
Commentaries on The Constitution of The United States, by Supreme
Court Justice Joseph Story, Vol III, (1833) pg 705.
********************************************************************************\
************
Commentary on Religious Tests and the Constitution
[Rev.] Linn's call for a religious test echoed a similar debate
held at the constitutional and ratifying conventions of 1787-1789.3
Opposing each other then were delegates with fundamental differences
in their conception of religion's proper place in American public
life. On one side were those stressing that America was a Christian
nation and should be led by Christians. On the other were those
emphasizing that the nation was a haven of religious freedom and
should separate matters of state and issues of faith. The latter
argument prevailed and resulted in a constitutional ban against
religious tests. But, while the Constitution guaranteed a secular
state, to many Americans who considered religion central in their
lives, especially defenders of Protestant orthodoxy, the issue was not
settled. They discovered during the presidential campaign of 1800 the
means and a forum for attaining their goal: a voterimposed religious
test to be won in the arena of public opinion. This essay explores
that heated and, often, acrimonious contest.
For the orthodox ministers who led the fight, the year 1800
represented their best opportunity since 1787 to argue that a
Christian nation must have Christian leaders.4 . . . The
Federalist-dominated Congress capitalized on the outsized fear of
foreign intrigue and restricted the free speech provisions of the
First Amendment by passing the Sedition Act, aimed squarely at
Jeffersonian newspaper editors. Some hoped that the current atmosphere
would permit a similar curb on freedom of religion. While a few
persons pondered ways to either amend or circumvent constitutional
safeguards protecting religion from state interference, most opted to
take their case directly to the people and seek a voter-imposed
religious test that would bar Jefferson from the White House.
Historians have analyzed the religious question in 1800 from
several perspectives. One scholar viewed it as a profound "political
struggle between rationalist Christianity and Protestant orthodoxy."
In this interpretation, the combatants fought over what was "true"
faith and which expression would best provide American society with a
firm moral base.5 To another, the matter was one between "secular
humanists" who wanted no discussion of religion at all in matters of
state but were not necessarily antireligious and those religious
leaders who wished to present the campaign as one for the survival of
orthodox Christianity in the republic.6 And yet another, borrowing
from Jefferson's own analysis of the campaign, conceived of the fight
over religion as narrow-minded sectarian bigotry.7
3. For the debate over religious tests at the constitutional and
ratifying conventions, see Daniel Dreisbach, "The Constitution's
Forgotten Religion Clause: Reflections on the Article VI Religious
Test Ban," Journal Of Church and State 38 (Spring 1996): 261-96;
Morton Borden, Jews, Turks, and Infidels (Chapel Hill, N.C.:
University of North Carolina Press, 1984); John M. Murrin, "Religion
and Politics in America from the First Settlements to the Civil War,"
in Religion and American Politics: From the Colonial Period to the
1980s, ed. Mark A. Noll (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990),
19-43; Jackson Turner Main, The Antifederalists: Critics of the
Constitution, 1781-1788 (Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North
Carolina Press, 1961); James H. Smyhe, "Protestant Clergy, the First
Amendment, and Beginnings of a Constitutional Debate, 1781-1791," in
The Religion of the Republic, ed. Elwyn A. Smith (Philadelphia, Penn.:
Fortress Press, 1971), 116-53; and Edwin Gaustad, "Religious Tests,
Constitutions, and a 'Christian Nation'," in Religion in a
Revolutionary Age, eds. Ronald Hoffman and Peter J. Albert
(Charlottesville, Va.: University Press of Virginia, 1994), 218-35.
4. On religion and the campaign of 1800, see Mark A. Noll, One
Nation Under God? (New York: Harper and Row, 1988), 74-89; Charles F.
O'Brien, "The Religious Issue in the Presidential Campaign of
1800,"Essex Institute Historical Collections 107 (January 1971):
82-93; Constance B. Schulz, "`Of Bigotry in Politics and Religion':
Jefferson's Religion, the Federalist Press, and the Syllabus," The
Virginia Magazine of Biography and History 91 (January 1983): 73-91;
Charles O. Lerche, Jr., "Jefferson and the Election of 1800: A Case
Study in the Political Smear," William and Mary Quarterly 5 (October
1948): 467-91; Fred C. Luebke, "The Origins of Thomas Jefferson's
Anti-Clericalism," Church History 32 (September 1963): 344-56; and L.
H. Butterfeld, "Elder John Leland, Jeffersonian Itinerant,"
Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society 62 (October 1952): 214-29.
5. See O'Brien, "The Religious Issue in the Presidential Campaign
of 1800."
6. John Murrin, "Religion and Politics in America from the First
Settlements to the Civil War," inReligion and American Politics, ed.
Noll, 19-43.
7. Schulz. "Of Bigotry in Politics and Religion."
Source of Information "God-And a Religious President . . . Or
Jefferson and No God": Campaigning for a Voter-Imposed Religious Test
in 1800, Frank Lambert, pp 770-71 Journal Of Church and State , Volume
39 Autumn 1997 Number 4
********************************************************************************\
********
A Solemn Address to Christians & Patriots,
upon the Approaching Election of a President of the United
States in Answer to a Pamphlet, Entitled, "Serious
Confiderations," &C.
New-York; Printed by David Denniston. 1800.
D E D I C A T 1 O N To the Reverend Dr. Linn
"Thou shalt not bear false-witness against thy neighbour."
-The ninth commandment.
TO M Y R E A D E R S
In the ensuing observations, I shall consider your duties as
christians and as patriots. I shall make it my task to establish the
following propositions.
1st. That it is your duty, as christians, to maintain the purity
and independence of the church, to keep religion separate from
politics, to prevent an union between the church and the state, and to
preserve your clergy from temptation, corruption and reproach.
Timoleon
We have years and volumes-we have a world of experience before us,
in the sufferings and the miseries of ages-we read a lesson too
impressive to be resisted: both as christians and as men, we are
powerfully conjured to reject all attempts to promote an union between
the church and the state-the very idea of such a union is
insupportable. Neither directly or indirectly should we suffer it to
be effected.
Religion and government are equally necessary, but their interests
should be kept separate and distinct. No legitimate connection can
ever subsist between them. Upon no plan, no system, can they become
united, without endangering the purity and usefulness of both -the
church will corrupt the state, and the state pollute the church.
Christianity becomes no longer the religion of God-it becomes the
religion of temporal craft and expediency and policy. Instead of being
the sacred guide to lead mankind to heaven, it becomes the prostituted
instrument of private cupidity and personal ambition. I am not to be
told there is no longer danger in such an alliance; the danger has
always existed, and as long as men retain their passions and vices,
will exist in all its force.
Source of Information Excerpts from "A Solemn Address to Christians &
Patriots, Upon The Approaching Election of a President of the United
States," Political Sermons of the American Founding Era, 1730-1805,
Edited by Ellis Sandoz, Liberty press, pp. 1481-1528.
********************************************************************************\
***********
September 23, 1800
TO DR. BENJAMIN RUSH(1)
Monticello, September 23, 1800
.. . . The delusion into which the X. Y. Z. plot showed it
possible to push the people; the successful experiment made under the
prevalence of that delusion on the clause of the Constitution, which,
while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of
religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an
establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United
States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every
one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and
Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens
abortion to their hopes, and they believe that any portion of power
confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And
they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal
hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this
is all they have to fear from me: & enough too in their opinion, &
this is the cause of their printing lying pamphlets against me,
forging conversations for me with Mazzei, Bishop Madison, &c., which
are absolute falsehoods without a circumstance of truth to rest on;
falsehoods, too, of which I acquit Mazzei & Bishop Madison, for they
are men of truth.--But enough of this. It is more than I have before
committed to paper on the subject of all the lies which have been
preached or printed against me. . . .
Footnote
(1).Dr. Benjamin Rush, distinguished American physician and
humanitarian, and Jefferson, were fellow-members of the American
Philosophical Society. They corresponded frequently.
(2). The irritable tribe of priests.
Source of Information Excerpt from letter from Thomas Jefferson to Dr.
Benjamin Rush, September 23, 1800.The Works of Thomas Jefferson In
Twelve Volumes, Federal edition. Collected and edited by Paul
Leicester Ford. Volume X, G. P. Putnam's Sons, The Knickerbocker
Press. (1905) pp 148-49.
October 6, 1800
********************************************************************************\
**
From Benjamin Rush
Philadelphia October 6th 1800
Dear Sir
I agree with you in your Opinion of Cities. Cowper the Poet very
happily expresses our ideas of them compared with the Country. "God
made the Country--man made Cities." I consider them in the same light
that I do Abscesses on the human body viz: as resevoirs of all the
impurities of a Community.
I agree with you likewise in your wishes to keep religion and
government independant of each Other. Were it possible for St. Paul to
rise from his grave at the present juncture, he would say to the
Clergy who are now so active in settling the political Affairs of the
World: "Cease from your political labors-your kingdom is not of this
World. Read my Epistles. In no part of them will you perceive me
aiming to depose a pagan Emperor, or to place a Christian upon a
throne. Christianity disdains to receive Support from human
Governments." From this, it derives its preeminence over all the
religions that ever have, or ever shall exist in the World. Human
Governments may receive
Source of Information Excerpt from letter from Benjamin Rush to
Jefferson, October 6, 1800. RC (DLC); endorsed by TJ as received 16
Oct. [1800] and so recorded in SJL. pp 321
Source of Information The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, 2nd series,
Jefferson's Extracts from the Gospels, "The Philosophy of Jesus" and
"The Life and Morals of Jesus." Dickinson W. Adams, Editor, Princeton
University Press, Princeton, N J, (1983) pp 405-06.
********************************************************************************\
**********
MARCH 23, 1801
To Moses Robinson
Washington Mar. 23. 1801.
Dear Sir
.. . . The eastern states will be the last to come over, on account of
the dominion of the clergy, who had got a smell of union between
church and state. and began to indulge reveries which can never be
realized in the present state of science.
Source of Information Letter to Moses Robinson from Jefferson, March
23, 1801. PrC (DLC) pp 324 EXTRACTS
Source of Information
The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, 2nd series, Jefferson's Extracts from
the Gospels, "The Philosophy of Jesus" and "The Life and Morals of
Jesus." Dickinson W. Adams, Editor, Princeton University Press,
Princeton, N J, (1983) pp 405-06.
********************************************************************************\
******
May 3, 1801
"The clergy, who have missed their union with the state, the anglo
men, who have missed their union with England, the political
adventurers who have lost the chance of swindling & plunder in the
waste of public money, will never cease to bawl, on the breaking up of
their sanctuary."
Source of Information original source for quote -Thomas Jefferson to
Postmaster-General Gideon Granger, May 3, 1801, Works: Ford IX, 249,-
quote appearing in The Life of John Marshall, By Albert J Beveridge
Vol. III, page 15, published 1917.
********************************************************************************\
**********
October 1, 1803
Notes for annual message, Oct. 17, 1803: alterations and additions,
etc [1] (3) after "assure"-are proposed "in due season, and under
prudent arrangements, important aids to our Treasury, as well as," an
ample etc.
Quere: if the two or three succeeding paragraphs be not more adapted
to the separate and subsequent communication, if adopted as above
suggested.
(4) For the first sentence, may be substituted "In the territory
between the Mississippi and the Ohio another valuable acquisition has
been made by a treaty etc."[3.] As it stands, it does not sufficiently
distinguish the nature of the one acquisition from that of the other,
and seems to imply that the acquisition from France was wholly on the
other side of the Mississippi
May it not be as well to omit the detail of the stipulated
considerations, and particularly that of the Roman Catholic Pastor.
The jealousy of some may see in it a principle, not according with the
exemption of Religion from Civil power. In the Indian Treaty it will
be less noticed than in a President's speech.[4.]
Footnotes:
[1.] For TJ's third annual message to Congress, Oct. 17, 1803, see
Ford, VIII, pp. 266-7.
[3.] TI's message announced the acquisition of territory by treaty
from the Kaskaskia Indians; see Ford, VIII, pp. 269-70.
[4.] TJ accepted JM's suggestion to omit any discussion of Indian
treaty requirements to maintain a Roman Catholic priest, leaving the
stipulations in the treaty to "the competence of both houses.... as
soon as the senate shall have advised its ratification"; see ibid.
Source of Information James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, Washington,
Oct. 1, 1803, Notes for annual message, Oct. 17, 1803: alterations and
additions, etc.[1.], The Republic of Letters, the Correspondence
between Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, 1776- 1826, Edited by
James Morton Smith, Vol. II, 1790 -1804, W. W. Norton & Company, New
York, London, (1995) pp 1297-98.
January 23, 1808
********************************************************************************\
********
Religious Proclamations Unconstitutional written by Thomas Jefferson
to the Rev. Mr. Millar [Emphasis in the original]
WASHINGTON, January 23, 1808
I have duly received your favor of the eighteenth, and am thankful to
you for having written it, because it is more agreeable to prevent
than to refuse what I do not think myself authorized to comply with. I
consider the government of the United States as INDICATED BY THE
CONSTITUTION FROM INTERMEDDLING WITH RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS, THEIR
DOCTRINES, DISCIPLINES, OR EXERCISES. (2) This results not with
religion. only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting
the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that, also,
which reserves to the States the powers not delegated to the United
Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume
authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the general
government. It must, then, rest with the States, as far as it can be
in any human authority. But it is only proposed that I should
RECOMMEND, not prescribe a day of fasting and prayer. That is, that I
should INDIRECTLY assume to the United States an authority over
religious exercises, WHICH THE CONSTITUTION HAS DIRECTLY PRECLUDED
THEM FROM. It must be meant, too, that this recommendation is to carry
some authority, and to be sanctioned by some penalty on those who
disregard it; not, indeed, of fine and imprisonment, but of some
degree of proscription, perhaps in public opinion. And does the change
in the nature of the penalty make the recommendation less a law of
conduct for those to whom it is directed, I do not believe it is for
the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct its
exercises, its discipline, or its doctrines; nor of the religious
societies, that the general government should be invested with the
power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them.
Fasting and prayer are religious exercises; the enjoining them, an act
of discipline.
Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times
for these exercises, and the objects proper for them, according to
their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in
their own hands, WHERE THE CONSTITUTION HAS DEPOSITED IT.
Source of Information American State Papers Bearing on Sunday
Legislation, compiled and annotated William Addison Blakely, Revised
Edition Edited by Willard Allen Colcord. The Religious Liberty
Association (1911) pages 174-175) (Original publication of letter,
Works of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Ford. Vol. 5, Pages 236-37).
********************************************************************************\
********
February 1811
Madison's vetoes: Some of The First Official Meanings Assigned to The
Establishment Clause
********************************************************************************\
***
JUNE 3, 1811
"To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North
Carolina I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my
objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist
Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always
regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil
Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by
the Constitution of the United States, I could not have other wise
discharged my duty on the
occasion which presented itself"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina,
June 3, 1811. Letters And Other Writings of James Madison Fourth
President Of The United States In Four Volumes Published By the Order
Of Congress, Vol..II, J. B. Lippincott & Co., Philadelphia, (1865) pp
511-512)
********************************************************************************\
*********
Madison's vetoes: Some of The First Official Meanings Assigned to The
Establishment Clause
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/madvetos.htm
********************************************************************************\
*********
July 23, 1812
"The second of these reasons is, 'the sinful character of our
nation'. Notwithstanding the prevalence of Religion, which I have
described, the irreligion, and the wickedness, of our land are such,
as to furnish a most painful and melancholy prospect to a serious
mind. We formed our Constitution without any acknowledgement of GOD;
without any recognition of his mercies to us, as a people, of his
government, or even of his existence. The Convention, by which it was
formed, never asked, even once, his direction, or his blessing upon
their labours. Thus we commenced our national existence under the
present system, without GOD. I wish I could say, that a disposition to
render him the reverence, 'due to his' great 'Name', and the
gratitude, demanded by his innumerable mercies, had been more public,
visible, uniform, and fervent."
"At the same time I have no hesitation to say, that 'the
eagerness, with which public offices are hunted for', and the
sacrifices of principle and conscience, which, as we have but too much
reason to believe, are made, in order to acquire them, constitute a
great and dreadful sin; and are a deep brand upon the moral character
of our country...."
Source of Information "A discourse in two parts: delivered July 23,
1812, on the public fast, in the chapel of Yale College by Timothy
Dwight, D.D. L.L.D., President of that Seminary; Published at the
request of the students, and others;" New Haven, Published by Howe and
Deforest; Sold also by A.T. Goodrich and Co. No, 124, Broadway,
New-York; Printed by J.Seymour, 49, John-street, New-York, p. 40.
A Discourse in Two Parts, Reverend Timothy Dwight, 2nd ed. (Boston:
Flagg & Gould, 1813), p 24. The Rhetoric and Reality of the "Christian
Nation" Maxim in American Law, 1810-1920, By Steven Keith Green, an
unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation submitted to the Faculity of the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (1997) p 1.
********************************************************************************\
************
MARCH 2, 1819
"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated
hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its
functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and
the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have
been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from
the State."
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excert of a letter to Robert Walsh from James
Madison. MARCH 2, 1819 Letters and Other writings of James Madison,
in Four Volumes, Published by Order of Congress. VOL. III, J. B.
Lippincott & Co. Philadelphia, (1865), pp 121-126. James Madison on
Religious Liberty, Robert S.Alley, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N.Y.
(1985) pp 82-83)
----------------------------------------------------------
1817-1833
"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and Gov't 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"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excerpt from Madison's Detached Memoranda.
This document was discovered in 1946 among the papers of William
Cabell Rives, a biographer of Madison. Scholars date these
observations in Madison's hand sometime between 1817 and 1832. The
entire document was published by Elizabeth Fleet in the William and
Mary Quarterly of October 1946.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
JULY 10, 1822
"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation
between the 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 showing that religion and Government will both exist in
greater purity the less they are mixed together"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excerpt of letter to Edward Livingston from
James Madison, July 10, 1822. Letters and Other writings of James
Madison, in Four Volumes, Published by Order of Congress. VOL. III, J.
B. Lippincott & Co. Philadelphia, (1865), pp 273-276. James Madison
on Religious Liberty, Robert S.Alley, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N.Y.
(1985) pp 82-83)
--------------------------------------------------------------
SEPTEMBER 1833
"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
and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one
side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between
them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the
government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity
of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses
on its legal rights by others".
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Letter written by James Madison to Rev. Jasper
Adams, September, 1833.Writings of James Madison, edited by Gaillard
Hunt, [not sure what the volume number is but have enough information
presented here to locate the letter] microform Z1236.L53, pp 484-488. )
*********************************************************************
1846
"To the 1st Article of the amendments of the Constitution of the
United States, we may very well refer to ascertain the then
acknowledged sense, 'Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'
This was, the general law for all the union, as standing under the
legislation of Congress. There could be no union of church and state;
no religion established by law; nor could there be any law prohibiting
any man from worshiping God as he pleased."
South Carolina Supreme Court 1846, in the Case Known as City of
Charleston v Benjamin.
********************************************************************************\
************
September 17, 1856
"The manifest object of the men who framed the institutions of
this country, was to have a State without religion, and a Church
without politics -- that is to say, they meant that one should never
be: used as an engine for any purpose of the other, and that no man's
rights in one should be tested by his opinions about the other. As the
Church takes no note of men's political differences, so the State
looks with equal eye on all the modes of religious faith. The Church
may give her preferment to a Tory, and the State may be served by a
heretic. Our fathers seem to have been perfectly sincere in their
belief that the members of the Church would be more patriotic, and the
citizens of the State more religions, by keeping their respective
functions entirely separate. For that reason they built up a wall of
complete and perfect partition between the two."
Source of Information U.S. Attorney General Jeremiah S. Black,
"Religious liberty, An Address to the Phrenakosmian Society of
Pennsylvania College, Delivered at the Annual Commencement, 17
September 1856," in Essays and Speeches of Jeremiah S. Black (New
York: D Appleton, 1885), 53 "Sowing Useful Truths and principles": The
Danbury Baptists, Thomas Jefferson and the "Wall of Separation", By
Daniel L. Dreisbach, Journal Of Church and State, Volume 39, Summer
1997, Number 3, pp 492.
********************************************************************************\
**
1871
Three years after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, Mr.
Justice Bradley wrote a letter expressing his views on a proposed
constitutional amendment designed to acknowledge the dependence [374
U.S. 203, 258] of the Nation upon God, and to recognize the Bible as
the foundation of its laws and the supreme ruler of its conduct:
"I have never been able to see the necessity or expediency of the
movement for obtaining such an amendment. The Constitution was
evidently framed and adopted by the people of the United States with
the fixed determination to allow absolute religious freedom and
equality, and to avoid all appearance even of a State religion, or a
State endorsement of any particular creed or religious sect. . . . And
after the Constitution in its original form was adopted, the people
made haste to secure an amendment that Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof. This shows the earnest desire of our Revolutionary
fathers that religion should be left to the free and voluntary action
of the people themselves. I do not regard it as manifesting any
hostility to religion, but as showing a fixed determination to leave
the people entirely free on the subject.
"And it seems to me that our fathers were wise; that the great
voluntary system of this country is quite as favorable to the
promotion of real religion as the systems of governmental protection
and patronage have been in other countries. And whilst I do not
understand that the association which you represent desire to invoke
any governmental interference, still the amendment sought is a step in
that direction which our fathers (quite as good Christians as
ourselves) thought it wise not to take. In this country they thought
they had settled one thing at least, that it is not the province of
government to teach theology.
". . . Religion, as the basis and support of civil government,
must reside, not in the written Constitution, but in the people
themselves. And we cannot legislate religion into the people. It must
be infused by gentler and wiser methods."
Source of Information Miscellaneous Writings of Joseph P. Bradley
(1901), 357-359.
********************************************************************************\
********
February 18, 1874
U. S. House of Representatives, 43rd Congress, 1st Session
February 18, 1874
Report No. 143: Acknowledgment of God And The Christian Religion
in The Constitution
Mr. Benjamin F. Butler, from the Committee on the Judiciary,
submitted the following
REPORT
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the petition
of E. G. Gould and others, asking Congress for "an acknowledgment of
Almighty God and the Christian religion" in the Constitution of the
United States, having considered the matter referred to them,
respectfully pray leave to report:
That, upon examination even of the meager debates by the fathers
of the Republic in the convention which framed the Constitution, they
find that the subject of this memorial was most fully and carefully
considered, and then, in that convention, decided after grave
deliberation, to which the subject was entitled, that, as this
country, the foundation of whose government they were then laying, was
to be the home of the oppressed of all nations of the earth, whether
Christian or Pagan, and in full realization of the dangers which the
union between church and state had imposed upon so many nations of the
Old World, with great unanimity that it was inexpedient to put
anything into the Constitution or frame of government which might be
construed to be a reference to any religious creed or doctrine.
And they further find that this decision was accepted by our
Christian fathers with such great unanimity that in the amendments
which were afterward proposed, in order to make the Constitution more
acceptable to the nation, none has ever been proposed to the States by
which this wise determination of the fathers has been attempted to be
changed. Wherefore, your committee report that it is inexpedient to
legislate upon the subject of the above memorial, and ask that they be
discharged from the further consideration thereof, and that this
report, together with the petition, be laid upon the table.
Source of Information
http://www.vwc.edu/academic_life/csrf/articles/christian_amendment.htm
********************************************************************************\
***********
September 14, 1879
Total separation of church and state, to be guaranteed by
amendment of the national Constitution; including the equitable
taxation of church property, secularization of the public schools,
abrogation of Sabbatarian laws, abolition of chaplaincies, prohibition
of public appropriations for religious purposes, and all measures
necessary to the same general end.
National protection for national citizens in their equal civil,
political, and religious rights, to be guaranteed by amendment of the
United States Constitution and afforded through the United States Court.
Source of Information National Liberal Platform Adopted at
Cincinnati, September 14, 1879. American State Papers Bearing On
Sunday Legislation, Revised and Enlarged Edition, Compiled and
Annotated by William Addison Blakely, Revised Edition Edited by
Willard Allen Colcord, The Religious Liberty Association, Washington
D.C. 1911, pp 170.
********************************************************************************\
*******
1888
"Secular power has proved a satanic gift to the church, and
ecclesiastical power has proved an engine of tyranny in the hands of
the state."
Source of Information Dr.. Philip Schaff Church and State in the
United States (1888), p. 11. American State Papers on Freedom in
Religion. 4th Revised Edition. Published in 1949 for The Religious
Liberty Association, Washington, D.C. First Edition Compiled by
William Addison Blakely, of the Chicago Bar. (1890) under the Title
American State Papers Bearing on Sunday Legislation. p. 523.
1888
********************************************************************************\
***********
The historian George Bancroft, in a letter to Philip Schaff,
stated: "Congress from the beginning was as much without the power to
make a law respecting the establishment of religion as it is now that
the amendment has passed."(2)
Source of Information Schaff, Philip, Church and State in the United
States, Papers of the American Historical Society, 1888, p. 137.
1888
[The Constitution] "is neither hostile nor friendly to any
religion; it is simply silent on the subject, as lying beyond the
jurisdiction of the general government."
Source of Information Church and State in the United States: Or, the
American Idea of Religious Liberty and its Practical Effects, with
Official Documents / by Philip Schaff. G. P. Putnam's Sons,New York &
London, 1888, pp. 39-40 [REPRINT] Church and State in the United
States or The American Idea of Religious Liberty and It's Practical
Effects, Philip Schaff, Arno Press, New York Times Company, New York:
(1972) pp. 39-40.
********************************************************************************\
You are invited to check out the following:
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and the discussion group for the above site listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
***************************************************************
.. . . 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
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
This site is a member of the following web rings:
Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
American History WebRing--&--The History Ring
Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring
Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "sue_doe_cy_ants" |
|
| Title: an extra doc into the stream |
10 Jun 2005 08:15:47 AM |
|
|
Let me add a seldom cited source onto this stream.
It is the William Jennings Bryan foreword to Vol. VIII of
"The Writings of Thomas Jefferson "
Memorial Edition (Lipscomb and Bergh, editors)
20 Vols., Washington, D.C., 1903-04.
------
There may well be a few typos in this text.
I obtained my ascii copy of the twenty volumes
at the Contitution Society's website:
homepage: <http://www.constitution.org/>
JEfferson ME: <http://www.constitution.org/tj/jeff.htm>
As I recall, it is a hand scanned text archive,
which has never been properly proofed.
If you find typos, and care to correct them,
a repost here would be greatly appreciated.
The Constitution Society asks
for their hosted historical texts to be propagated.
What little extra I have done in corrections,
I freely give to all, copyleft.
cheers,
and remember:
If you would not give it up to Reno,
why the ***** would you give it up to Ashcroft?
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
---Begin Text---
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
The Statute for Establishing Religious Freedom.
By Hon. William Jennings Bryan
Foreword to:
The Writings of Thomas Jefferson
Definitive Edition
Albert Bergh - Editor
Vol. VIII. - 1907
-- -- -- -- --
Jefferson was a political philosopher, and thought far in advance
of his time. And yet he differed in one essential particular from
the philosophers who do not live to see the triumph of their
ideas. He proclaimed great living truths, and then he applied
those truths to the questions with which he had to deal. Some have
contented themselves with laying down abstract principles, and
have not sought to give them vitality in the present day; but
Jefferson not only saw the future but he saw the present, and we
have this great advantage in the study of the principles of
Jefferson, that he gave us those principles embodied in
legislation. I have 'been more and more surprised as I have
studied the questions with which we have to deal, to find that
there is no subject with which our people grapple today that he
did not consider in principle. Take the questions that are
subjects of controversy and you will find that he stated
principles and applied principles at that time that apply to the
questions at this time; and today we do not have to go beyond his
writings to find principles that will solve aright the problems of
today. He saw great fundamental truths, self-evident truths, if
you please; and I am coming to believe that there are not only
self-evident truths 'but that all truth is self-evident, that the
best service that a man can render to a truth is to state it so
that it can be understood. Jefferson had the power of statement,
and he stated the truths so that they could be understood. I do
not mean to speak lightly of the work of Jefferson in purchasing
the Louisiana territory, but if that territory had not been bought
then it would have been bought afterward, for it was there, and it
was necessary that it should become United States territory. I
cannot believe that the purchase of that land: dull, inanimate
matter can be compared with the proclamation of immortal truth. I
place far above any purchase of acres or square miles, the
utterance of those truths upon which human liberty must rest.
Philosophy is above geography. Jefferson rightly measured his own
work when he looked back over a long and eventful life, and,
ignoring the foothills of honor, saw only the mountain-peaks of
service. He gave to us proof that the Bible is right when it fixes
service as the measure of greatness. You will remember that when
there was a controversy as to which should be greatest in the
kingdom of heaven, and the question was brought to the Master, He
said: "Let him who would be chiefest among you be the servant of
all."
So Jefferson, when he looked back over his life, saw, not the
things that he had received, but the things that he had given to
the world; not the things men had done for him, but the things he
had done for mankind.
I have been asked to write about the Statute for Establishing
Religious Freedom, prepared by Thomas Jefferson, and enacted by
the State of Virginia in 1786, about eight years after it was
drafted. Let me quote you the statute:
"That the General Assembly do enact 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; but that all men
shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their
opinions in matters of religion and that the same shall in no wise
diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."
The conciseness of Jefferson's style is well illustrated in this
statute. Read it over. There is not a superfluous word, and yet
there is enough to guard religious liberty. It is not strange that
this doctrine, so well set forth by Jefferson more than a century
ago, is now a part of the Constitution and Bill of Rights of every
State of this Union. Not only is that today the law of this land,
but it is spreading throughout the world. It was only a short time
ago that the Czar of Russia issued a decree in which he
acknowledged the right of all the subjects of his empire to
worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences,
and I believe that when we come to measure the relative importance
of things, the importance of an act like that, the very foundation
upon which we build religious liberty, the importance of an act
like that which, gradually spreading, has become the creed of
eighty millions of people, and is ultimately to become the creed
of all the world, when we come to consider the vast importance of
a thing like that, how can we compare lands or earthly possessions
with it?
In the preamble to this statute Jefferson set forth the main
reasons urged by those who believed in religious freedom. Let me
call attention to some of the more important ones. He said, in the
first place, that to attempt to compel people to accept a
religious doctrine, by act of law, was to make, not Christians but
hypocrites. That was one of the reasons, and it was a strong one.
He said, too, that there was no earthly judge who was competent to
sit in a case and try a man for his religious opinions, for the
judgment of the court, he said, would not be a judgment of law,
but would be the personal opinion of the judge. What could be more
true? No man who has religious convictions himself bears them so
lightly that he can lay them aside and act as a judge when another
man's religious convictions are involved. Then he suggested, and I
think that I am justified in elaborating upon this suggestion a
moment-that religion does not need the support of government to
enable it to overcome error. Let me give the exact words of his
report, for I cannot change them without doing injury to them:
"And finally that truth is great and will prevail if left to
herself; that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist of
error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless, by human
interposition, disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and
debate; errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely
to contradict them."
Tell me that Jefferson lacked reverence for religion! He rather
lacks reverence who believes that religion is unable to defend
herself in a contest with error. He places a low estimate upon the
strength of=A3 religion, who thinks that the wisdom of God must be
supplemented by the force of man's puny arm.
Jefferson paid a tribute to the power of truth when he said that
truth was able to overcome error in the open field; and it was
this sublime confidence in the triumph of truth that distinguished
him from many of the other great men of his time. In fact, of all
the men who have lived upon this earth I know of no man who has
surpassed Jefferson in his confidence in the ultimate triumph =B7of
truth; and upon what can people build if not upon faith in truth?
Take from man his belief in the triumph of that which is right and
he builds upon the sand. Give to man an abiding faith in the
triumph of that which is true, and you give him the foundation of
a moral character that can withstand all reverses.
It was this belief in the triumph of truth that made Jefferson
favor free discussion, not only in religion but in everything; and
one of the virtues of Jefferson was that he was consistent in
applying his principles wherever they could be applied. I am not
one of those who believe that Jefferson was inconsistent when he
advocated the Louisiana purchase. He was in doubt whether the
language of the Constitution, unamended , was such as to authorize
the purchase of this territory; but never for a moment did he
think that there was anything in the Constitution, in its letter
or its spirit, to confine the United States to the original
States. When he bought the territory his first thought was to ask
for an amendment to the Constitution that would expressly ratify
the act. But when the question was discussed it was found that his
act was so universally approved that it was not considered
necessary even to ask for an amendment. I do not believe that the
purchase was inconsistent with his principles or utterances. I
repeat, that one of the virtues of Jefferson was that he was
consistent in applying his principles, no matter where those
principles led him.
The same doctrine that he applied to Religion he applied to the
Press, and I suppose no American certainly no one who lived before
the time of Andrew Jackson ever had more reason than Jefferson to
find fault with the untrue utterances of the Press. Yet, so great
was his faith in the triumph of the truth, and so willing was he
to have error presented if truth could only be left free to combat
it, that he was opposed to censorship of the Press, and I believe
he gave expression to the strongest eulogy of the Press that any
statesman has ever uttered, when he said that if he must choose
between a government without newspapers, and newspapers without a
government, he would prefer to risk the newspapers without a
government. That is, he said that public opinion would measurably
correct things if public opinion was left free; but that a
government with out the free expression of public opinion would
soon become a despotism.
In the preamble to the Statute for Religious Freedom Jefferson put
first that which I want to speak of last. It was that the
regulation of the opinions of men on religious questions by law
was contrary to the laws of God and to the plans of God. He
pointed out that God had it in His power to control man's mind and
body, but that He did not see fit to coerce the mind or the body
into obedience to even the divine will; and that if God Himself
was not willing to use coercion to force man to accept certain
religious views, man uninspired and liable to error ought not to
use the means that Jehovah would not employ. Jefferson realized
that our religion was a religion of love and not a religion of
force.
There has recently been published a little book called The
Jeffersonian Bible, and in the fore part of that book there is a
letter, written by Jefferson in truth, and so willing was he to
have error presented if truth could only be left free to combat
it, that he was opposed to censorship of the Press, and I believe
he gave expression to the strongest eulogy of the Press that any
statesman has ever uttered, when he said that if he must choose
between a government without newspapers, and newspapers without a
government, he would prefer to risk the newspapers without a
government. That is, he said that public opinion would measurably
correct things if public opinion was left free; but that a
government with out the free expression of public opinion would
soon become a despotism.
In the preamble to the Statute for Religious Freedom Jefferson put
first that which I want to speak of last. It was that the
regulation of the opinions of men on religious questions by law
was contrary to the laws of God and to the plans of God. He
pointed out that God had it in His power to control man's mind and
body, but that He did not see fit to coerce the mind or the body
into obedience to even the divine will; and that if God Himself
was not willing to use coercion to force man to accept certain
religious views, man uninspired and liable to error ought not to
use the means that Jehovah would not employ. Jefferson realized
that our religion was a religion of love and not a religion of
force.
There has recently been published a little book called The
Jeffersonian Bible, and in the forepart of that book there is a
letter, written by Jefferson in reply to an inquiry, in which he
states his estimate of the teachings of Christ as compared with
the philosophies of other religious teachers, and he pointed out
the superiority of the philosophy of the Nazarene, in that, while
other philosophies dealt with man's conduct, Christ's philosophy
purified the fountain at its source cleansed the heart.
He recognized that our religion is a religion of the heart, that
it is propagated from heart to heart; and he recognized, too, that
the heart controls human life. Jefferson was great in his
intellect. I know of no mind that our Nation has produced that
could express itself with more clearness, or with more logic; but
I believe that there was in Jefferson that which was greater than
his head. It was his heart. Greater than his intellect was his
love for all mankind.
It has been said that it marks an epoch in history when God lets
loose a thinker in the world. God let loose a thinker when
Jefferson was born. Carlyle says that thought is stronger than
artillery parks; that thought moulds the world like soft clay;
that it writes and unwrites laws, makes and unmakes parliaments,
and that back of every great thought is love; that love is the
ruling force in the world. I believe it is true. I believe that
Jefferson's greatness rests more upon his love of human kind than
upon his intellect, great as was his intellect, and that he was
great because his heart was big enough to embrace the world. And
the people loved him "because he first loved them." He wanted our
religion to rest on the basis of love and not on the basis of
force; and when we get down to the foundation of our government,
and the foundation of our religion, we find that they alike rest
on the doctrine of human brotherhood-on the doctrine "'that all
men are created equal,' 'that they are endowed by their creator
with certain inalienable rights,'" rights that government did not
give, rights that government cannot take away; that the object of
government is to secure to the individual the enjoyment of his
inalienable rights, and that governments derive their just powers
from the consent of the governed. But all of these things rest
upon that conception of human brotherhood which one cannot have
unless he has the love that is back of every great thought. I
believe that, when Jefferson assisted in establishing religious
freedom, he assisted in giving to our government its strongest
support. Chain the conscience, bind the heart, and you cannot have
for the support of our form of government the strength and the
enthusiasm it deserves. But let conscience be free to commune with
its God, let the heart be free to send forth its love, and the
conscience and the heart will be the best defenders of a
government resting upon the consent of the governed.
I believe that Jefferson gave a complete theory of government when
he gave us the doctrine of the Declaration of Independence, and he
gave us the two great supports of free government when he gave us
universal education and an unfettered conscience. I am glad that
the Jefferson Memorial Association is going to erect a monument to
his memory. I say going to erect it, because I cannot believe that
the American people need more than an opportunity to contribute to
insure their contribution. I want this monument to be in keeping
with the services of the man. I want it to stand as high as the
monuments erected to warriors. I want it to testify to the world
that the heroes of peace are as great as the heroes of war; that
those who save human life are as great as those who take it, even
though they take it in defense of a righteous cause. I want this
monument to testify that a man can live for his country as well as
die for his country.
But, anxious as I am that the Memorial Association shall erect a
monument worthy of Jefferson, I thank God that Jefferson's memory
needs no marble or bronze to perpetuate it. Erect your monument as
high as you can, make it of material as enduring as you may, time
will finally destroy it; the years will come and go, and at last
that monument will disappear; but there is in the hearts of the
people a monument that time cannot touch, and this monument,
growing as the world grows, increasing as civilization increases,
is a greater monument than the hand of man can rear. And as people
measure the influence of Jefferson upon the destinies of the human
race, they will be convinced that the Bible is true when it says
that "it is more blessed to give than to receive," for he gave the
largest measure of service that man ever gave to man.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
---End Text---
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
