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.
1 Comment
12/23/2018 Slavery, Catholicism, Political Expediency, and the Extrication of Worship from Public Schools.Read Nowby 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. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
April 2021
Categories |