The 4th Campaign

James Madison

I set out, at the beginning of the philosophy thread, to investigate the proper relationship between government and religion.

The phrase “wall of separation between church and state” embodies our current national understanding of this relationship.  It was natural, then, to begin by tracking this phrase through history.  I started with The First Time It was Ever Said by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists, and then presented a brief history of its appearance in court cases up to Engel V. Vitale, the 1962 Supreme Court case on school prayer which established our modern perception.

It has ever been my intent to extend this conversation to include James Madison.  As Jefferson’s ideological partner, Presidential successor, and as the author of the First Amendment, the discussion can not be complete without him.

I did not know it when I set out, but Madison happens to be quoted at the end of the Engel V. Vitale decision.  This provides the perfect segue to turn in his direction.

The quote from the decision is this:

“[I]t is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. . . . Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?”

The quote comes from Madison’s Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, distributed throughout Virgina in 1785.

The previous year, Patrick Henry had introduced an Assessment Bill in the Virginia Legislature that was intended to provide taxpayer support for Christianity in general, establishing an assessment of three pence for the support of religious teachers.  Each taxpayer could designate the specific sect of Christianity that their assessment would go to.

Madison (rightly) opposed the bill, but was hard pressed to stop its enactment.  He managed to delay it to the following year, and during the delay, circulated his Remonstrance throughout the countryside for signatures.  The popular response was so great that the bill was killed.  In the wake, Madison succeeded in getting Jefferson’s Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom enacted, which I previously commented on in the post “Where as Almighty God Hath Created the Mind Free”.

For the moment, I would invite you to read the Remonstrance, and to consider the Supreme Court’s reference to it in the full context, a context that includes an attempt to establish a religion named Christianity as the official religion of the state of Virginia.

That context, I think, is very different than the one Justice Black was confronted with.

Once again, here is the text of the unconstitutional school prayer for reference:

“Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.”

The words in bold below are taken directly from the majority opinion in Engel V. Vitale.

The words that follow are simply the questions I would like to ask concerning the given quote.

“There can be no doubt that New York’s state prayer program officially establishes the religious beliefs embodied in the Regents’ prayer.”

What distinctive religious beliefs are embodied in this prayer?  Or does this prayer simply address the existence of religion in general, without possessing any distinctions that could be seen to promote beliefs belonging to a specific religion?

“The Establishment Clause, unlike the Free Exercise Clause, does not depend upon any showing of direct governmental compulsion and is violated by the enactment of laws which establish an official religion whether those laws operate directly to coerce non-observing individuals or not.”

What is the name of the official religion established by this prayer?

“When the power, prestige and financial support of government is placed behind a particular religious belief, the indirect coercive pressure upon religious minorities to conform to the prevailing officially approved religion is plain.”

What particular religious belief is the government using its power, prestige, and financial resources to promote through the recital of this prayer?  What religious minority is forced to conform to that belief through the saying of this prayer?

“That same history showed that many people had lost their respect for any religion that had relied upon the support of government to spread its faith.”

What is the name of the religion that relied on the school board to publish this prayer in order to support the spread of its version of the true faith?

“Another purpose of the Establishment Clause rested upon an awareness of the historical fact that governmentally established religions and religious persecutions go hand in hand.”

Religious persecution generally speaks to efforts by one version of faith to suppress another, does it not?  What version of faith is the aggressor via this prayer, and what version is the victim?

“The Founders knew that, only a few years after the Book of Common Prayer became the only accepted form of religious services in the established Church of England, an Act of Uniformity was passed to compel all Englishmen to attend those services and to make it a criminal offense to conduct or attend religious gatherings of any other kind..”

Do the justices honestly believe that some level of government within the state of New York was on the verge of passing its own version of the Act of Uniformity?  If so, what is the name of the religion that was to benefit from that legislation?

“It has been argued that to apply the Constitution in such a way as to prohibit state laws respecting an establishment of religious services in public schools is to indicate a hostility toward religion or toward prayer. Nothing, of course, could be more wrong.”

Really?  I guess in this instance I have the benefit of hindsight, but it sure seems to me that the current climate is eminently hostile to religion.

“They knew, rather, that it was written to quiet well justified fears which nearly all of them felt arising out of an awareness that governments of the past had shackled men’s tongues to make them speak only the religious thoughts that government wanted them to speak and to pray only to the God that government wanted them to pray to.”

Does this prayer define specific religious thoughts, while at the same time excluding others?  Does it establish one version of God, in lieu of another?

“…in the words of James Madison, the author of the First Amendment:  “[I]t is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties.”

Does this prayer, in fact, make an imposition on religious liberty?  Is there anything about this prayer that actually limits the way in which any person within its hearing might choose to practice religion according to their personal preferences?

Independence Hall, circa 1770's

The majority opinion in Engel V. Vitale contains the following language in the section discussing the history of the establishment clause:

“…the successful Revolution against English political domination was shortly followed by intense opposition to the practice of establishing religion by law. This opposition crystallized rapidly into an effective political force in Virginia, where the minority religious groups such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Quakers and Baptists had gained such strength that the adherents to the established Episcopal Church were actually a minority themselves. In 1785-1786, those opposed to the established Church, led by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, who, though themselves not members of any of these dissenting religious groups, opposed all religious establishments by law on grounds of principle, obtained the enactment of the famous “Virginia Bill for Religious Liberty” by which all religious groups were placed on an equal footing so far as the State was concerned.”

I have already referenced the Virginia Bill, in a post entitled “Where as Almighty God Hath Created the Mind Free.”

But just for ready reference, here is the language of the prayer,

“Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.”

and the language of the introduction to the Virginia Bill,

“Where as Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as it was in his Almighty power to do;”

side by side.

Is the argument then, that any reference to God by a public entity, no matter how general or innocuous, amounts to an “attempt to influence by temporal punishments or burdens” anyone and everyone within hearing of that reference?

If that is the argument, how can anyone ever learn of the gift of freedom that is the basis of American society, since to speak of freedom in the same terms as the founders necessarily requires reference to God?

The statute is, of course, a governmental act.  But evidently, since it was used in the argument to establish the unconstitutionality of the prayer, it must not in and of itself have been unconstitutional, despite its reliance on God (and therefore established religion in general) for the basis of its argument.

What would have happened if the school board would have instructed its principals to have the following recited every morning in each classroom:

Where as Almighty God hath created the mind Free, we acknowledge our dependence on Him for our political Freedom, and we beg His blessings upon us, our teachers, our parents, and our country, that He might assist this nation and its people in their quest to remain Free forevermore.

Is this text significantly different than that which was ruled unconstitutional?

Is it still a prayer, and therefore an act of religious establishment?

Would it be ruled unconstitutional as well?

Let me ask that again.

Could a statement that essentially declares that Americans are dependent on God for their Freedom be ruled unconstitutional?

I must confess that without having undertaken this blogging endeavor, I never would have come across these words.

Blest with victory and peace may the heaven rescued land
Praise the power that hath made and preserved us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto – “In God is our trust,”

Here’s a hint.

If you are concerned that the words “Under God” might be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, these words should concern you as well, because they wouldn’t be far behind.

Still can’t guess?

Follow this link!

In God We Trust

My last post concerned the court case Engel V. Vitale, which removed prayer from our public schools.

I can’t help but beg that you click the link, and take the time to completely read the Supreme Court opinion, including the concurring opinion, and the dissent.

The readings are not long, nor are they full of legalese.  Even if you take your time, you can read everything in fifteen to twenty minutes.

Once again, this is the prayer that was found to be unconstitutional:

“Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.”

The concurring opinion, and the dissent, are full of so many instances of reference to God in public life that I can’t begin to effectively summarize them in the short space a blog post should occupy.

It is quite literally astonishing to me, in light of that evidence, that the Court reached the opinion it did.

Particularly fascinating for me is Footnote 3.3 near the bottom, which contains quotes from Presidential inaugural addresses.

Washington said this at the first inauguration:

“….it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes….”

And Kennedy, who was inaugurated less than two years before this decision, said this:

“….And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe — the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God….”

When you read these two quotes, do you believe these men, during their first official acts in office, were attempting to establish a state religion?

If not, then how does the school prayer do so?

It is tempting, as the Senate closes in on a final vote for Health Care Reform, to only be concerned with the subjects of Civil Disobedience and Counter Revolution.

But I must continue to pursue ideas concerning state and religion as I have been raising them in the Philosophy thread.

The last entry on that subject was One Amendment, Two Sides, which suggested that government must always keep a careful balance between the Non-Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment.

The next major Supreme Court case I would like to visit is Engel V. Vitale, which originated in New York state and was decided by the Court in 1962.  This case effectively led to the elimination of any type of formal prayer in our public school systems.

A local school system in New Hyde Park, NY instituted a regulation that said the following prayer should be offered in the classroom at the start of each school day.  They did so at the recommendation of the State Board of Regents, who had published the prayer as part of their “Statement on Moral and Spiritual Training in the Schools.”

“Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.”

No child or teacher was required to say the prayer.  No one was disciplined for failing to participate.  Anyone who wished to leave the room during the recital was free to do so.  The prayer was constructed, as much as it could be, to be non-denominational.

Court action was brought by ten parents with children attending the local school who insisted that the prayer violated the non-establishment clause of the First Amendment.

The New York State Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the school system, finding the prayer to be constitutional.  The families appealed to the US Supreme Court, who overturned the Appelate Court ruling.

That ruling has since served as the foundation for the elimination of all types of formal prayer at public school events.  Even such things as prayer led by students have since been ruled unconstitutional.

I will in future posts discuss several parts of the Supreme Court opinion.

But for the moment, I would simply invite you to ponder the prayer and the context for a day or two.  When you open your mind as far as you are able, do you sympathize with the notion that someone would find the recital of this prayer in a public setting offensive?

Perhaps you might consider these further questions as well:

Should a public school system offer its students “moral and spiritual training,” as the New York State Board of Regents was attempting to do?

If it should, can it realistically do so if it is not allowed to mention God in even the most benign way?

If one denies God as the source of morality, where does one go next for what or who is that source?

If that answer is man, does history teach us that man is generally competent, or incompetent, at the task of establishing morality?