Former President Opposes Government Chaplains, National Days of Prayer and Fasting

James Madison, Detached Memoranda [excerpt]
ca. 1817
William and Mary Quarterly, 3d series, 3:554--60 1946

The danger of silent accumulations & encroachments by Ecclesiastical Bodies have not sufficiently engaged attention in the U. S. They have the noble merit of first unshackling the conscience from persecuting laws, and of establishing among religious Sects a legal equality. If some of the States have not embraced this just and this truly Xn principle in its proper latitude, all of them present examples by which the most enlightened States of the old world may be instructed; and there is one State at least, Virginia, where religious liberty is placed on its true foundation and is defined in its full latitude. The general principle is contained in her declaration of rights, prefixed to her Constitution: but it is unfolded and defined, in its precise extent, in the act of the Legislature, usually named the Religious Bill, which passed into a law in the year 1786. Here the separation between the authority of human laws, and the natural rights of Man excepted from the grant on which all political authority is founded, is traced as distinctly as words can admit, and the limits to this authority established with as much solemnity as the forms of legislation can express. The law has the further advantage of having been the result of a formal appeal to the sense of the Community and a deliberate sanction of a vast majority, comprizing every sect of Christians in the State. This act is a true standard of Religious liberty: its principle the great barrier agst usurpations on the rights of conscience. As long as it is respected & no longer, these will be safe. Every provision for them short of this principle, will be found to leave crevices at least thro' which bigotry may introduce persecution; a monster, that feeding & thriving on its own venom, gradually swells to a size and strength overwhelming all laws divine & human.

Ye States of America, which retain in your Constitutions or Codes, any aberration from the sacred principle of religious liberty, by giving to Caesar what belongs to God, or joining together what God has put asunder, hasten to revise & purify your systems, and make the example of your Country as pure & compleat, in what relates to the freedom of the mind and its allegiance to its maker, as in what belongs to the legitimate objects of political & civil institutions.

Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history. (See the cases in which negatives were put by J. M. on two bills passd by Congs and his signature withheld from another. See also attempt in Kentucky for example, where it was proposed to exempt Houses of Worship from taxes.

The most notable attempt was that in Virga to establish a Genl assessment for the support of all Xn sects. This was proposed in the year by P. H. and supported by all his eloquence, aided by the remaining prejudices of the Sect which before the Revolution had been established by law. The progress of the measure was arrested by urging that the respect due to the people required in so extraordinary a case an appeal to their deliberate will. The bill was accordingly printed & published with that view. At the instance of Col: George Nicholas, Col: George Mason & others, the memorial & remonstrance agst it was drawn up, (which see) and printed Copies of it circulated thro' the State, to be signed by the people at large. It met with the approbation of the Baptists, the Presbyterians, the Quakers, and the few Roman Catholics, universally; of the Methodists in part; and even of not a few of the Sect formerly established by law. When the Legislature assembled, the number of Copies & signatures prescribed displayed such an overwhelming opposition of the people, that the proposed plan of a genl assessmt was crushed under it; and advantage taken of the crisis to carry thro' the Legisl: the Bill above referred to, establishing religious liberty. In the course of the opposition to the bill in the House of Delegates, which was warm & strenuous from some of the minority, an experiment was made on the reverence entertained for the name & sactity of the Saviour, by proposing to insert the words "Jesus Christ" after the words "our lord" in the preamble, the object of which, would have been, to imply a restriction of the liberty defined in the Bill, to those professing his religion only. The amendment was discussed, and rejected by a vote of agst (See letter of J. M. to Mr Jefferson dated ) The opponents of the amendment having turned the feeling as well as judgment of the House agst it, by successfully contending that the better proof of reverence for that holy name wd be not to profane it by making it a topic of legisl. discussion, & particularly by making his religion the means of abridging the natural and equal rights of all men, in defiance of his own declaration that his Kingdom was not of this world. This view of the subject was much enforced by the circumstance that it was espoused by some members who were particularly distinguished by their reputed piety and Christian zeal.

Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom?

In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation.

The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority] shut the door of worship agst the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain? To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers. or that the major sects have a right to govern the minor.

If Religion consist in voluntary acts of individuals, singly, or voluntarily associated, and it be proper that public functionaries, as well as their Constituents shd discharge their religious duties, let them like their Constituents, do so at their own expence. How small a contribution from each member of Congs wd suffice for the purpose? How just wd it be in its principle? How noble in its exemplary sacrifice to the genius of the Constitution; and the divine right of conscience? Why should the expence of a religious worship be allowed for the Legislature, be paid by the public, more than that for the Ex. or Judiciary branch of the Govt

Were the establishment to be tried by its fruits, are not the daily devotions conducted by these legal Ecclesiastics, already degenerating into a scanty attendance, and a tiresome formality?

Rather than let this step beyond the landmarks of power have the effect of a legitimate precedent, it will be better to apply to it the legal aphorism de minimis non curat lex: or to class it cum "maculis quas aut incuria fudit, aut humana parum cavit natura."

Better also to disarm in the same way, the precedent of Chaplainships for the army and navy, than erect them into a political authority in matters of religion. The object of this establishment is seducing; the motive to it is laudable. But is it not safer to adhere to a right pinciple, and trust to its consequences, than confide in the reasoning however specious in favor of a wrong one. Look thro' the armies & navies of the world, and say whether in the appointment of their ministers of religion, the spiritual interest of the flocks or the temporal interest of the Shepherds, be most in view: whether here, as elsewhere the political care of religion is not a nominal more than a real aid. If the spirit of armies be devout, the spirit out of the armies will never be less so; and a failure of religious instruction & exhortation from a voluntary source within or without, will rarely happen: and if such be not the spirit of armies, the official services of their Teachers are not likely to produce it. It is more likely to flow from the labours of a spontaneous zeal. The armies of the Puritans had their appointed Chaplains; but without these there would have been no lack of public devotion in that devout age.

The case of navies with insulated crews may be less within the scope of these reflections. But it is not entirely so. The chance of a devout officer, might be of as much worth to religion, as the service of an ordinary chaplain. [were it admitted that religion has a real interest in the latter.] But we are always to keep in mind that it is safer to trust the consequences of a right principle, than reasonings in support of a bad one.[Volume 5, Page 105]

Religious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings & fasts are shoots from the same root with the legislative acts reviewed.

Altho' recommendations only, they imply a religious agency, making no part of the trust delegated to political rulers.

1. that Govts ought not to interpose in relation to those subject to their authority but in cases where they can do it with effect. An advisory Govt is a contradiction in terms.

2. The members of a Govt as such can in no sense, be regarded as possessing an advisory trust from their Constituents in their religious capacities. They cannot form an ecclesiastical Assembly, Convocation, Council, or Synod, and as such issue decrees or injunctions addressed to the faith or the Consciences of the people. In their individual capacities, as distinct from their official station, they might unite in recommendations of any sort whatever, in the same manner as any other individuals might do. But then their recommendations ought to express the true character from which they emanate.

3. They seem to imply and certainly nourish the erronious idea of a national religion. The idea just as it related to the Jewish nation under a theocracy, having been improperly adopted by so many nations which have embraced Xnity, is too apt to lurk in the bosoms even of Americans, who in general are aware of the distinction between religious & political societies. The idea also of a union of all to form one nation under one Govt in acts of devotion to the God of all is an imposing idea.

The same James Madison who said...

"We have staked the entire future of American

civilization NOT upon the power of government, but

upon the capacity of the individual to govern himself,

control himself, and sustain himself according to the

Ten Commandments of God." ???

Separation of church and state never meant removing God from the state, quite the contrary, it is a state imposed respect of God's Name by forbiding anyone to bring a blaspheming cause in His Name ... I remember a pastor telling me how he would be irked when he would see someone with the Jesus plate go on a highway speeding. I think it has the same meaning here. Now the 10 commendments are a different things because commendmants are purely secular actions that do not have necessarily anything to do with God's will, even though clearly stated in the Bible. But if the Bible is a vague document as liberals insist, then there is no issue of God in the 10 commandments.

"Now the 10 commendments are a different things because commendmants are purely secular actions that do not have necessarily anything to do with God's will, even though clearly stated in the Bible. But if the Bible is a vague document as liberals insist, then there is no issue of God in the 10 commandments."

I'm working on an essay on the "Ten Commandments," if I can ever collate everything. It's much murkier than people have been led to believe. I'll post it soon, perhaps.

The argument for a military chaplaincy is this: we give our soldiers beans and bullets because we want them to go fight and we want them to live not die. However we recognize that many will die.

If the constitution provides that we will "make no law prohibiting the free exercise" of a citizen-soldier's religion, then we must permit that religion to be fully practiced AND THIS ESPECIALLY SO if we're putting the life of the soldier in jeopardy. At such a time, a person would DEMAND access to his full religion. A full expression of religion requires the presence of ministers of that religious faith.

Since commanders historically control access to their soldiers, preventing most media, spectators, life insurance salesmen, etc. from seeing them prior to battle....for obvious reasons....then commanders must decide if they want non-affiliated religious leaders to have access to their troops or if they want affiliated religious leaders to have access to their troops.

Commanders have chosen that religious leaders ministering to their troops at time of battle have some relationship to the command structure. First, commanders recognize that when death is imminent, relgious leaders become extremely powerful in the lives of human beings. Second, commanders realize that full expression of religious faith is a Constitutional right. Third, commanders recognize that death-frightened men will FIND religious leaders whether the command provides them or not.

For legal and practical reasons that relate to the men AND to the control of the "religous leader/chaplain" a wise commander will want that religious leader on his staff and subject to his direction.

The Army is not government. It is a group of people you are asking to die.

They are GUARANTEED by their constitution that NO ONE can prevent them from FULLY PRACTICING their religion.

If you want volunteer ministers on the battlefield, that's your prerogative. But if I were a military commander, that's the last thing that I'd want.

Religious mumbo jumbo has no place in government.

Halleleujah! I thought I was alone here...listen y'all, I'm as conservative as the next guy, but this is absolutely true. This is the land of the Free, regardless of what God (if any) you worship. The government should play no role in sponsoring any particular religion (or any religion at all), because the day it does is the day we lose something fundamental to the core of our great country, one of the things that seperates us from most others (especially those Taliban).

Then why not have wiccans, shamans, and priests/clergy from other religions (other than the Abrahamic ones) to assist soldiers of those faiths

There are chaplains from EVERY group that has applied to have a chaplain. That inclues Buddhism which is a non-Abrahamic religion.

To my knowledge, and I'm very experienced in this area, NOT EVEN one of those groups you've mentioned have petitioned for a member of their clergy to become a chaplain. (According to the military, they must also be physically, medically, etc., fit for military service. So there are some restrictions, but they apply to all.)

"An army is not government....."the army is not part of the government..."

You did not adequately quote me.

An Army is NOT government. It is a body of fighters. A commander must deal with the realities of the battlefield and ALL the factors (psychological, social, religious, etc.) that affect the ability of his men to give their lives, not with the philosophical meanderings of folks who wish it to be a test ground for their personal, religious, social, theories.

Is human secularism a religion in your opinion? We need no state sanctioned religion for sure but religion does not exist in a vacuum. We've seen this in American culture. Remove Christian religion and it's replaced with secular humanism, new age mumbo jumbo, or you fill in the blank. Non believers want to substitute their beliefs, or non-beliefs as it were, for any other religious system. Just my 2 cents.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.