Replies

During the debates that framed the First Amendment, forms of the word "establish" were used by the Representatives to refer to concepts other than a national church like the Church of England.

Rep. Huntington used the word "establishment" to refer to an establishment of religion in Massachusetts and New Hampshire that did not even mention a particular doctrine or form of worship. He was referring to the establishment by law of the duty to support the "Protestant" religion. Protestant was not defined in the statute and any church that claimed to be Protestant could be voted by the locals to receive the support.

MR. HUNTINGTON said that he feared, with the gentleman first up on this subject, that the words might be taken in such latitude as to be extremely hurtful to the cause of religion. He understood the amendment to mean what had been expressed by the gentleman from Virginia; but others might find it convenient to put another construction on it. The ministers of their congregations to the eastward were maintained by contributions of those who belong to their society; the expense of building meeting houses was contributed in the same manner. These things were regulated by bylaws. If an action was brought before a federal court on any of these cases, the person who had neglected to perform his engagements could not be compelled to do it; for a support of ministers or buildings of places of worship might be construed into a religious establishment.

We know your feelings towards the establishment clause, but how about the freedom of religous expression clause? Isn't it the work of Satan that Churches apply for 501(c)3 tax exempt status? Where in the Constitution does the IRS get the power to say what a Church can say? Madison and Jefferson would be more irate over given the IRS authority over the status of a church than anthing else going on. You have make an extreme interpretation of the establishment clause but seem oblivious to the freedom of expression clause.

The established church in Massachusetts was based on" Independent" principles, which was not the same as the "separatist" principles(of the Pilgrims) or of those of the Church of England. The colony was until the 169o's ruled by a religious oligarchy who, however, unlike the bishops of the Church, did not constitute a sacerdotal order, but were essentially laymen. After the royal charter was imposed on them, they lost their political function. As far as the "definition" of Protestant, that was well understood: it meant non-papist.