|
Biden, Harris, Waters Wrong on Chauvin Verdict by Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
On Tuesday, the Chauvin verdict was read in Minneapolis. The finding of guilty in all counts led to cheers from some and relief from many. Immediately, the protesters that had gathered outside the courtroom, rocks in hand, lauded the jury's decision. In nearby Brooklyn Center where Daunte Wright was shot during a routine traffic stop while the Chauvin trial was still ongoing, many hit the streets in glee.
As expected, politicians took to the cameras to get their minute of attention and seek credit for the progress they claim has been made in race relations because of the verdict. President Designate Joe Biden called the verdict "a step forward" while noting there is still much work to be done. Vice President Designate Kamala Harris called it "an inflection moment" in American history. It appears that in their rush to philosophize on the significance of the Chauvin case, these poetic waxers are making a mistake.
Regardless of one's view on the appropriateness of the jury's decision, the Chauvin trial verdict is simply a commentary on the guilt of one police officer, in one case, involving one African American arrestee. Questions about premeditation and causations aside, there is little doubt that something went horribly wrong when former police officer Eric Chauvin took control of Derek Floyd. Yes, police officers have to make split second decisions while their own lives are at stake at a time when the country is divided to the point of almost being irreparably fractured, but when an unresponsive individual is held for over three minutes and fifty one seconds without having assistance rendered to him after having already been detained on the floor, handcuffed and with a knee on his back for five minutes and thirty-seven seconds, one must wonder whether such is the manner in which Americans expect their police to conduct business.
'The question of whether Chauvin actually murdered Floyd is a much different one and less obvious than the one asking whether something has gone wrong. The answer to this latter question is laced with considerations over discretion, judgment, training, compliance, and just as importantly, legal definitions of the charges being considered. In this case, the jury, which was exposed to the all the relevant information over the span of six days, decided that the evidence fit the definitions of murder and voted to convict.
Having not been in the courtroom with them for all six days and not being burdened with the task of making the weighty decision they had made, the public is in no position to second-guess the members of the jury and must respect their position. However, to say that such a verdict is represents an inflection moment in American history, or a step forward in race relations is simply ascribing to the jury and the judicial system implications that it simply does not possess.
The fact is that America was held hostage over this trial's outcome. As of this writing, it appears that whatever protests and gatherings have taken place since the verdict's announcement have been peaceful, but consider what would have happened had the verdict gone the other way. Under the same or similar circumstances, this jury could have reasonably acquitted Chauvin on the murder charges simply based on causation. Then what? The violence that would have erupted would have been herculean. Simply put, the dependence of peace on a preferred trial outcome is no peace at all, and the appeasement of the activists is not justice.
In all fairness, the likes of Biden, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton have all mentioned the long and protracted road that still remains ahead of us before we can achieve a peaceful coexistence amongst America's various racial groups, but I'm afraid they are pointing us in the wrong direction.
After all these years of struggle, debate, rioting, and yelling, it appears that the man who was there at the beginning of this process was the one who was closest to the truth, Reverend Martin Luther King. For him, the goal was a nation where his children would not be judged by the color their skin but by the content of their character. He called for a day when "all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual: 'Free at last. Free at last. Thank God Almighty, we are free at last.'"
The path to that day centers on God, on the respect for human dignity, and on the presumption that it matters not what one's background is, what matters is sharing in the unguaranteed opportunity to succeed, or fail. This path cannot, by definition, rest on the mantra that black lives matter any more than other subtypes of lives. It cannot hinge on a verdict being more appropriate if it is perceived to favor one group over another. It cannot include reparations beyond the blood, sweat and hardship that has already taken place, and it certainly cannot be based on the false charge of systemic racism when in fact such a legal environment was rescinded with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1968.
The true question before us today is what we mean when we speak of equality? In seeking equality, are we aiming to stack the deck so white people get punished at the expense of minorities until somebody declares that the appropriate intergenerational punishment has been achieved? Or in the words of Reverend King are we aiming to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood and make justice a reality for all God's children?
It seems to me that the path Biden, Harris, Sharpton, Jackson and others insist on taking us down is one very different from the one laid out by the Reverend. Their path is one of reverse racism, of claiming victory when the white guy gets pushed to the ground and when minorities remain dependent on government, and when they are told that it's okay to enter life less qualified for success because the government has rigged the system in your favor simply because of the color of your skin.
Say what you want, that system does not speak of justice. It speaks of yet another form of injustice. It is a system that propagates inequality even as it claims to promote equality. It is a path quite different to the one laid out by Martin Luther King. Say what you want, I'll stick to the path pointed out his path instead.
Please support our ability to cover the events most important to you. Click here to join The Founding Fathers Club or donate to The Federalist Pages.
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He served in the Florida House of Representatives. He is the author of numerous books including The Federalist Pages, The Case for Free Market Healthcare, and Coronalessons. He is available for appearances and book signings, and can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com.
0 Comments
1/27/2019 The Flushing Remonstrance: The Ultimate Explanation For The Need TO FIGHT For Religious Freedom.Read Now The Flushing Remonstrance: The Ultimate Explanation For The Need To Fight For Religious Freedom.
by Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. In the last installment of "Sunday Thoughts," we visited the events leading to the declaration of the Flushing Remonstrance; North America's first signed attestation of religious freedom. And although the story behind the Remonstrance is gripping and compelling, its greater power lies in its words. Yes, a handful of documents served to advance the needle of religious freedom and personal liberties in immeasurable ways. Chief amongst these are the Magna Carta, the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, Virginia's Statute for Religious Freedom, the Baltimore Toleration Act, the Virginia Bill of Rights, Madison's Remonstrance on Religious Freedom, the Northwest Ordinance, the Constitution of the United States, and the Bill of Rights. But none explains the reasons for the necessity of the defense of one's religious freedoms like the Flushing Remonstrance. What's remarkable is that the explanation provided in this act was not penned by a group of philosophers or professors of higher learning, but by a group of common individuals who were being pressured into going against their religious beliefs by an oppressive and tyrannical regime. Let us recall the circumstances afflicting the inhabitants of Flushing. Peter Stuyvesant, the new director for the colony of New Amsterdam was ordering the colonists to apprehend and deliver anyone who they knew to be a Quaker. The colonists, some of whom were married to Quakers could not bring themselves to do so, and they couldn't do it not because of some allegiance to a conflicting worldly power, but because of their greater allegiance to the Laws of Jesus Christ. Thus, when they assembled to pen their letter of defiance, they knew their position was indefensible in the eyes of the laws of man, so they set out to explain their defiance, not through a secular legal argument, but through an explanation of their allegiance to an authority greater than any from this world. On December 27, 1657, they wrote Stuyvesant that "we are unable condemn [the Quakers] in this case, neither can we stretch out our hands against them, to punish, banish or persucute(sic) them, for out of Christ god is a consuming fire, and it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." They recognized it was not up to them to them judge lest they themselves be judged, nor condemn lest they themselves be condemned. They were therefore "bounde by the Law to doe good unto all men, especially to those of the household of faith." "Therefore," they said, "God shall persuade our consciences. And in this we are true subjects both of Church and State, for we are bounde by the law of God and man to doe good unto all men and evil to noe man." As the inhabitants of Flushing recognized, the laws of man will someday amount to nothing, but the laws of God shall reign supreme and eternal, and as they mentioned in their second paragraph, there will come a time when they will come to advocate before the Lord for their souls. And just what effect will their compliance with man's unjust laws have then? Truly, the inhabitants of Flushing properly placed their priorities when they voiced their objections to the absolute ruler of their jurisdiction. But regardless, they recognized they were much better off defying the unjust laws of man than disobeying those of God. THE FLUSHING REMONSTRANCE. December 27, 1657 Right Honorable, You have been pleased to send up unto us a certain prohibition or command that we should not receive or entertain any of those people called Quakers because they are supposed to be by some, seducers of the people. For our part we cannot condemn them in this case, neither can we stretch out our hands against them, to punish, banish or persucute them, for out of Christ god is a consuming fire, and it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. We desire therefore in this case not to judge least we be judged, neither to condemn least we be condemned, but rather let every man stand and fall to his own Master. Wee are bounde by the Law to doe good unto all men, especially to those of the household of faith. And though for the present we seem to be unsensible of the law and the Law giver, yet when death and the Law assault us, if wee have our advocate to seeke, who shall plead for us in this case of conscience betwixt god and our own souls; the power of this world can neither attack us, neither excuse us, for if God justifye who can condemn and if God condemn there is none can justifye. And for those jealousies and suspicions which some have of them, that they are destructive unto Magistracy and Ministerye, that can not bee, for the magistrate hath the sword in his hand and the minister hath the sword in his hand, as witnesse those two great examples which all magistrates and ministers are to follow, Moses and Christ, whom god raised up maintained and defended against all the enemies both of flesh and spirit; and therefore that which is of God will stand, and that which is of man will come to nothing. And as the Lord hath taught Moses or the civil power to give an outward liberty in the state by the law written in his heart designed for the good of all, and can truly judge who is good, who is civil, who is true and who is false, and can pass definitive sentence of life or death against that man which rises up against the fundamental law of the States General; soe he hath made his ministers a savor of life unto life, and a savor of death unto death. The law of love, peace and liberty in the states extending to Jews, Turks, and Egyptians, as they are considered the sonnes of Adam, which is the glory of the outward state of Holland, soe love, peace and liberty, extending to all in Christ Jesus, condemns hatred, war and bondage. And because our Saviour saith it is impossible but that offenses will come, but woe unto him by whom they cometh, our desire is not to offend one of his little ones, in whatsoever form, name or title hee appears in, whether Presbyterian, Independent, Baptist or Quaker, but shall be glad to see anything of God in any of them, desiring to doe unto all men as wee desire all men should doe unto us, which is the true law both of Church and State; for our Saviour saith this is the law and the prophets. Therefore if any of these said persons come in love unto us, we cannot in conscience lay violent hands upon them, but give them free egresse and regresse unto our Town, and houses, as God shall persuade our consciences. And in this we are true subjects both of Church and State, for we are bounde by the law of God and man to doe good unto all men and evil to noe man. And this is according to the patent and charter of our Towne, given unto us in the name of the States General, which we are not willing to infringe, and violate, but shall houlde to our patent and shall remaine, your humble servants, the inhabitants of Vlishing. Written this 27th day of December, in the year 1657, by mee EDWARD HART, Clericus Tobias Feake Nathaniel Tue The Mark of William Noble Nicholas Blackford The Mark of Micah Tue William Thorne, seignor The Mark of William Thorne, junior The Mark of Philipp Ud Edward Tarne Robert Field, senior John Store Robert Field, junior Nathaniel Hefferd Nick Colas Parsell Benjamin Hubbard Michael Milner The Mark of Henry Townsend William Pigion George Wright The Mark of John Foard George Clere Henry Semtel Elias Doughtie Edward Hart Antonie Feild John Mastine Richard Stockton John Townesend Edward Griffine Edward Farrington Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pagesand served in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing. 1/13/2019 Flushing, Long Island: Home Of The First Written, Religious Freedom Assertion In North America.Read Now by Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. Flushing was a relatively tolerant place in 1645 as far as the seventeenth century goes. It was under Dutch rule and as such, under the leadership of William Kieft, New Amsterdam's Director General. The Dutch had made significant advances toward respecting freedom of conscience, and its relative tolerance in the Old World followed it into the new. It was for this reason, among others that New Amsterdam, what we know today as New York, became such a magnet for commerce. Yes, there was fur, and boats, and harbors, and Indians willing to engage in trade, but above all, there was religious tolerance. At a time where belonging to the wrong flavor of Christianity, worst yet, not subscribing to it, could literally mean your head, New Amsterdam was a welcomed respite. Despite the fact that so many had fled Europe because of religious persecution, such tolerance was not universal amongst the colonies. Many who left England in response to religious intolerance set up shop in the New World only to turn the tables on the others. Such was the case for Deborah Moody, a wealthy widow living in Massachusetts. Moody was born in Wiltshire County, England in 1586, the granddaughter of the Bishop of Durham. Originally Deborah Dunch, Moody married First Baronet Sir Henry Moody and a member of the House of Commons. Following Sir Moody's death in 1629, Deborah Moody left England to settle in Lynn, Massachusetts. While there, Moody, an independent thinker and Noncomformist, became attracted to Anabaptism, a religious sect opposed to the baptism of infants due to the concern of their religion being chosen for them. Anabaptism did not bode well amongst the entrenched and oppressive Puritan majority, forcing Moore to seek a better life. Attracted by the greater degree of religious tolerance afforded in New Amsterdam and despite having been granted 400 acres of land in Massachusetts, Moody and a group of settlers ended up traveling to Gravesend in what is presently known as Brooklyn and inclusive of Coney Island. Gravesend, of course, was under Dutch rule, and their greater degree of tolerance served as an attraction for Moody. On December 19, 1645, Kieft issued a patent to Moody in Gravesend, an area that included Coney Island, the first patent in the history of colonial North America that included a woman. The patent included the authority to ". . . to haue & enioy the ffree libertie of Conscience according to the Custom and manner of Holland, without molestation or disturbance from any magistrate, or magistrates, or any other ecclesiasticall minister that may pretend iurisdictie ouer them. . . " Other such patents were not uncommon in the area. For example, on October 10, 1645, Kieft signed a patent for a tract of land in nearby Flushing that included similar, religious tolerance language. But the relative peace afforded to religious noncomformists in places like Flushing and Gravesend was not to last. In 1647, Kieft was replaced by Petrus Stuyvesant largely in response to a number of ill-advised, violent confrontations Kieft had undertaken with local tribes. A strict disciplinarian, Stuyvesant insisted upon the supremacy of the Dutch Reformed Church and employed a stance of absolute intolerance against Quakers in New Amsterdam. His views were so intolerant that when the Woodhouse, a trading vessel carrying Quakers, arrived in New Amsterdam, Stuyvesant refused the ship entry and hunted down some of the passengers that had managed to escape and remain behind.[i] In his zeal for persecuting Quakers, Stuyvesant arrested anyone who housed a Quaker, confiscated ships carrying Quakers, and even tortured Quakers captured in New Amsterdam. As word spread of the harsh treatment of religious noncomformists in New Amsterdam, a group of inhabitants of Flushing, including the sheriff, some of its founders, and the town clerk gathered on December 27, 1657, to fashion a response. They drafted and signed a remarkable document written by Edward Hart, one of Flushing's inhabitants, that would serve as the first written assertion of religious liberty in North America.[ii] It's language is fascinating and well beyond its years. It is reproduced below in its entirety:
Stuyvesant was so impressed with the magnificence of this document that he promptly arrested those responsible for its execution including the sheriff of Flushing and Edward Hart, its author.
Despite the overt oppression, the colonists, particularly those of Flushing, continued to be sympathetic to the Quakers, hiding them when necessary and allowing them to hold meetings in the homes of non-Quakers. In one noteworthy case, John Bowne, the husband of a Quaker, was arrested in 1662 for allowing Quakers to congregate in his home. He was tried and fined. But Bowne refused to capitulate. In an attempt to have Bowne banished, Stuyvesant placed him on a ship to Ireland along with a letter of explanation bound for Holland. Arriving in Ireland, Bowne proceeded to Holland and presented the letter and his case to the Dutch West India Company, which responded with an order for Stuyvesant to moderate his crackdown on religious liberty stating, "The consciences of men ought ever to remain free and unshackled."[iii] In short, the Dutch West India Company told the Stuyvesant to "allow everyone to have their own beliefs."[iv] By 1648, New Amsterdam would be handed to the British ending any authority the Dutch West India Company letter may have, but its effects upon religious liberty and the free exercise of religion would be more permanent. The renamed New York was a place tolerant of men's consciences, and the willingness of its people to stand up for their right to worship would be indelibly etched upon the colony's character. New York, like New Amsterdam before it, would be a sanctuary for many of North America's religiously oppressed, including Quakers and Jews. The actions and written words of the settlers in Flushing would serve as foundational steps that would eventually lead to the monumental pursuit of religious freedom within the Declaration of Independence, the Revolutionary War, and the First Amendment to the Constitution. Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pagesand served in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing. [i]Willem Kieft, "The Charter, October 10, 1645" in The Flushing Remonstrance, draft edition, accessed Jul. 29, 2015, http://schools.nycenet.edu/offices/teachlearn/ela/Flushing_Remon.pdf. pg. 6. [ii]Ibid. [iii]A History of Flushing, accessed Jul. 31, 2015, http://www.nyym.org/flushing/history.html. [iv]Kenneth Jackson, "A Colony with a Conscience," The New York Times, Dec. 27, 2007, accessed on July 31, 2015, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/27/opinion/27jackson.html. 1/6/2019 The Constitution's Affirmation Option Was Not Designed To Accommodate Secularists.Read Now by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. It's one of the most often utilized arguments by secularists when making the case that the Constitution is a secular document and that the nation's Founders, in thirteen short years, went from affirming the central role of the Creator in informing the relations of man and government to a complete abandonment of God. As the argument goes, so dismissive were the Framers of religion's role in governance that the even the Oath was given an elective role in the swearing of a public servant's allegiance to the United States and the Constitution; a role that was equal in standing to the godless affirmation. In point of fact, nothing could be further from the truth. There are two major reasons for the Constitution's apparently secular tone. First, it was a working document designed to serve as a blueprint for government. Unlike the Declaration of Independence, it did not have an aspirational or declaratory purpose, nor did it need to explain itself "to a candid world." Second, the Constitution had to specifically avoid, as much as it could, any references to religion because, as discussed by countless sources of the time and memorialized in the subsequent First Amendment to the Constitution, religion was to remain within the purview of the states, not under the auspices of the new national government. This is also why the Framers prohibited any religious test from being employed to determine the qualifications of any of its members. Even so, deference to God is still encountered within the Constitution of the United States in at least two locations. First, the Constitution specifically references God in acknowledging that the date of attestation took place "in the year of our Lord." Second, the Constitution skips Sunday in the number of days allowed for the President to return a bill passed by Congress. There is no coincidence that this day was skipped because it was one of rest and worship amongst Christians. Secularists foolishly argue that notwithstanding those two references, the placement of the affirmation as an alternative to an oath clearly demonstrates the Framers' secularist intent and their secularist design for their new nation. That assertion is wrong. In Article II, the Framers required an incoming President to take an "Oath or Affirmation." Additionally, in Article VI, the Framers wrote, "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution." The importance of this requirement is striking when one considers that an "oath" is often defined as "a solemn promise"[i]with the words "calling on God" as witness included in many definitions.[ii] It is viewed as an appeal to God to witness the veracity or solemnity of the words or actions about to be taken.[iii] No greater act of contrition, or of subservience to God, can be required of one about to undertake an action than to require the person to make the statement under the direct appeal to God. The oath requirement within the Constitution of the United States is a preeminent acknowledgment of the existence of God and of the subservience of every American elected official to Him. However, what about the affirmation? In point of fact, the affirmation was designed to accommodate those with an ostensibly greater subservience to God; not to secularists. According to Professor Steve Sheppard, a law professor at the University of Arkansas, in including the affirmation as an option, the Framers were attempting to appease the faith requirements of Quakers and those like them, whose fears of God was so great that they were prohibited from undertaking an oath.[iv] Consequently, the affirmation inscribed within the Constitution was far from Godless, as some would like to argue today. It was merely an option to be exercised by those whose fear and respect for God was so great that they could not bring themselves to invoke His name in an oath, but would nevertheless place themselves under the threat of perjury when making their declaration. It stands as indisputable that the Constitution is a document divinely inspired. Man could not arrive at such a solemn document, albeit with its many imperfections, without some guidance from God. However that modern-day secularists should use a capitulation made in honor of the most pious as an affirmation of the document's secularity, is as ironic as it is false. Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pagesand served in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing. [i] American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Ed. (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company). [ii] Ibid. [iii] West's Encyclopedia of American Law, 2nd ed.. (The Gale Group, Inc.: 2008), [iv] Steve Sheppard, "What Oaths Meant to the Framers' Generation: A Preliminary Sketch," Cardozo Law Review, de Novo 27, (2009): 279.  by Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. In our prior installments of "Sunday Thoughts," we saw a few examples of authoritarian opinions by the courts that have been used to support the leftist contention that the "wall of separation between church and state" ought to be insurmountable. But alternative conclusions to those expressed in Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Church exist; ones that could just as easily have been adopted by the court. Chief Justice John Marshall, the most prolific jurist in American jurisprudence wrote, "The American population. . . is entirely Christian, and with us, Christianity and religion are identified. It would be strange indeed, if with such a people, our institution did not presuppose Christianity." This phrase, delivered in ex parte fashion, just like Jefferson's, and delivered by one of the great participants in the nation's creation could have very easily employed by the various Supreme Courts to support a more Christian-based interpretation of the First Amendment's establishment clause. Justice Joseph Story, one of the early members of the Supreme Court and amongst its strongest strict-constructionists said, "My own private judgment has long been (and every day's experience more and more confirms me in it) that government can not long exist without an alliance with religion to some extent; and that Christianity is indispensable to the true interests and solid foundations of free government." And then, there is John Adams, our nation's second president, a member of the Constitutional Convention and signer of the Declaration of Independence who famously wrote, "Statesmen my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand. . . The only foundation of a free Constitution, is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People, in a great Measure, than they have it now, they may change their Rulers, and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty. (suspension points included by Adams) Based on these authoritative precedents, courts could have easily crafted phrases vastly different from "a wall of separation of church and states" to guide their rulings. With equal intellectual credibility, they could have said, "American governance presupposes Christianity" (based on Marshall); "Christianity stands as indispensible to the true interests and solid foundations of a free government" (based on Story); and "no lasting liberty can exist without moral and religious virtue" (based on Adams). Had they done so, America would be a much different nation, one where children still prayed, or stood silently and respectfully while others did, and adults publicly and comfortably revered the many blessings mercifully given to them by their Creator. The fact that twentieth century jurists did not select these equally valid, but pro-religion guidelines reveal their secularist agenda, an agenda that has sought ready refuge in the chambers of our nation's courts. If our aim is truly to restore our nation's moral standing, if we want to buttress families and faith advocates, then it is fundamentally important that we remove that bastion of safety from the secularist and force them to defend their views in the public square and within the legislative branches of government. As we have previously written, a legislative override provision in our Constitution is the only way to rid secularism of its asylum. Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pagesand served in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing. 12/23/2018 Slavery, Catholicism, Political Expediency, and the Extrication of Worship from Public Schools.Read Now by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. In our prior installments of "Sunday Thoughts," we saw how the courts, through their use of the Fourteenth Amendment, positioned themselves to manipulate the nation's legal standing on religion and religious freedom, not only as applied to federal law and the federal government, but also to the states. The next stage in the assault on religious freedom involved inter-sect rivalries and a push to suppress Catholicism. And there was no better place to start than in the nation's public school system. America's public schools, originally known as "common schools," were largely protestant institutions where prayer and hymn singing abounded. In these schools, the King James Bible was studied with fervor,[i] and The New England Primer, a schoolbook replete with religious sayings and bible passages, was the primary reading and writing source. However, the rifts among the various sects of the 1600s and 1700s continued. With the increase of immigration by Southern European Catholics during the nineteenth century, hostility toward them grew. This was the time of the rise of the Know Nothing Party, which embraced, among other priorities, the goal of suppressing Catholics within the United States.[1] To a large degree, their efforts were aimed at the common schools where they worked to ensure that the Protestant Bibles were read, and Protestant values were faithfully taught. In response, Catholics, faced with increasing resistance at having their faith taught in the common schools, established their own, parallel school system and began seeking tax exemptions and public funding for their schools.[ii] In 1875, when the Republicans, under President Ulysses S. Grant, found themselves needing to rally support for the presidential election, they resurrected anti-Catholic sentiment for their benefit. Former House Speaker, James Blaine, a Republican, ran against Grant for the party's nomination, and in an effort to win the support of the Know Nothing wing of the party, attacked Catholics by submitting an amendment to the Constitution designed to prevent the funding of Catholic schools. Blaine's proposed amendment was interesting in that it spoke directly to the states, just like the Fourteenth Amendment, enacting restrictions on how states employed money and lands in support of religious schools. Designed as an addition to the First Amendment, the Blaine Amendment read: No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and no money raised by taxation in any State for the support of public schools, or derived from any public fund therefor, nor any public lands devoted thereto, shall ever be under the control of any religious sect; nor shall any money so raised or lands so devoted be divided between religious sects or denominations. (Blaine Amendment, 1875) As can be seen, the Blaine Amendment would not have prohibited religious education within the common school system. Instead, it would have prohibited public money or capital from being "under the control of any religious sect." Specifically, the amendment was crafted to allow funding of religious education in public schools where Protestantism was openly taught and to prohibit any government support of religious education outside of public schools where the teaching of Catholicism and other religious sects took place. The amendment would pass in the House of Representatives, but after failing in the Senate, it was not ratified. Blaine also did not win the presidency. Although some states objected to the passage of his amendment because of its intrusive effects upon state sovereignty, similar amendments would pass throughout the established states and would become part of the constitutions of many of the newly admitted states. But if anti-Catholicism fomented the genesis of prohibitions against government support for religious education, racism and bigotry expanded it. During Reconstruction, Republicans led the effort at expanding public education specifically in the hopes of educating freed blacks, and since school buildings were uncommon, children generally met in churches with church ministers as their public school teachers.[iii] Predictably, Southern, white Democrats resisted the push towards public education, and as the members of the various Catholic communities became involved in educating freed blacks, the legislative war against Catholics became tangled up with the prejudicial war against blacks, giving the effort to discontinue support for religious education within particularly southern states the dual purpose of disadvantaging blacks as well as Catholics. The conclusion to be drawn from these trends is that the concept of separation of church and state related to funding religious education did not result from some lofty aspirational concept by the national designers wanting to separate churches from the tarnish of politics, nor did it arise out of a concern over the potential of tyranny and oppression of one religious sect over another, nor even because of some intellectually contrived offense of teaching religion in front of non-believers. Rather, the case against religious education in public schools arose from a discriminatory assault to disadvantage Catholics and blacks even at the risk of negatively impacting the opportunity for religious education for all. This battle cry based on racism and on the suppression of opportunity for minority students was later embraced by secularists and atheists alike to shut down the faithful and silence the pious. Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pagesand serves in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing. [1]The name "Know Nothing" derived from the agreement amongst the group's earliest members to answer, "I know nothing," when asked about their activities. [i]Nathan A. Adams, IV, "Florida's Blaine Amendment: Goldilocks and the Separate Buy Equal Doctrine," St. Thomas Law Review, vol 24, no 1, 1-31 (2011). [ii]Ibid., 4. [iii]Ibid., 7.  by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. Last week we discussed the events culminating in Jefferson's wall of separation between church and state. Amazingly, Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association lay dormant for seventy years. But in 1874, George Reynolds, a Utah Mormon, decided he wanted to marry another woman while still married to his existing wife. Polygamy was an accepted practice within the Mormon Church where so many of the nation's Mormons lived. However, the rest of the nation, and in particular, the federal government, took a staunchly anti-polygamous stance. Reynolds proceeded with his polygamous marriage and was subsequently convicted of engaging in the illegal activity of having more than one wife in conflict with Utah's increasingly anti-polygamist statutes. He appealed the conviction as infringing upon his religious freedoms.[i] Ultimately, the Supreme Court heard the case and ruled against Reynolds, asserting that although Congress and the state did not have the authority to regulate religious beliefs, they were able to prohibit certain religious practices, such as polygamy. In its analysis, the Court entered a discussion regarding the meaning of religious freedom and the proper role of government in regulating religious-based conduct. As part of its analysis, the Court quoted the entire paragraph of Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association regarding the separation of church and state[1] marking the phrase's entry into the legal corpus. Admittedly, the Court's foray into the realm of regulating religious-based conduct within a territory did not equate to the same judicial oversight over a state. After all, a territory of the United States is not sovereign and, accordingly, is subject to the direct authority of the federal government. A state, however, is sovereign and subject to greater protections against legal intrusions by federal courts. Enter the Fourteenth Amendment. One of the three Civil War amendments, the Fourteenth Amendment was clearly written in an effort to protect the newly-freed slaves, but in the twentieth century, Progressive jurists reapplied those words in a manner different than was originally intended. One of the first opportunities the Court had to extend its powers regarding religious freedom presented itself in 1940, in Cantwell v. Connecticut.[ii] The controversy arose from Newton Cantwell's actions, as a Jehovah's Witness minister, of door knocking with the intent of proselytizing his faith to the residents of New Haven, Connecticut. His routine was to approach a home, and if the homeowner allowed, he would ask permission to play a phonographic recording of his church's message. Once the homeowner listened to the message, he would ask the homeowner to purchase a book teaching the Jehovah's Witness faith or to make a contribution to his church. Mr. Cantwell was eventually arrested for violating a state statute prohibiting the solicitation of ". . . any valuable thing for any religious, charitable, or philanthropic cause, . . ."[iii][2] In Court, Cantwell argued that the statute was unconstitutional because it inhibited his freedom of worship and his freedom of speech in contradiction to the due process rights afforded to him by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The Court agreed, stating that whereas the First Amendment to the Constitution has prohibited Congress from making any law establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, "[t]he Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws."[iv] In its ruling reversing Cantwell's convictions, the Court acted to protect Cantwell's freedom of speech and his right to freely exercise his religion. However, the ruling was based on an authority borrowed from the Fourteenth Amendment, not from those given to it by the original version of the Constitution. In Everson v. Board of Education,[v] the Court, in an opinion authored by Hugo Black, upheld a New Jersey tax law calling for the collection of money to support school transportation for all children regardless of whether the children were being transported to secular or religious schools. Everson marked the first time the Court applied the freedom of religion clause in the First Amendment to a state. In his opinion, Justice Black again employed Jefferson's wall of separation analogy stating, The " establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. [Footnote 6] Neither can force or influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will, or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or nonattendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. [Footnote 7] Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups, and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State." [Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947)] Admittedly, these first two forays into religious freedom by the Supreme Court served to protect our religious liberties. But in expanding the authorities afforded to it by the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court changed the character of the Constitution in a manner never intended by the Framers, the legislature, or the people, and it was changed by an unelected and a virtually un-checkable subgroup of government. The unfortunate and longer lasting result of the Court's actions in Everson and Cantwell were to divine a new function for the Courts; the role of arbiter of the constitutionality of state laws relating to religion, something the courts had never previously possessed. So, in essence, the door for later judicial activists to erode our rights to publicly worship and publicly acknowledge the supremacy of God was now broadly opened. Next week, we will see how that erosion actually played out. Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and served in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.comto arrange a lecture or book signing. [1]The Court cited the letter in its attempt to define religion and religious freedom, which it correctly observed had no definitions within the Constitution. The Court in Reynolds did not specifically define "religion" or "religious freedom," but used the Danbury Baptist Association letter, Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance, and sections of the Jefferson's Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom in defining the proper relationship between government and religious worship. [2]Although the law included a few exceptions to the prohibition of exchanging valuable items or money for solicitations, the Cantwells did not qualify for them. [i]Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878). [ii]Cantwell, 310 U.S. 296. [iii]Ibid., 302-303. [iv]Ibid., 303. [v]Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947).  by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. During the years following the ratification of the Constitution, the new government embraced religion. George Washington, at his first inauguration, placed his hand on the Bible and spontaneously added the words, "So help me God," to the oath of office. Congress hired chaplains to attend to the religious needs of the members and led them in daily prayers. The first two presidents declared national days of fasting and prayer for various purposes, not the least of which was to show the nation's appreciation to its Creator for the favorable outcome of the Revolutionary War and the freedoms that sprang from it. Even the Thanksgiving observance was undertaken, not as a standing tradition as is done presently, but at the behest of a presidential order calling for the national observance. In 1801, Jefferson became the nation's third president, bringing with him views regarding religion that were quite distinct from those of his predecessors. Jefferson did not benefit from the nation's formative debates on religion. During the Virginia Convention of 1776, when the Virginia Bill of Rights was drafted, Jefferson was serving in Congress. During the Constitutional Convention, Jefferson was in France. And during the First Amendment debates, Jefferson was serving as Secretary of State. Of all the major public discussions taking place during the country's founding regarding religion, Jefferson was only present for the Madison-Henry debates in the Virginia Assembly. Despite this, history would hand Jefferson an opportunity to formally present a position on church and state by way of a letter. At the time of the nation's establishment, the Congregationalist Church was Connecticut's official church, a title that continued after the Constitution’s ratification. Other churches residing in Connecticut, such as the Baptist church, were therefore subject to substantial disadvantages, including unequal taxation and fees, merely because of their religious positions. Frustrated with their persistently unequal treatment despite the ratification of the new federal Constitution, the leaders of the Danbury Baptist Association wrote a letter to the President of the United States, then Thomas Jefferson, sharing with him the difficulties they were facing. Their letter, dated October 7, 1801, read as follows: SIR, Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your Election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoy’d in our collective capacity, since your Inauguration, to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief Magistracy in the United States: And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompious than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, Sir to believe, that none are more sincere. Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty—That Religion is at all times and places a Matter between God and Individuals—That no man aught to suffer in Name, person or effects on account of his religious Opinions—That the legetimate Power of civil Goverment extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbour: But Sir, our constitution of goverment is not specific. Our antient charter, together with the Laws made coincident therewith, were adopted as the Basis of our goverment. At the time of our revolution; and such had been our Laws & usages, & such still are; that religion is consider’d as the first object of Legislation; & therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights: and these favors we receive at the expence of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistant with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondred at therefore; if those, who seek after power & gain under the pretence of goverment & Religion should reproach their fellow men—should reproach their chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion Law & good order because he will not, dares not assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ. Sir, we are sensible that the President of the united States, is not the national Legislator, & also sensible that the national goverment cannot destroy the Laws of each State; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved President, which have had such genial Effect already, like the radiant beams of the Sun, will shine & prevail through all these States and all the world till Hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the Earth. Sir when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more than thirty years we have reason to believe that America’s God has raised you up to fill the chair of State out of that good will which he bears to the Millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence & the voice of the people have cal’d you to sustain and support you in your Administration against all the predetermin’d opposition of those who wish to rise to wealth & importance on the poverty and subjection of the people. And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom throug Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator. Signed in behalf of the Association NEHH. DODGE EPHM. ROBBINS The Committee STEPHEN S NELSON Interestingly, although the letter had been written in October, 1801, there is no evidence Jefferson received it until December 30, 1801. At the time he received the letter, Jefferson was facing some political turmoil. Jefferson and his Republicans had just survived a very tumultuous election against Adams and his Federalists. Not the least of Jefferson's difficulties was the problems he had developed from his strict views on the separation of church and state dating back to his days in the Virginia State Assembly. Among other charges, Jefferson was accused of being an atheist, no small charge in that day. Evidence to that claim was his refusal to proclaim times of thanksgiving and national fasts in contrast to the habits of Washington and Adams. Having faced such ardent and continuous attacks regarding the role of government in religious worship and of his personal convictions, Jefferson saw the Danbury letter as an opportunity to discuss his views on religious worship and freedom.[1] So anxious was Jefferson to respond that he immediately crafted a draft and submitted it to Postmaster General Gildeon Granger and Attorney General Levi Lincoln. By December 31, Granger had responded to Jefferson. The next day, Jefferson sent the letter with a cover note to Lincoln who also immediately responded. Jefferson, despite a busy New Years day, finalized his answer and sent it on January 1, 1802. His final letter read as follows: Gentlemen The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing. Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem. Th Jefferson Jan. 1. 1802.[2] It is important to clarify what Jefferson said and what he didn't say in his letter. First, Jefferson agreed with the Baptists that religion is strictly a matter between Man & his God. As a matter of fact, says Jefferson, "the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions. . . " But, he clarifies, his job as President was to uphold the Constitution of the United States. And as such, he acknowledged that the legislature could make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus "building a wall of separation of Church and State." Therefore, Jefferson said, he would continue to pursue "those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties." Jefferson's subsequent actions speak volumes of the intent and meaning of his letter. First, Jefferson did nothing to undo the Connecticut statute making the Congregationalists its official church. Unquestionably, he agreed that this was wrong; he said it in his letter. But he took no action because his greater duty at that time was to the Constitution, and although not expressed in the letter, the Constitution did not allow the President or Congress to keep a state from enacting the legislation that Connecticut had passed. Instead, Jefferson engaged in a host of activities broaching his "wall of separation between Church and State," implying that his "wall" was actually quite porous. On the same day that he finalized his letter to the Danbury Baptist Associations, Jefferson publicly met with John Leland, a Baptist minister whom he had invited to deliver a sermon at the House of Representatives. In a public demonstration of friendship, Leland presented Jefferson with a 1,250-pound cheese produced by his parishioners.[3] That Sunday, January 3, 1802, Jefferson personally attended the sermon at the House of Representatives that his friend delivered. How many of these actions were specifically due to political expediency will never be answered. However, it is said that subsequent to this letter Jefferson 'constantly' attended House services.[4] Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association had some limited, initial and regional play largely due to the actions of the Association itself. The letter, as well as Jefferson wall would disappear from the national conscience for more than seventy years, until it reappeared in the writings of a Supreme Court Justice. But that is the topic of another Sunday Thought. Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and serves in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing. [1] James Hutson, "'A Wall of Separation' FBI Helps Restore Jefferson's Obliterated Draft," (Library of Congress: June 1998) accessed Aug. 21, 2015, http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html. [2] The various incarnations of the language of his drafts have been reconstructed as follows: "confining myself therefore to the duties of my station, which are merely temporal, be assured that your religious rights shall never be infringed by any act of mine and that. . ." (There now appear some crossed out lines followed by:) "concurring with"; (which he also crossed out, then continued) "Adhering to this great act of national legislation in behalf of the rights of conscience" (he crossed out these words and then wrote) "Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience I shall see with friendly dispositions the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced that he has no natural rights in opposition to his social duties." ["Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists; The Draft and Recently Discovered Text" (Library of Congress: June 1998) accessed Aug. 21, 2015, http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpost.html] [3] Ibid. [4] Ibid.  by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. As covered in the last installment of "Sunday Thoughts," the summer of 1784 saw the battle over Virginia's religious freedom in the Virginia Assembly stalemate. James Madison foresaw that Patrick Henry's "Bill Establishing a Provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion" was set to pass. Madison, whose views regarding the nexus between government and religion did not allow for the preference of any religion, including Christianity, opposed Henry's bill. Instead, he wanted to see Thomas Jefferson's Religious Freedom Bill passed. Jefferson's bill fostered an agnostic view towards the protection of the pursuit of truth and was therefore much more favored by Madison. Yet, interestingly, an analysis of Jefferson's Religious Freedom Bill reveals that, following the amendment of a provision allowing the taxpayer to designate his taxes to non-religious education, Henry's Bill did not conflict with Jefferson's. Indeed, one of the great historical ironies in this regard is that the debate in the Virginia Assembly led by Madison against Henry, in reality, was not required at all. Regardless, Madison, a rival of Henry's, continued his active opposition to Henry's Bill. Towards the end of the 1784 session, Madison arranged for Henry's bill to be tabled, allowing Madison to go back home and seek the approval of the people of Virginia for his opposition to a tax funding religious-education teachers. In the summer of 1784, Madison wroteand anonymously published his "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments," laying out his arguments against Henry's Bill. The Remonstrance would later be relied upon by twentieth-century jurists in developing modern jurisprudence on religious freedom in the United State of America. With the battle lines reconfigured, the stage was set for a return to the Assembly for the next round in the fight over America's religious freedom. But a most providential event occurred for Madison and Jefferson, Virginia Governor Benjamin Harrison V died. With the Virginia governorship vacant, Madison saw an opportunity here to remove Henry, who had already served as Governor, from the Virginia Assembly. In November 1784, Madison indeed arranged for Henry to be elected Governor of Virginia. The consequence of the debate over the nature of religious freedom in Virginia, and subsequently America, was stark. Absent Henry's influence, his Bill supporting teachers of religion died in the Assembly during the 1785 session. Devoid of any contest from Henry, Jefferson's Religious Freedom Bill went on to easily pass during that same session. It would be, in Jefferson's own estimation, his crowning achievement, and one of the three he would request to be memorialized on his tombstone along with his authorship of the Declaration of Independence and the founding of the University of Virginia. The circumstances through which Jefferson's bill passed and Henry's failed is historically unfortunate as it gave the impression that one passed at the expense of the other. Nearly two centuries later that sense would be misused in calling for the government's sterilization of every form of religious influence. In point of fact, the most of the Framers and Founders were perfectly comfortable with the government promoting and supporting religion and religious education so long as no particular denomination was granted favor. For the Framer's the nonbeliever was to be respected, but not given advantage over the believer. They were certainly not to be in a position to suppress believers in their pursuit of Christianity and religious worship, even if it were in public. As we shall see, through the interventions of the courts in a manner inconsistent with the will of the people or the will of the Framers, that is exactly the advantage non-religion has been given over religion. Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and serves in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing. 11/25/2018 MADISON, JEFFERSON, AND MASON;THREE VERY DIFFERENT VIEWS ON RELIGION FOR A NEW AMERICA.Read Now MADISON, JEFFERSON, AND MASON;
THREE VERY DIFFERENT VIEWS ON RELIGION FOR A NEW AMERICA. by Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. In the first installment of our "Sunday Thoughts" page, we explored George Mason's view of religious freedom and governance, a view that was closest to the Framers' consensus. We saw the importance Mason held for Christian forbearance and the role of Christianity in American life. For him, American society and social customs were inherently Christian in nature and based on Judeo-Christian moral presumptions. This reality was not to be denied in governmental design, but revered and utilized for society's benefit. But Mason's view, although the prevailing one, was by no means universally accepted. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, most notably, viewed the concept of religious freedom and its nexus with governance differently. For example, Madison did not place a great deal of importance upon Christianity as the guiding force in a republic. His greater quest was for equal standing for all, regardless of the observed religion. Madison's reasoning was based on the presumption that if there is a direct and intimate relationship between an individual and his Creator, a relationship not to be corrupted by the influence of the state, then there ought to be no room for the government to influence the person in regards to his or her religious beliefs. This prohibition, Madison argued, would not be limited to the selection or preference of a particular Christian sect, but applied equally to the selection of any religious belief, Christian or not. As it were, history gave us the opportunity to test whether Madison's more sterilized view of religious freedom in governance was the prevailing view. During the run-up to the nation's founding, Madison presented his version of religious freedom in the form of an amendment to Article 16 of the Virginia Bill of Rights on which Mason had worked. His version would strike out the words "Christian forbearance" from the religious freedom provision, but the delegates to the Convention would have none of it. Although the delegates to the Virginia Fifth Convention accepted some of Madison's additions, they held dear to Christianity, and the words "Christian forbearance" were ultimately retained. The person who was arguably the leading thinker and writer of the day, Thomas Jefferson, did not participate in the Fifth Convention's discussions as he was serving in Congress. Consequently, although he was aware of the results of the Fifth Virginia Convention, he was not nearly as familiar with its actual discussions and deliberations. Generally, Jefferson's primary concern was the condition of man. Jefferson's view on the immiscibility of religion and governance was even stricter than Madison's. For Jefferson, any interference with religious worship and liberty must be avoided. Jefferson was not only an ardent follower of natural law but also of the uncorrupted pursuit of truth. For as Jefferson articulated as one of his assumption in his Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom, ". . . truth is great and will prevail if left to herself;. . . she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to 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." Clearly, Jefferson's scrubbing of governmental influence goes beyond the issue of religion and the belief in God. It goes to the matter of each man's pursuit of a greater truth. And if truth is to be sought free from obstructions, then government interference cannot be allowed. In this light, Jefferson would write within the substance of the Religious Freedom Bill, "That to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty." Despite the stated strictness of his position, Jefferson's call was not for a complete abstention from moral or ethical governance as he expressly allowed for interference in the beliefs of an individual "when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order." So, even though Jefferson advocated for strict avoidance of interference by government with the religious beliefs of men, neither one's religious beliefs nor conscience could be employed for the purposes of disrupting the safety of the citizenry or to disrupt the social order. In 1779, at least, Jefferson's focus was not on a complete separation of church and state, but rather on a prohibition of interference by government in the person's pursuit of truth; religious or otherwise. With these three diverging views, the stage was set for a colossal collision between giants, and the force that would induce the confrontation was yet another foundational American icon and the greatest orator of the day, Patrick Henry. But for that, we will have to wait until next week. Have a very Happy, Peaceful, and Blessed Thanksgiving Day. Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and serves in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
April 2021
Categories |
RSS Feed