THE RIGHTS OF JEWS. 199 SIR: THE RIGHTS OF JEWS. WRITTEN BY JAMES MADISON TO DR. DE LA MOTTA.1 MONTPELIER, August, 1820. August, 1820. History of Jews interest The history of the Jews must forever be interesting. The modern part of it is, at ing. the same time, so little generally known, that every ray of light on the subject has its value. Among the features peculiar to the political system of the United States, is the perfect equality of rights which it secures to every religious sect. And it is parti ularly pleasing to observe in the good citizenship of such as have been most distrusted and 64 1" Writings of James Madison," volume iii, pages 178, 179. Special force must ever attach to the words of Madison, and his declaration of the "perfect equality" of sectarians of every sort before the law must always stand as an authoritative commentary upon the character of our law. But the equality of the law does not begin with our constitution nor with the beginning of our government. It goes back to the beginning of our law, ere the Saxon had heard of Britain and before the Latins were to them a people known. True, it has taken ages for the law to conform procedure to its principles, and in this, America has played a most important part; but it must ever be remembered that it has been done by means of a principle older than America, older than Britain, older than even the ancient city of Rome itself. These very principles that have made America the most blessed among the nations of the earth were born in prehistoric antiquity, were nurtured in the woodlands of northern Europe, spent their youth in the isle of Britain, and have attained a noble manhood in America, potent now to bless the world with freedom and break the shackles of a long enslaved humanity. The law is perfect. That justice is not always done is not the fault of law but of the agencies by which the law is enforced. Herein is where justice often miscarries. The administrators of the law are imperfect. What is done in the law's name is not what should be done. Law is the straight line of equality lying between absolutism and anarchy. Neither of these phases of lawlessness recognizes the authority of a uniform law, but presumes to act according to its own will, irrespective of all else, the sum and substance of all violation of law. Political advancement means the growing recognition of law by the individual, and a corresponding self-control answering to the law's demands. Equality of all sects pecu liar to Ameri can political system. Beginnings of our law. Nature of our law. Success of our secular principles. Jews included. This letter important. Constitutional equality of all sects. Jews no exception. Sunday laws incompatible with religious equality. Congress prohibited from enacting religious laws. What constitutes religious liberty. oppressed elsewhere a happy illustration of the safety and success of this experiment of a just and benignant policy. Equal laws, protecting equal rights, are found, as they ought to be presumed, the best guarantee of loyalty and love of country; as well as best calculated to cherish that mutual respect and good-will among citizens of every religious denomination which are necessary to social harmony, and most favorable to the advancement of truth. The account you give of the Jews of your congregation brings them fully within the scope of these observations.1 1 This letter is an important commentary on the question of how far religious equality extends;- whether to the sects of Christianity alone, or to all religions. Mr. Madison says: "Among the features peculiar to the political system of the United States, is the perfect equality of rights which it secures to every religious sect;" and this statement coming, as it does, from the principal framer of the instrument which is the embodiment of our political system, should decide the question positively and forever. That religious equality is not restricted to Christian sects, is also proved by the statement that the Jews come “fully within the scope of these observations;" for this is a specific assertion that our institutions intended that "perfect equality" should extend to the Jews—a sect that even regards the Author of Christianity as an impostor. The "perfect equality" of Jews and Christians introduces the question of Sunday legislation. For, when laws are made enforcing the distinctive institutions of the Christian religion, then is the principle of religious equality set aside. The Jew has the same right to work on the day which the Christian regards as the Sabbath, as has the Christian to work on the day which the Jew regards as the Sabbath ;- - the right inheres in both; for no power on earth has the right to compel any individual, no matter what he believes, to observe in any way whatever the religious institutions of any other individual or set of individuals. This was the principle recognized in the enactment of the first amendment to the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Hence, to compel any one to observe the Sabbath of the Christian religion, or of any other religion, is directly contrary to our constitutional principles, and subversive of American institutions. Religious liberty is liberty to differ in anything and everything, — not liberty to differ only in what the dominant party permits us to differ; for in this idea there is nothing incompatible with the most veritable despotism. Immunity of religion from tion. disapproved of our princi pleasure the view you have taken of the immunity of religion from civil jurisdiction, in every case where civil jurisdicit does not trespass on private rights or the public peace. This has always been a favorite principle with me; and it was not with my approbation that Madison the deviation from it took place in Congress, when deviating from they appointed chaplains, to be paid from the national ples. treasury. It would have been a much better proof to their constituents of their pious feeling if the members had contributed for the purpose a pittance from their own pockets. As the precedent is not likely to be rescinded, the best that can now be done may be to apply to the Constitution the maxim of the law, de minimus non curat. Another bad prece There has been another deviation from the strict principle in the executive proclamations of fasts and dent. festivals, so far, at least, as they have spoken the language of injunction, or have lost sight of the equality of all religious sects in the eye of the Constitution. Whilst I was honored with the executive trust, I found it necessary on more than one occasion to follow the example of predecessors. But I was always careful to make the proclamations absolutely indiscriminate, and merely recommendatory; or, rather, mere designations of a day on which all who thought proper might unite in consecrating it to religious purposes, according to their own faith 1 "Writings of James Madison," volume iii, page 273 et seq. 2 For Jefferson's views on the appointment of fasts and festivals, see Religious Proclamations Unconstitutional," ante pages 174, 175. Madison would think would assert their rights. and forms. In this sense, I presume, you reserve to the government a right to appoint particular days for religious worship. I know not what may be the way of thinking on this subject in Louisiana. I should suppose the Catholic portion of the people, that Catholics at least, as a small and even unpopular sect in the United States, would rally, as they did in Virginia when religious liberty was a legislative topic, to its broadest principle. Notwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favor of this branch of liberty, and the full establishment Still a strong of it in some parts of our country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between government and religion, neither can be duly supported. Such, indeed, is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parDanger can- ties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded prejudice in favor of church and state. not be too carefully guarded against. Every new application is Absolute separation better for both. against. And in a government of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new and successful example, therefore, of importance. of a perfect separation between 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. It was the belief of all sects at one time that the establishment of religion by law was right and necessary; that the true religion ought to be established in exclusion of every other; and that the only question to be decided was, which was the true religion. The example of Holland proved that a toleration of sects dissenting from the established sect was safe, and even useful. The example of the colonies, now States, which rejected religious establishments altogether, proved that all sects might be The old ideas. Toleration beneficial. Absolute religious lib erty better. safely and advantageously put on a footing of equal and entire freedom; and a continuance of their example since the Declaration of Independence has shown that its success in colonies was not to be ascribed to their connection with the parent country. If a further confirmation of the truth could be wanted, it is to be found in the examples furnished by the States which have abolished their religious establishments. I cannot speak particularly of any of the cases excepting that of Virginia, where it is impossible to deny that religion prevails with more zeal and a more exemplary priesthood than it ever Virginia. did when established and patronized by public authority. We are teaching the world the great truth that governments do better without kings than with world." them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that religion flourishes in greater purity without, than with, the aid of government.1 My pen, I perceive, has rambled into reflections for which it was not taken up. I recall it to the proper object, of thanking you for your very interesting pamphlet, and of tendering you my respects and good wishes. Beneficial effects in "Liberty enlightening the Madison's progressive spirit. Contrast with other 1 In the foregoing letter Madison shows his progressive as well as his liberal spirit. He says: "Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between 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." How different is this from the constant opposition of so many Christians to-day against every application of the doctrine. If religion is not taught in the schools, the cry is raised that the children Christians. will go to ruin; if state chaplains are not hired, the early destruction of the state is predicted; if Sunday laws are not enforced, anathemas are pronounced against the whole nation; - and all this, too, when religion in America has prospered better - far better! - under the secular principles of government than ever it did in any nation with all its religious teaching by the state. The words of General Grant should ever be remembered by the American people. "Keep church and state forever separate." Prosperity of religion in our secular government. |