Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote:
:|I'm not really sure that employment of a chaplain or maintenance of a
:|chapel can't be justified as a mere accommodation of freedom of
:|religion for our government servants or our servicemen. On the other
:|hand, when someone argues that we should have chaplains to show that
:|we are a religious nation, or to make the point that we are "founded"
:|on religious principles, they are making an argument that MAKES it
:|unconstitutional.
:|
:|- Jon Beaver
* How United States Church-state Relations Play on The World Stage
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20010705.html
* Chaplains and Congress
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/chaptest.htm
* The Political Move That Backfired
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/backfire.htm
* Duche's Letter To Washington
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/duche.htm
Chaplains
* Chief Justice Burger, I Would Like You To Meet Mr. Madison
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/meet.htm
* Discrepancies
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/discrep.htm
Revisiting Marsh v. Chambers
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/marshchm.htm
Thoughts on Power, Ceremonial Deism &Amp: Public Religion From a Variety of
Sources
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/c-deism.htm
Excerpts from James Madison's Detached Memoranda (written after 1817)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/detach.htm
[excerpt]
Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent
with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In
strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The
Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a
national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious
worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of
religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of
the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national
establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the
Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the
majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation?
The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of
equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the
chaplains elected [by the majority shut the door of worship agst the
members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the
majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of
Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the
Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed
a Chaplain! To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his
sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked
deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers or
that the major sects have a tight to govern the minor.
If Religion consist in voluntary acts of individuals, singly, or
voluntarily associated, and it be proper that public functionaries, as well
as their Constituents shd discharge their religious duties, let them like
their Constituents, do so at their own expense. How small a contribution
from each member of Cong wd suffice for the purpose! How just wd it be in
its principle! How noble in its exemplary sacrifice to the genius of the
Constitution; and the divine right of conscience! Why should the expence of
a religious worship be allowed for the Legislature, be paid by the public,
more than that for the Ex. or Judiciary branch of the Gov
Were the establishment to be tried by its fruits, are not the daily
devotions conducted by these legal Ecclesiastics, already degenerating into
a scanty attendance, and a tiresome formality!
Rather than let this step beyond the landmarks of power have the effect of
a legitimate precedent, it will be better to apply to it the legal aphorism
de minimis non curat lex: or to class it ***** "maculis quas aut incuria
fudit, aut humana parum cavit natura."
Better also to disarm in the same way, the precedent of Chaplainships for
the army and navy, than erect them into a political authority in matters of
religion. The object of this establishment is seducing; the motive to it is
laudable. But is it not safer to adhere to a right principle, and trust to
its consequences, than confide in the reasoning however specious in favor
of a wrong one. Look thro' the armies & navies of the world, and say
whether in the appointment of their ministers of religion, the spiritual
interest of the flocks or the temporal interest of the Shepherds, be most
in view: whether here, as elsewhere the political care of religion is not a
nominal more than a real aid. If the spirit of armies be devout, the spirit
out of the armies will never be Less so; and a failure of religious
instruction &, exhortation from a voluntary source within or without, will
rarely happen: if such be not the spirit of armies, the official services
of their Teachers are not likely to produce it. It is more likely to flow
from the labours of a spontaneous zeal. The armies of the Puritans had
their appointed Chaplains; but without these there would have been no lack
of public devotion in that devout age.
The case of navies with insulated crews may be less within the scope of
these reflections. But it is not entirely so. The chance of a devout
officer, might be of as much worth to religion, as the service of an
ordinary chaplain. [were it admitted that religion has a real interest in
the latter.] But we are always to keep in mind that it is safer to trust
the consequences of a right principle, than reasonings in support of a bad
one.
********************************************************************************
Background on Madison's "Detached Memoranda"
"What is significant with respect to the date of its writing is that
Madison's "Detached Memoranda' interprets the Constitution and the Bill of
Rights and, unlike the Declaration of Independence, does not rest
exclusively on the laws of nature or nature's God, on Madison's own
"Memorial and Remonstrance, or on Jefferson's Virginia Statute for
Religious Freedom, although all are reported, confirmed, and defended. It
would seem, therefore that the "Detached Memoranda" would be the best
source for determining the intended meaning of the "religion" clauses of
the First Amendment (and the provision of article VI of the Constitution
forbidding religious test for public office) at least by the primary
draughtsman of both the Constitution and First Amendment.
The "Detached Memoranda" considers eight issues relating to religion
that have reached the Supreme Court in one way or another since the
Constitution was adopted: (1) ecclesiastical monopolies; (2) incorporation
of churches; (3) grants of public land to churches; (4) tax exemption of
religious entities; (5) the Deity in government documents; (6)
congressional chaplaincies; (7) military chaplaincies; and (8) religious
proclamations by the government."
Source of Information: Pfeffer, Leo, "Madison's ‘Detached Memoranda': Then
and Now." The Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom, Its Evolution and
Consequences in American History, Edited by Merrill D. Peterson and Robert
C. Vaughan, Cambridge University Press (1988) pp 286, 87.
.
|
