jim alison
September 10, 2006, 05:55 AM
> What is Church and State about?
> http://nathanbradfield.blogspot.com/
>
> What is Church and State about? The Founders' purpose for the First
> Amendment is not compatible with the interpretation given it by
> contemporary courts. The Founders intended only to prevent the
> establishment of a single national denomination, not to restrain
> public religious expressions. The constitutional prohibition against
> "an establishment of religion" forbade only the federal establishment
> of a national denomination.
My answer
A DISCUSSION-politics & religion
From: buckeye -
Date: Wed, Feb 21 2001 3:08 pm
Groups: misc.education, alt.religion.christian, talk.origins,
alt.society.conservatism
"susupply" wrote:
>:|Let's look at the above logic.
>:|
>:|Major premise: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
>:|of religion
>:|
>:|Minor premise: Setting up or creating a national religion was next to
>:|impossible
>:|
>:|Conclusion: the Establishment clause meant something more than just
>:|that
>:|
>:|Lacks quite a bit for logical power, doesn't it? Putting aside that
>:|creating a national religion was merely a matter of getting the votes
>:|through coalition building (i.e. TWO favored religions)
=======================================================
FEBRUARY 6 1788
FEDERALIST PAPERS # 51
JAMES MADISON
In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same
as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the
multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of
sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number
of interests and sects; and this may be presumed to depend on the
extent of country and number of people comprehended under the same
government.
=============================================
JUNE 10, 1788
VIRGINIA RATIFYING CONVENTION
GOV. RANDOLPH. Freedom of religion is said to be in danger. I will
candidly say, I once thought that it was, and felt great repugnance to
the Constitution for that reason. I am willing to acknowledge my
apprehensions removed; and I will inform you by what process of
reasoning I did remove them. The Constitution provides that " the
senators and representatives before mentioned, and the members of the
several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers,
both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound,
by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious
test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public
trust under the United States." It has been said that, if the
exclusion of the religious test were an exception from the general
power of Congress, the power over religion would
remain. I inform those who are of this opinion, that no power is given
expressly to Congress over religion. The senators and representatives,
members of the state legislatures, and executive and judicial
officers, are bound, by oath or affirmation, to support this
Constitution. This only binds them to support it in the exercise of
the powers constitutionally given it. The exclusion of religious tests
is an exception from this general provision, with respect to oaths or
affirmations. Although officers, &c., are to swear that they will
support this Constitution, yet they are not bound to support one mode
of worship, or to adhere to one particular sect. It Puts all sects on
the same footing. A man of abilities and character, of any sect
whatever, may he admitted to any office or public trust under the
United States. I am a friend to a variety of sects, because they keep
one another in order. How many different sects are we composed of
throughout the United States! How many different sects will he
in Congress! We cannot enumerate the sects that may be in Congress!
And there are now so many in the United States, that they will prevent
the establishment of any one sect, in prejudice to the rest, and will
forever oppose all attempts to infringe religious liberty. If such an
attempt be made, will not an alarm be sounded throughout America? If
Congress should be as wicked as we are foretold they will be, they
would not run the risk of exciting the resentment of all, or most, of
the religious sects in America.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: June 10, 1788, Debates of the Virginia
Constitution Ratification Convention, Gov. Randolph speaking to the
delegates. Page 204-205, The debates in the several State Conventions
on the adoption of the federal Convention, Vol III, Jonathan Elliot,
J B Lippincott Company 1888)
_____________________________________________________________________________
JUNE 12, 1788
VIRGINIA RATIFYING CONVENTION
Mr. MADISON. The honorable member has introduced the subject of
religion. Religion is not guarded; there is no bill of rights
declaring that religion should he secure. Is a bill of rights a
security for religion? Would the bill of rights, in this state, exempt
the people from paying for the support of one particular sect, if such
sect were exclusively established by law? If there were a majority of
one sect, a bill of rights would he a poor protection for liberty.
Happily for the States, they enjoy the utmost freedom of religion.
This freedom arises from that multiplicity of sects which pervades
America, and which is the best and only security for religious liberty
in any society; for where there is such a variety of sects, there
cannot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the
rest. Fortunately for this commonwealth, a majority of the people are
decidedly against any exclusive establishment. I believe it to be so
in the other states. There is not a shadow of right in the general
government to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with
it would be a most flagrant usurpation. I can appeal to my uniform
conduct on this subject, that I have warmly supported religious
freedom. It is better that this security should be depended upon from
the general legislature, than from one particular state. A particular
state might concur in one religious
project. But the United States abound in such a variety of sects,
that it is a strong security against religious persecution; and it is
sufficient to authorize a conclusion, that no one sect will ever be
able to outnumber or depress the rest.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION June 12, 1788, James Madison speaking to the
delegates (speaking against Patrick Henry's assertions) of the
Virginia Constitutional ratifying convention, as reported on page 330,
THE DEBATES OF THE SEVERAL STATE CONVENTIONS ON THE ADOPTION OF THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION 1787, VOL III by Jonathan Elliot. J B Lippincott
Company 1888)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\
" In recent discussions of religious freedom and Church-State
separation in the United States attention has been so much centered
constitutionally on the Bill of Rights that the importance of this
Provision in the original Constitution as a bulwark of Church-State
separation has been largely overlooked. As a matter of fact it was and
is important in preventing religious tests for Federal office--a
provision later extended to all the states. It went far in thwarting
any State Church in the United States; for it would be almost
impossible to establish such a Church, since no Church has more than a
fifth of the population. Congress as constituted with men and women
from all the denominations could never unite in selecting any one
body for this privilege. This has been so evident from the time of the
founding of the government that it is one reason why the First
Amendment must be interpreted more broadly than merely as preventing
the state establishment of religion which had already been made almost
impossible."
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: CHURCH AND STATE IN THE UNITED STATES, VOLUME I, Anton Phelps Stokes, D.D., LL.D, Harper & Brothers Publishers
(1950) page 527)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some data on why a the establishment of a national church or religion
in the European style would have been next to impossible to achieve.
Breakdown of religion:
TABLE 2.3
Denominational Percentages by Region, 1776, Based on Number of
Congregations
NEW ENGLAND (N = 1,039)
Congregationalist 63.0
Baptist 15.3
Episcopal 8.4
Presbyterian 5.5
Quaker 3.8
Other(1) 3.6
MIDDLE COLONIES (N = 1,285)
Presbyterian 24.6
Quaker 14. 1
Episcopal 12.9
German Reformed 9.8
Dutch Reformed 8.9
Lutheran 8.6
Baptist 7.6
Roman Catholic 4.2
Methodist 3.8
Moravian 1.8
Congregationalist 0.3
Other(1) 3.1
SOUTHERN COLONIES (N = 845)
Baptist 28.0
Episcopal 27.8
Presbyterian 24.9
Quaker 9.0
Lutheran 3,8
German Reformed 2.8
Methodist 1.4
Moravian 0.6
Congregationist 0.1
Roman Catholic 0.1
Other (1) 1.2
SOURCE: See Table 2.2.
NOTE: Only 3,169 of lernegan's 3,228 congregations could be
located by colony.
(1) "Other" includes Separatist and Independent, Dunker,
Mennonite, Huguenot, Sandemanian, and Jewish.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE 2.5
Percentage Congregationalist by Colony, 1776
Colony % Congregationalist
Massachusetts 71.6
Connecticut 64.2
New Hampshire 63.2
Rhode Island 17.2
Georgia 4.3
New York 1.8
South Carolina 1.2
New Jersey 0.4
Pennsylvania 0.0
Delaware 0.0
Maryland 0.0
Virginia 0.0
North Carolina 0.0
SOURCE: See Table 2.2.
Source of information" THE CHURCHING OF AMERICA 1776-1990. Winners and losers in our religions economy, by Roger Finke and Rodney Stark, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey, (1994) Pages 25, 27, 29-30, 41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 6. THE CONDITION AND PUBLIC INFLUENCE OF THE CHURCHES DURING AND IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE REVOLUTION
At the close of the colonial period there were something under three
million persons in the thirteen colonies, of whom about one-sixth were
slaves. Recent studies at the University of Chicago show somewhat over
three thousand religious organizations or congregations, counting each
church or chapel separately. These were divided about equally among
New England, the Middle Atlantic States, and the South. The total
(3,005) actually enumerated--about one thousand more than were
estimated a decade ago 49--were thus
distributed:
Congregationalists, mostly in New England ................... . 658
Presbyterians, largely in the middle colonies but becoming
increasingly prominent in the South ... ... 543
Baptists, especially in Rhode island, the middle colonies, the
Carolinas, and Virginia ........... ... 498
Anglicans, mainly in the South and in the larger towns elsewhere... 480
Quakers, mostly in Pennsylvania and North Carolina ........... 298
German and Dutch Reformed, mainly in the middle colonies ..... 251
Lutherans, largely in the middle colonies .. .. .............. 151
Roman Catholics, mainly in the large Eastern towns and in
Maryland.................... 50
Miscellaneous minor groups ... ...... ................ .. 76
________
3,005
_____________________________________________________________________________
Nationally
Congregationalist 21.13% (Their power was only found in New England)
Presbyterian 18.33%
Baptist 16.96%
Episcopal 16.36%
Quaker 8.96%
All others 18.26%
CHURCH AND STATE IN THE UNITED STATES, VOL. I Anson Phelps Stokes,
D.D., LL.D Harper & Brothers, New York, (1950) page 273
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\
Madison's two vetoes of acts passed by Congress shows that the
Establishment clause had a far broader meaning than just preventing a
national religion.
Neither of those acts, had they been passed, would have established a
national religion.
Yet he stated both were in violation of the Establishment Clause.
********************************************
James Madison And National Religion
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/madnational.htm
>Earlier generations long understood this,
> and thus prevented any misapplied enforcements of those constitutional
> provisions. Notice, for example, Justice Joseph Story's clear
> articulation: "We are not to attribute this prohibition of a national
> religious establishment to an indifference to religion in general, and
> especially to Christianity (which none could hold in more reverence,
> than the framers of the Constitution).
Joseph Story's Commentaries of the Constitution
http://candst.tripod.com/joestor1.htm
Two Views: James Madison's and Joseph Story's
http://candst.tripod.com/joestor2.htm
James Madison was a strict separationist.
Excerpts from James Madison's Autobiography
http://candst.tripod.com/madauto.html
****************************************************
In Virginia, on the other hand where the Anglican
establishment bad been less generous to dissenters than the
Congregationalists of New England, it was rather the radical
separationist view which triumphed under the leadership of Madison and
Jefferson. And this Virginia struggle was the immediate background of
the drafting of the First Amendment.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: John Witherspoon on Church and State, by James Hastings Nichols. JOURNAL OF PRESBYTERIAN HISTORY, 42, (1964)
pp 171-73)
******************************************************
Joseph Story v. James Madison from the grave
It could be said that the majority court in Marsh as well as the
modern ultra conservatives, some moderate conservatives, religious
right, accommodationmists and non-preferentialist speak the Joseph
Story position while the dissenting opinions in Marsh as well as some
moderates and moderate conservatives, liberals and strict
separationists pf all walks speak the Madison position.
****************************************
[EXCERPT]
While all of the opinions in Marsh are deficient to some degree as
a matter of historical analysis, it is clear in a policy sense that
the differences between the majority and the dissenters is but a
revival of the old debate between the Storyites and the Madisonians.
As has been shown, the framers did not resolve this dispute; politics
and perhaps even prudence dictated that they leave its resolution to
posterity. These views form the limits within which legitimate
decision making may occur. Therefore, it should be clear that, while I
object to the use of history in the reasoning contained in all of the
opinions, I do not object, on the interpretivist grounds, to either
the resolution proffered by the majority or that preferred by the
dissenters.
The Court in Marsh adheres effectively to the Story view, a view
that permits the hiring of a Christian chaplain so long as that
chaplain does not prefer one Christian sect over another. The Court's
decison is, there fore, legitimate in terms of originalist analysis.
However, it must be conceded that Marsh makes for a strange fit with
the Courts prior decisions. For the most part, the Courts decisions
have been consistent with the Madisonian and not the Story view.
Therefore, the Court's ambivalence, in rejecting the Madisonian view
and favoring the Story view in Marsh, sends a confusing message to the
bar; it is unclear what view is or ought to be controlling in a given
case.
Nevertheless, there is a way of placing the Marsh decision in a
larger picture that will be helpful in offering a greater sense of
certainty about which view, Madisonian or Storyite, ought to apply in
a subsequent case. In Marsh, the majority doubtless was concerned
about the ramifications of rejecting a practice that had been ongoing
for nearly two hundred years at both federal and state levels.
Upending such a practice, particularly in the religious context, would
create a significant public stir and might jeopardize the Court's
authority in other related areas. Had the majority decided against the
chaplaincy practice, they might have played into the hands of those
who favor limiting the Court's jurisdiction
or amending the Constitution. These opponents of the Court's decision
in Engel and other cases no doubt would have once again raised a hue
and cry against the Court. Mindful of how close those opponents had
come previously in their efforts to meddle with the Courts
jurisdiction, 69 the majority in Marsh well may have believed that
they were protecting the prerogative of the Court, without yielding
entirely to the Story view. Such a position is borne out, in some
measure, in the Count subsequent decision in the Jaffree case, in
which the Court once again effectively opted for the Madisonian
rather than the Story view.
The Court may have been signalling that practices with definite
historical roots will be viewed favorably, even though they are
consistent with the Story view, which is otherwise largely in
disrepute in terms of the Court's contemporary case law. In other
words, while the Court normally will apply tests that are essentially
consistent with the Madisonian view when dealing with an issue that
lacks significant historical roots, it will nevertheless permit
practices with historical roots in the Story era to persist even
though they are inconsistent with the Madisonian view.
Additionally, the Court may be evidencing a trend toward deferring to
state legislative determinations in cases like Marsh.
I sympathize with the Court as a prudential matter. I believe I
understand what Chief Justice Burger is implying when he notes that
"the unbroken practice for two centuries in the national Congress and
for more than a century in Nebraska and in many other states gives
abundant assurance that there is no real threat while this Court
sits.'"70 The chief justice seems to be implying that the more than
two hundred years of history behind the chaplaincy practice not only
support its perpetuation as a matter of constitutional law, but also
indicate that the feats raised by the dissenters to the practices have
never materialized despite the long history of the practice. If in the
future, however, offensive consequences do begin to occur, the Court
might intervene under its more commonly utilized standards, which are
in large measure based on a reasoning similar to that espoused by
Madison. The cost of intervention in Marsh, on the
ground that the chaplaincy practice violated the nonpreference and
prohibition of prescribed modes-of-worship principles first
articulated by Madison, might have been high. Such costs should not be
incurred in cases where the objectionable practice has a long and
relatively tolerant history. Thus, it seems that, without repudiating
the Madisonian view, the Court in Marsh upheld the chaplaincy practice
on prudential grounds. Such a decision was acceptable from an
originalist perspective, because it was in keeping with the Story
view, and it can be melded into existing precedent, which largely
recognizes that the Madisonian view ought to prevail. 69. See Chapter
12, infra, for a discussion as to how close Senator Helms recently
came to obtaining requisite support for his legislative proposal
that would have limited the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to hear
a number of constitutional issues, including prayer issues arising in
the public schools.
70. Id. at 3338.
SOURCE: Public Prayer and the Constitution: A Case Study in
Constitutional Interpretation, Rodeny K. Smith, Scholarly Resources,
Inc. (1987) pp. 257-259
Revisiting Marsh v. Chambers
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/marshchm.htm
>Notice the same clear
> understanding expressed in the 1853-1854 House and Senate Judiciary
> Committee reports: "What is an establishment of religion? It must have
> a creed defining what a man must believe; it must have rites and
> ordinances which believers must observe; it must have ministers of
> defined qualifications to teach the doctrines and administer the
> rites; it must have tests for the submissive and penalties for the
> nonconformist. There never was an established religion without all
> these." All accusations of "separation of church and state" must be
> weighed against this critera to determine if some denomination has
> been established by the government.
> Thursday, September 07, 2006
Actually this is the critera
RULE OF LAW:
ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE:
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at
least this:
(1) neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.
(2) Neither can pass laws which aid one religion,
(2a) aid all religions,
(2b) or prefer one religion over another.
(3) Neither can force
(3a) nor influence a person to go to
(3b) or to remain away from church against his will
(3c) or force him to profess a belief
(3d) or disbelief in any religion.
(4) No person can be punished for entertaining [p*16]
(4a) or professing religious beliefs
(4b) or disbeliefs,
(4c) for church attendance
(4d) or non-attendance.
(5) No tax in any amount,
(5a) large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities
(5b) or institutions, whatever they may be called,
(5c) or whatever form they may adopt to teach
(5d) or practice religion.
(6) Neither a state
(6a) nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate
in the
(6b) affairs of any religious organizations
(6c) or groups,
(6d) and vice versa.
Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0330_0001_ZS.html
> http://nathanbradfield.blogspot.com/
>
> What is Church and State about? The Founders' purpose for the First
> Amendment is not compatible with the interpretation given it by
> contemporary courts. The Founders intended only to prevent the
> establishment of a single national denomination, not to restrain
> public religious expressions. The constitutional prohibition against
> "an establishment of religion" forbade only the federal establishment
> of a national denomination.
My answer
A DISCUSSION-politics & religion
From: buckeye -
Date: Wed, Feb 21 2001 3:08 pm
Groups: misc.education, alt.religion.christian, talk.origins,
alt.society.conservatism
"susupply" wrote:
>:|Let's look at the above logic.
>:|
>:|Major premise: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
>:|of religion
>:|
>:|Minor premise: Setting up or creating a national religion was next to
>:|impossible
>:|
>:|Conclusion: the Establishment clause meant something more than just
>:|that
>:|
>:|Lacks quite a bit for logical power, doesn't it? Putting aside that
>:|creating a national religion was merely a matter of getting the votes
>:|through coalition building (i.e. TWO favored religions)
=======================================================
FEBRUARY 6 1788
FEDERALIST PAPERS # 51
JAMES MADISON
In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same
as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the
multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of
sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number
of interests and sects; and this may be presumed to depend on the
extent of country and number of people comprehended under the same
government.
=============================================
JUNE 10, 1788
VIRGINIA RATIFYING CONVENTION
GOV. RANDOLPH. Freedom of religion is said to be in danger. I will
candidly say, I once thought that it was, and felt great repugnance to
the Constitution for that reason. I am willing to acknowledge my
apprehensions removed; and I will inform you by what process of
reasoning I did remove them. The Constitution provides that " the
senators and representatives before mentioned, and the members of the
several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers,
both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound,
by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious
test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public
trust under the United States." It has been said that, if the
exclusion of the religious test were an exception from the general
power of Congress, the power over religion would
remain. I inform those who are of this opinion, that no power is given
expressly to Congress over religion. The senators and representatives,
members of the state legislatures, and executive and judicial
officers, are bound, by oath or affirmation, to support this
Constitution. This only binds them to support it in the exercise of
the powers constitutionally given it. The exclusion of religious tests
is an exception from this general provision, with respect to oaths or
affirmations. Although officers, &c., are to swear that they will
support this Constitution, yet they are not bound to support one mode
of worship, or to adhere to one particular sect. It Puts all sects on
the same footing. A man of abilities and character, of any sect
whatever, may he admitted to any office or public trust under the
United States. I am a friend to a variety of sects, because they keep
one another in order. How many different sects are we composed of
throughout the United States! How many different sects will he
in Congress! We cannot enumerate the sects that may be in Congress!
And there are now so many in the United States, that they will prevent
the establishment of any one sect, in prejudice to the rest, and will
forever oppose all attempts to infringe religious liberty. If such an
attempt be made, will not an alarm be sounded throughout America? If
Congress should be as wicked as we are foretold they will be, they
would not run the risk of exciting the resentment of all, or most, of
the religious sects in America.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: June 10, 1788, Debates of the Virginia
Constitution Ratification Convention, Gov. Randolph speaking to the
delegates. Page 204-205, The debates in the several State Conventions
on the adoption of the federal Convention, Vol III, Jonathan Elliot,
J B Lippincott Company 1888)
_____________________________________________________________________________
JUNE 12, 1788
VIRGINIA RATIFYING CONVENTION
Mr. MADISON. The honorable member has introduced the subject of
religion. Religion is not guarded; there is no bill of rights
declaring that religion should he secure. Is a bill of rights a
security for religion? Would the bill of rights, in this state, exempt
the people from paying for the support of one particular sect, if such
sect were exclusively established by law? If there were a majority of
one sect, a bill of rights would he a poor protection for liberty.
Happily for the States, they enjoy the utmost freedom of religion.
This freedom arises from that multiplicity of sects which pervades
America, and which is the best and only security for religious liberty
in any society; for where there is such a variety of sects, there
cannot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the
rest. Fortunately for this commonwealth, a majority of the people are
decidedly against any exclusive establishment. I believe it to be so
in the other states. There is not a shadow of right in the general
government to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with
it would be a most flagrant usurpation. I can appeal to my uniform
conduct on this subject, that I have warmly supported religious
freedom. It is better that this security should be depended upon from
the general legislature, than from one particular state. A particular
state might concur in one religious
project. But the United States abound in such a variety of sects,
that it is a strong security against religious persecution; and it is
sufficient to authorize a conclusion, that no one sect will ever be
able to outnumber or depress the rest.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION June 12, 1788, James Madison speaking to the
delegates (speaking against Patrick Henry's assertions) of the
Virginia Constitutional ratifying convention, as reported on page 330,
THE DEBATES OF THE SEVERAL STATE CONVENTIONS ON THE ADOPTION OF THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION 1787, VOL III by Jonathan Elliot. J B Lippincott
Company 1888)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\
" In recent discussions of religious freedom and Church-State
separation in the United States attention has been so much centered
constitutionally on the Bill of Rights that the importance of this
Provision in the original Constitution as a bulwark of Church-State
separation has been largely overlooked. As a matter of fact it was and
is important in preventing religious tests for Federal office--a
provision later extended to all the states. It went far in thwarting
any State Church in the United States; for it would be almost
impossible to establish such a Church, since no Church has more than a
fifth of the population. Congress as constituted with men and women
from all the denominations could never unite in selecting any one
body for this privilege. This has been so evident from the time of the
founding of the government that it is one reason why the First
Amendment must be interpreted more broadly than merely as preventing
the state establishment of religion which had already been made almost
impossible."
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: CHURCH AND STATE IN THE UNITED STATES, VOLUME I, Anton Phelps Stokes, D.D., LL.D, Harper & Brothers Publishers
(1950) page 527)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some data on why a the establishment of a national church or religion
in the European style would have been next to impossible to achieve.
Breakdown of religion:
TABLE 2.3
Denominational Percentages by Region, 1776, Based on Number of
Congregations
NEW ENGLAND (N = 1,039)
Congregationalist 63.0
Baptist 15.3
Episcopal 8.4
Presbyterian 5.5
Quaker 3.8
Other(1) 3.6
MIDDLE COLONIES (N = 1,285)
Presbyterian 24.6
Quaker 14. 1
Episcopal 12.9
German Reformed 9.8
Dutch Reformed 8.9
Lutheran 8.6
Baptist 7.6
Roman Catholic 4.2
Methodist 3.8
Moravian 1.8
Congregationalist 0.3
Other(1) 3.1
SOUTHERN COLONIES (N = 845)
Baptist 28.0
Episcopal 27.8
Presbyterian 24.9
Quaker 9.0
Lutheran 3,8
German Reformed 2.8
Methodist 1.4
Moravian 0.6
Congregationist 0.1
Roman Catholic 0.1
Other (1) 1.2
SOURCE: See Table 2.2.
NOTE: Only 3,169 of lernegan's 3,228 congregations could be
located by colony.
(1) "Other" includes Separatist and Independent, Dunker,
Mennonite, Huguenot, Sandemanian, and Jewish.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE 2.5
Percentage Congregationalist by Colony, 1776
Colony % Congregationalist
Massachusetts 71.6
Connecticut 64.2
New Hampshire 63.2
Rhode Island 17.2
Georgia 4.3
New York 1.8
South Carolina 1.2
New Jersey 0.4
Pennsylvania 0.0
Delaware 0.0
Maryland 0.0
Virginia 0.0
North Carolina 0.0
SOURCE: See Table 2.2.
Source of information" THE CHURCHING OF AMERICA 1776-1990. Winners and losers in our religions economy, by Roger Finke and Rodney Stark, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey, (1994) Pages 25, 27, 29-30, 41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 6. THE CONDITION AND PUBLIC INFLUENCE OF THE CHURCHES DURING AND IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE REVOLUTION
At the close of the colonial period there were something under three
million persons in the thirteen colonies, of whom about one-sixth were
slaves. Recent studies at the University of Chicago show somewhat over
three thousand religious organizations or congregations, counting each
church or chapel separately. These were divided about equally among
New England, the Middle Atlantic States, and the South. The total
(3,005) actually enumerated--about one thousand more than were
estimated a decade ago 49--were thus
distributed:
Congregationalists, mostly in New England ................... . 658
Presbyterians, largely in the middle colonies but becoming
increasingly prominent in the South ... ... 543
Baptists, especially in Rhode island, the middle colonies, the
Carolinas, and Virginia ........... ... 498
Anglicans, mainly in the South and in the larger towns elsewhere... 480
Quakers, mostly in Pennsylvania and North Carolina ........... 298
German and Dutch Reformed, mainly in the middle colonies ..... 251
Lutherans, largely in the middle colonies .. .. .............. 151
Roman Catholics, mainly in the large Eastern towns and in
Maryland.................... 50
Miscellaneous minor groups ... ...... ................ .. 76
________
3,005
_____________________________________________________________________________
Nationally
Congregationalist 21.13% (Their power was only found in New England)
Presbyterian 18.33%
Baptist 16.96%
Episcopal 16.36%
Quaker 8.96%
All others 18.26%
CHURCH AND STATE IN THE UNITED STATES, VOL. I Anson Phelps Stokes,
D.D., LL.D Harper & Brothers, New York, (1950) page 273
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\
Madison's two vetoes of acts passed by Congress shows that the
Establishment clause had a far broader meaning than just preventing a
national religion.
Neither of those acts, had they been passed, would have established a
national religion.
Yet he stated both were in violation of the Establishment Clause.
********************************************
James Madison And National Religion
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/madnational.htm
>Earlier generations long understood this,
> and thus prevented any misapplied enforcements of those constitutional
> provisions. Notice, for example, Justice Joseph Story's clear
> articulation: "We are not to attribute this prohibition of a national
> religious establishment to an indifference to religion in general, and
> especially to Christianity (which none could hold in more reverence,
> than the framers of the Constitution).
Joseph Story's Commentaries of the Constitution
http://candst.tripod.com/joestor1.htm
Two Views: James Madison's and Joseph Story's
http://candst.tripod.com/joestor2.htm
James Madison was a strict separationist.
Excerpts from James Madison's Autobiography
http://candst.tripod.com/madauto.html
****************************************************
In Virginia, on the other hand where the Anglican
establishment bad been less generous to dissenters than the
Congregationalists of New England, it was rather the radical
separationist view which triumphed under the leadership of Madison and
Jefferson. And this Virginia struggle was the immediate background of
the drafting of the First Amendment.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: John Witherspoon on Church and State, by James Hastings Nichols. JOURNAL OF PRESBYTERIAN HISTORY, 42, (1964)
pp 171-73)
******************************************************
Joseph Story v. James Madison from the grave
It could be said that the majority court in Marsh as well as the
modern ultra conservatives, some moderate conservatives, religious
right, accommodationmists and non-preferentialist speak the Joseph
Story position while the dissenting opinions in Marsh as well as some
moderates and moderate conservatives, liberals and strict
separationists pf all walks speak the Madison position.
****************************************
[EXCERPT]
While all of the opinions in Marsh are deficient to some degree as
a matter of historical analysis, it is clear in a policy sense that
the differences between the majority and the dissenters is but a
revival of the old debate between the Storyites and the Madisonians.
As has been shown, the framers did not resolve this dispute; politics
and perhaps even prudence dictated that they leave its resolution to
posterity. These views form the limits within which legitimate
decision making may occur. Therefore, it should be clear that, while I
object to the use of history in the reasoning contained in all of the
opinions, I do not object, on the interpretivist grounds, to either
the resolution proffered by the majority or that preferred by the
dissenters.
The Court in Marsh adheres effectively to the Story view, a view
that permits the hiring of a Christian chaplain so long as that
chaplain does not prefer one Christian sect over another. The Court's
decison is, there fore, legitimate in terms of originalist analysis.
However, it must be conceded that Marsh makes for a strange fit with
the Courts prior decisions. For the most part, the Courts decisions
have been consistent with the Madisonian and not the Story view.
Therefore, the Court's ambivalence, in rejecting the Madisonian view
and favoring the Story view in Marsh, sends a confusing message to the
bar; it is unclear what view is or ought to be controlling in a given
case.
Nevertheless, there is a way of placing the Marsh decision in a
larger picture that will be helpful in offering a greater sense of
certainty about which view, Madisonian or Storyite, ought to apply in
a subsequent case. In Marsh, the majority doubtless was concerned
about the ramifications of rejecting a practice that had been ongoing
for nearly two hundred years at both federal and state levels.
Upending such a practice, particularly in the religious context, would
create a significant public stir and might jeopardize the Court's
authority in other related areas. Had the majority decided against the
chaplaincy practice, they might have played into the hands of those
who favor limiting the Court's jurisdiction
or amending the Constitution. These opponents of the Court's decision
in Engel and other cases no doubt would have once again raised a hue
and cry against the Court. Mindful of how close those opponents had
come previously in their efforts to meddle with the Courts
jurisdiction, 69 the majority in Marsh well may have believed that
they were protecting the prerogative of the Court, without yielding
entirely to the Story view. Such a position is borne out, in some
measure, in the Count subsequent decision in the Jaffree case, in
which the Court once again effectively opted for the Madisonian
rather than the Story view.
The Court may have been signalling that practices with definite
historical roots will be viewed favorably, even though they are
consistent with the Story view, which is otherwise largely in
disrepute in terms of the Court's contemporary case law. In other
words, while the Court normally will apply tests that are essentially
consistent with the Madisonian view when dealing with an issue that
lacks significant historical roots, it will nevertheless permit
practices with historical roots in the Story era to persist even
though they are inconsistent with the Madisonian view.
Additionally, the Court may be evidencing a trend toward deferring to
state legislative determinations in cases like Marsh.
I sympathize with the Court as a prudential matter. I believe I
understand what Chief Justice Burger is implying when he notes that
"the unbroken practice for two centuries in the national Congress and
for more than a century in Nebraska and in many other states gives
abundant assurance that there is no real threat while this Court
sits.'"70 The chief justice seems to be implying that the more than
two hundred years of history behind the chaplaincy practice not only
support its perpetuation as a matter of constitutional law, but also
indicate that the feats raised by the dissenters to the practices have
never materialized despite the long history of the practice. If in the
future, however, offensive consequences do begin to occur, the Court
might intervene under its more commonly utilized standards, which are
in large measure based on a reasoning similar to that espoused by
Madison. The cost of intervention in Marsh, on the
ground that the chaplaincy practice violated the nonpreference and
prohibition of prescribed modes-of-worship principles first
articulated by Madison, might have been high. Such costs should not be
incurred in cases where the objectionable practice has a long and
relatively tolerant history. Thus, it seems that, without repudiating
the Madisonian view, the Court in Marsh upheld the chaplaincy practice
on prudential grounds. Such a decision was acceptable from an
originalist perspective, because it was in keeping with the Story
view, and it can be melded into existing precedent, which largely
recognizes that the Madisonian view ought to prevail. 69. See Chapter
12, infra, for a discussion as to how close Senator Helms recently
came to obtaining requisite support for his legislative proposal
that would have limited the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to hear
a number of constitutional issues, including prayer issues arising in
the public schools.
70. Id. at 3338.
SOURCE: Public Prayer and the Constitution: A Case Study in
Constitutional Interpretation, Rodeny K. Smith, Scholarly Resources,
Inc. (1987) pp. 257-259
Revisiting Marsh v. Chambers
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/marshchm.htm
>Notice the same clear
> understanding expressed in the 1853-1854 House and Senate Judiciary
> Committee reports: "What is an establishment of religion? It must have
> a creed defining what a man must believe; it must have rites and
> ordinances which believers must observe; it must have ministers of
> defined qualifications to teach the doctrines and administer the
> rites; it must have tests for the submissive and penalties for the
> nonconformist. There never was an established religion without all
> these." All accusations of "separation of church and state" must be
> weighed against this critera to determine if some denomination has
> been established by the government.
> Thursday, September 07, 2006
Actually this is the critera
RULE OF LAW:
ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE:
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at
least this:
(1) neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.
(2) Neither can pass laws which aid one religion,
(2a) aid all religions,
(2b) or prefer one religion over another.
(3) Neither can force
(3a) nor influence a person to go to
(3b) or to remain away from church against his will
(3c) or force him to profess a belief
(3d) or disbelief in any religion.
(4) No person can be punished for entertaining [p*16]
(4a) or professing religious beliefs
(4b) or disbeliefs,
(4c) for church attendance
(4d) or non-attendance.
(5) No tax in any amount,
(5a) large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities
(5b) or institutions, whatever they may be called,
(5c) or whatever form they may adopt to teach
(5d) or practice religion.
(6) Neither a state
(6a) nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate
in the
(6b) affairs of any religious organizations
(6c) or groups,
(6d) and vice versa.
Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0330_0001_ZS.html