PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE NEW YORK CONVENTION. Sept. 17. 1787. All equally entitled to the religion. That the people have an equal, natural, and unalienable right freely and peaceably to exercise their free exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience; and that no religious sect or society ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.1 Religious preferences wrong. PENNSYLVANIA CONVENTION. Dec. 12, 1787. The right of conscience to lable. The right of conscience shall be held inviolable, and neither the legislative, executive, nor judicial be held inviopowers of the United States shall have authority to alter, abrogate, or infringe any part of the Constitutions of the several States, which provide for the preservation of liberty in matters of religion. 2 NEW HAMPSHIRE CONVENTION. June 21, 1788. Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or to infringe the rights of conscience." No laws touching religion. 328. 1 Elliot's "Debates on the Federal Constitution," volume i, page 2 In Pennsylvania, the minority of the convention issued an address entitled, "Reasons of Dissent," etc., in which several amendments were proposed, the first of which was the above. The "Reasons of Dissent" were published, Philadelphia, December 12, 1787, and reprinted in Carey's "American Museum," volume ii, number 5, pages 536-553; quoted by Schaff in "Church and State in the United States," page 31. 3 Elliot's "Debates on the Federal Constitution," volume i, page June 27, 1788. Natural rights inalien able. All power vested in the people. Magistrates their trustees. Religion can be directed not by force. VIRGINIA CONVENTION. That there are certain natural rights, of which men, when they form a social compact, cannot deprive or divest their posterity; among which are the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety. That all power is naturally invested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are therefore their trustees and agents, at all times amenable to them. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our only by reason, Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and, therefore, all men have an equal, natural, and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience, and that no particular religious sect or society ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.1 Religious preferences wrong. Aug. 1, 1788. NORTH CAROLINA CONVENTION. Religion can be directed not by force. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our only by reason, Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and, therefore, all men have an equal, natural, and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular religious sect or society ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.2 Religious preferences wrong. 1 Elliot's "Debates on the Federal Constitution," volume iii, page 659. 2 Elliot's "Debates on the Federal Constitution," volume iv, pages 242, 244. This amendment was among twenty others proposed in RHODE ISLAND CONVENTION. May 29, 1790 Religion can be directed only not by force. 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, and not by by reason, force and violence; and, therefore, all men have a natural, equal, and unalienable right to the exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular religious sect or society ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.1 the Convention of North Carolina as a "Declaration of Rights," the wording being substantially the same as the one proposed by Virginia. 1 Elliot's" Debates on the Federal Constitution," volume i, page 334. GENERAL NOTE. From these proposed amendments to the Constitution of the United States, made by the States before the adoption of the Constitution in 1789, it is evident that there was a general and widespread desire on the part of the people that the national government at least should have nothing to do with religion—should have no established religion; —that in this, church and state should be entirely and forever separate. John Adams gave expression to this sentiment when he said, "I hope Congress will never meddle with religion further than to say their own prayers." "Life and Works of John Adams," volume ix, page 402. Many, it would seem, were ready to cast aside. the religious establishments in the States. In fact, Virginia had already done so. But, so far as appears, there was no proposition at this time that the national Constitution should forbid the States having religious establishments or from making laws restricting religious freedom. This proposition came later in 1875 - when Hon. James G. Blaine, of Maine, introduced in Congress a proposed amendment looking toward the extension of the principle set forth in the first amendment, to the States. See page 349. If the principle of the separation of church and state is proper for the national government, there can be no good reason why it should not be made to apply to the States as well. In their Constitutions the States have quite generally adopted the principle; but, with the exception of California, they have all strangely clung to the assumed right to regulate Sunday observance by law, which directly contravenes the principle. In this the taproot of state-churchism still remains. Religious preferences wrong. A general sentiment. Virginia had already set the example. Principle adopted by States except in mat ter of Sun day laws. Liberty of conscience not suffi ciently secured. Baptists write Washington. Washington's reply. First ten amendments. AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION. ARTICLE I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;1 or abridging the freedom of speech or of 1 REASON FOR THE FIRST AMENDMENT. When the Constitution first made its appearance, the friends of religious liberty, especially those who had been oppressed under the religious establishments of the colonies, felt that liberty of conscience was not sufficiently secured in it. Article 6 forbade religious tests as a qualification for office under the government, but there was no guarantee against religious tests and religious intolerance to those not in office. August 8, 1789, the United Baptist Churches of Virginia addressed a communication to George Washington, in which they gave expression to the prevailing fears in this regard. Replying, Washington said: "If I could have entertained the slightest apprehension that the Constitution framed by the convention where I had the honor to preside might possibly endanger the religious rights of any ecclesiastical society, certainly I would never have placed my signature to it; and if I could now conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny and every species of religious persecution. For, you doubtless remember, I have often expressed my sentiments that any man, conducting himself as a good citizen and being accountable to God alone for his religious opinions, ought to be protected in worshiping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience." "History of the Baptists," by Thomas Armitage, D. D., pages 806, 807. A month later, Madison, with the approval of Washington, introduced in the first Congress that met under the new Constitution, the first ten amendments, commonly known as the Bill of Rights, the first of which enjoins Congress from all religious legislation. These were approved by Congress September 23, 1789, and ratified by ten of the States all of the thirteen original States excepting Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Georgia within the next two years. There is no evidence on the journals of Congress that the legislatures of the three States named ratified them. the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The Ralston (Pa.) Herald" of April 28, 1910, commenting on the reason for the first amendment says: Reason for first amend "We wonder how many of our readers have read the history of New England's colonial times? of the persecutions, the whipping of ment. the Baptists and Quakers, and the banishing of Roger Williams, by the Puritans? The Puritans were not worse than other people; in fact, they were honest, hard-working people. You ask, Then how could they persecute inoffensive people? Simply because they were following wrong principles in government. They failed to make any separation between the church and the state. They thought that the stability of the state depended on the people's observing certain religious forms; and as the Baptists and Quakers would not conform to the religio-political order of government, they were punished, or rather persecuted. It was to prevent a repetition of such persecutions that the first amendment to the Constitution was added. Did our forefathers make a mistake in separating the church and the state? If not, let us keep them separate. Liberty both religious and civil -is safe only so long as the people understand the principles on which it is based." As guides to help them in establishing, not religion by law, but, as Washington expressed it, "effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny and every species of religious persecution," the founders of the national government had before them the evil results of the union of church and state and its consequent usurpation of the divine prerogative by man, both in this country and in the Old World. The prohibitions in article 6 and the first amendment were the result. 66 Chief Justice Waite, who delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court in the United States, in the case of Reynolds vs. United States, in 1878, said: "The word 'religion' is not defined in the Constitution. We must go elsewhere, therefore, to ascertain its meaning, and nowhere more appropriately, we think, than to the history of the times in the midst of which the provision was adopted." This, most certainly, is the only way in which we can obtain the correct meaning of the word. And as the subject was a live question when the Federal Constitution was adopted, the documents of the times furnish us an accurate idea of the meaning intended by the use of the word religion." Lessons from Old World history. Meaning of "religion." |