—You may not like the religious tradition of America, but nevertheless, it exists.—
Religion flourishes in greater purity without than with the aid of government.
– James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822
You know what: screw ya and your nasty implication. I didn’t say I didn’t like the religious tradition of America. I like and respect the religious tradition of America, and the country wouldn’t be the same without it. It’s morons like Scalia that can’t tell the difference between respecting religion and usurping it’s natural right, that think that American religion can only be valuable if it’s given the precious kiss-off and blessings by the all-important government.
How can one claim to respect America’s religious tradition when they mislead other people about it (i.e. Rehnquist’s dissent in Wallace v. Jaffree which sin via ommision and outrageous distortion in its claims about Madison’s understanding of separation)? And how can one claim to respect religion if you think it requires the government for support and endorsement?
You want to talk Adams? Adams wasn’t actually a religious man himself: his statement is an expression of a rather detestable Deistic elitism: namely that to control the baser vices, the ignorant rabble need religion while intelligent men like himself could do without. Is that the sort of “respect” you were thinking of? Did you know that about Adams, or did you just go quote farming for something that sounded promising?
Many of the founding fathers were, in my opinion, unexcusable bigots when it came to their private estimations of some people’s religions (the most laudable exception being Washington, who as far as I know never spoke ill of any religion, and scrupulously avoided speaking of his own, if he even had one more than Deism). Thankfully, they could rise above this on occasion, especialy when defending the principles of religious liberty that are apparently beneath jurists like Scalia.
So, eat it:
“The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.”
– John Adams, “A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” (1787-88
“The difficulty of reconciling the Xn [Christian] mind to the absence of a religious tuition from a University established by law and at the common expense, is probably less with us than with you. The settled opinion here is that religion is essentially distinct from Civil Govt. and exempt from its cognizance; that a connection between them is injurous to both; that there are causes in the human breast, which insure the perpetuity of religion without the aid of law; that rival sects, with equal rights, exercise mutual censorships in favor of good morals; that if new sects arise with absurd opinions or overheated imaginations, the proper remedies lie in time, forbearance and example; that a legal establishment of religion without a toleration could not be thought of, and without a toleration, is no security for public quiet & harmony, but rather a source itself of discord & animosity; and finally that these opinions are support by experience, which has shewn that every relaxation of the alliance between Law & religion, from the partial example of Holland, to its consummation in Pennsylvania Delaware N.J., &c, has been found as safe in practice as it is sound in theory. Prior to the Revolution, the Episcopal Church was established by law in this State. On the Declaration of independence it was left with all other sects, to a self-support. And no doubt exists that there is much more of religion among us now than there ever was before the change; and particularly in the Sect which enjoyed the legal patronage. This proves rather more than, that the law is not necessary to the support of religion.”
– James Madison, letter to Edward Everett, March 19, 1823
I observe with particular pleasure the view you have taken of the immunity of religion from civil jurisdiction, in every case where it does not trespass on private rights or the public peace. This has always been a favorite principal with me; and it was not with my approbation that the deviation from it took place in congress, when they appointed chaplains, to be paid from the national treasury. It would have been a much better proof to their constituents of their pious feeling if the members had contributed for the purpose a pittance from their own pockets. As the precedent is not likely to be rescinded, the best that can now be done maybe to apply to the constitution the maxim of the law, de minimis non curant.
– James Madison, outvoted in a move to establish the office of Congressional Chaplain, Madison’s Writings, Vol. 3, p. 274
Besides the danger of a direct mixture of religion and civil government, there is an evil which ought to be guarded against in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by ecclesiastical corporations.
The establishment of the chaplainship in Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights as well as of Constitutional principles.
The danger of silent accumulations and encroachments by ecclesiastical bodies has not sufficiently engaged attention in the U.S.
– James Madison, from the “Detached Memoranda,” Elizabeth Fleet, “Madison’s Detached Memoranda.” William and Mary Quarterly (1946): 554-62
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…?
– James Madison, “Essay on Monopolies”
