Madison clearly expressed his position relating to civil rights and of opposition to use of tax (coerced) money for "teachers of the Christian religion" in his 1785 "Memorial and Remonstrance," which he distributed just prior to passage of the 1786 Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty, in which it is written: "to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which is disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; ... our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; ... no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever."
The "Father of the Constitution" was also cochair of the joint Senate-House conference committee which in 1789 drafted the final version of the First Amendment's religion commandments. He is a primary source authority as to their meaning and application. The suggestion that Madison, related facts of history, and unanimous Court decisions (Reynolds and Davis) are irrelevant to an understanding of the wording of the First Amendment's religion commandments is particularly espoused by constitutional revisionists to whom such documentation is objectionable because it conflicts with their idea of religion accommodation. In America there have always been advocates of a connection between religion and government, but their position did not win in Virginia or, ultimately, in any of the colonies or original states, all of which significantly disestablished official religion by 1833.
In his two 1811 veto messages of religion bills passed by Congress, President Madison's position remained the same.
Feb. 21 veto: "Because the bill exceeds the rightful authority to which governments are limited by the essential distinction between civil and religious functions, and violates in particular the article of the Constitution of the United States which declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting' .... Because the bill vests in the said incorporated church [Episcopal] an authority to provide for the support of the poor and the education of poor children of the same, an authority which, ... would be a precedent for giving to religious societies as such a legal agency in carrying into effect a public and civil duty."
Feb. 28 veto: "Because the bill in reserving a certain parcel of land of the United States for the use of said Baptist Church comprises a principle and precedent for the appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that "Congress shall make no law respecting."
In his c.1817 "Detached Memoranda" Madison wrote "Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachments by Ecclesiastical Bodies may be illustrated by precedents already established in their short history," and he noted one after another example of a "palpable violation of ... constitutional principles." James Madison's "Detached Memoranda," became a part of legal record when cited in Everson v. Board of Education, footnotes 12 and 13.
Just because a state, Congress, the Supreme Court, or some other government entity fails to accept and abide by the constitutional principle of "no religious test" and "no law respecting an establishment of religion" does not destroy the Constitution's religion commandments. Actions in violation of the Constitution should be stopped, and Court decisions in conflict with "the supreme law of the land" should be reversed. As one other participant to this list has already suggested, those who object to the wording of Article 6, Section 3., and the First Amendment should push for amendment.
Indeed, I recall the day when a contracts professor made it clear "the Constitution means what the Court says it means." That may be sufficient for constitutional revisionists, but it is not the end of the legal argument for those of us who, in a nation composed from its beginning of citizens of many religions and of none, are "original intent," "strict constructionist" separationists and accept the simple wisdom of the Constitution's religion commandments, as written, lest Art. 6., Sec. 3., the Establishment Clause, and government (the essence of coercion) neutrality become a mockery.
Gene Garman, M.Div.
America's Real Religion
www.americasrealreligion.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 8/3/2005 11:47:28 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Given the regulatory state in which we live—one that requires that parents who send their children to religious private school must pay for both the school tuition as well as taxes to fund public schools--it seems to me that the principle from which Madison drew his conclusion is not so easily dispositive in resolving this dispute.On the assumption that Madison's view, stated by Paul in his earlier post, accurately represents the original meaning of the EC, then shouldn't those who contend it unfairly discriminates against religion regarding governmental benefits advocate amending the First Amendment to explicitly state the EC doesn't apply to these entitlements?BobbyRobert Justin Lipkin
Professor of Law
Widener University School of Law
Delaware
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
