I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.
-Thomas Jefferson, as President, in a letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, 1802; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 369)
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.)
-James Madison, "Monopolies. Perpetuities. Corporations. Ecclesiastical Endowments"
Chaplainships of both Congress and the armed services were established sixteen years before the First Amendment was adopted. It would have been fatuous folly for anybody to stir a major controversy over a minor matter before the meaning of the amendment had been threshed out in weightier matters. But Madison did foresee the danger that minor deviations from the constitutional path would deepen into dangerous precedents. He took care of one of them by his veto [in 1811] of the appropriation for a Baptist church. Others he dealt with in his "Essay on Monopolies," unpublished until 1946. Here is what he wrote: "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 this not involve the principle of a national establishment ... ?" The appointments, he said, were also a palpable violation of equal rights. 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 veil 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." The problem, said the author of the First Amendment, was how to prevent "this step beyond the landmarks of power [from having] the effect of a legitimate precedent." Rather than let that happen, it would "be better to apply to it the legal aphorism de minimis non curat lex [the law takes no account of trifles]." Or, he said (likewise in Latin), class it with faults that result from carelessness or that human nature could scarcely avoid." "Better also," he went on, "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 deviations from constitutional principles went further: "Religious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and 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."
(Irving Brant, The Bill of Rights: Its Origin and Meaning, Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1965, pp. 423-424. Brant gives the source of "Essay on Monopolies" as Elizabeth Fleet, "Madison's Detatched Memoranda," William & Mary Quarterly, Third series: Vol. III, No. 4 [October, 1946], pp. 554-562.)
-----
Please make check payable to Storm Orphan, c/o Republic of Texas...
No!!!
He was living in Paris...
Now if Madison thought God Bless America would be unconstitutional, then why on earth did he attend Christian services held at the Capitol building...
I would think that someone who was so concerned about seperating Church and State wouldn't get anywhere near Christian services held on public property like the Capitol...
Good job !
Still if you are trying to argue that that is what the First Amendment means. Then what you need to do is prove that what Jefferson meant by separation of Church and State back then is the same thing that the ACLU says it means today.
Sorry. You quoted a letter from Jefferson. You did not quote the Constitution.
Your Madison quotes indicate that he believed chaplaincies violate the establishment clause. Yet, it's clear that the BODY disagreed with Madison and permitted chaplaincies.
The logic of those who oppose the "God Bless America" clause is that any statement about god will necessarily be from the perspective of the one who creates the statement and will exclude those whose concept of god, gods, or "no god" is different.
Without defining what "establishment of religion" COMBINED WITH "prohibiting free exercise" means...and that from the CONSENSUS perspective of ALL who proposed or supported the amendment (not just Madison)...there can be NO resolution of this discussion.
In our day, some interpret the 1st Amendment very strictly to mean "imposition of a state church." Others, apparently, like Madison, interpret it to mean "any and all expressions of religion in any way."
Does it matter what was meant by the original BODY that accepted the amendment?
If not, then we are dependent on the words themselves. The words themselves more readily support the strict, literal interpretation -- "no imposition of a state church."
In that case, and that IS the default interpretation absent a clear understanding of what the BODY intended, the author of this piece does not owe you any money. Appealing just to Madison does not give the intent of the BODY.