December 14, 2005
Did you know December 15 was a national holiday? I sure didn't. Turns out December 15 is "Bill of Rights Day." We can thank President Roosevelt for that; he started it in 1941, the 150th anniversary of the ratification of the amendments that would come to be known as the [Bill of Rights][1]. In the holiday spirit, here's a bit of archeology of the religion clauses in the first of those initial amendments, that Bill of Rights, from the [Annals of Congress][2], House of Representatives, 1st Congress, 1st Session, covering Saturday, August 15, 1789, as the House debated the language of the amendments to send to the states for ratification:_ The House again went into a Committee of the Whole on the proposed amendments to the Constitution. Mr. Boudinot in the chair.__The fourth proposition being under consideration, as follows: Article 1. Section 9. Between paragraphs two and three insert 'no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed.' Mr. SYLVESTER had some doubts of the propriety of the mode of expression used in this paragraph. He apprehended that it was liable to a construction different from what had been made by the committee. he feared it might be thought to abolish religion altogether.MR. VINING suggested the propriety to transposing the two members of the sentence.MR. GERRY said it would read better if it was no religious doctrine shall be established by law. MR. SHERMAN thought the amendment altogether unnecessary, inasmuch as Congress had 'no authority whatever delegated to them by the Constitution to make religious establishments; he would, therefore, move to have it struck out.'MR. CARROLL As the rights of conscience are, in their nature, a peculiar delicacy, and will little bear the gentlest touch of governmental hand; and as many sects have concurred in opinion that they are not well secured under the present constitution, he said he was much in favor of adopting the words. He thought it would tend more towards conciliating the minds of the people to the government than almost any other opinion he heard proposed. He would not contend with gentlemen about the phraseology, his object was to secure the substance in such a manner as to satisfy the wishes of the honest part of the community.MR. MADISON said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforced the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience. Whether the words are necessary or not, he did not mean to say, but they had been required by some of the state conventions, who seemed to entertain an opinion, that under the clause of the Constitution, which gave power to Congress to make all laws necessary and proper to carry into execution the constitution, and the laws made under it, enabled them to make laws of such a nature as might infringe the rights of conscience, and establish a national religion; to prevent these effects he presumed the amendment was intended, and he thought it as well expressed as the nature of the language would admit.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.By the charter of Rhode Island, no religion could be established by law; he could give a history of the effects of such a regulation; indeed the people were now enjoying the blessed fruits of it. He hoped, therefore, the amendment would be made in such a way as to secure the rights of conscience, and the free exercise of religion, but not to patronize those who professed no religion at all.MR. MADISON thought, if the word 'National' was inserted before religion, it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen. He believed that the people feared one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion, to which they would compel others to conform. He thought if the word 'National' was introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent.MR. LIVERMORE was not satisfied with the amendment; but he did not wish them to dwell long on the subject. He thought it would be better if it were altered, and made to read in this manner, that Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience.MR. GERRY did not like the term National, proposed by the gentleman from Virginia, and he hoped it would not be adopted by the House. It brought to his mind some observations that had taken place in the Conventions at the time they were considering the present constitution. It had been insisted upon by those who were called anti-federalists, that this form of government consolidated the union; the honorable gentleman's motion shows that he considers it in the same light. Those who were called anti-federalists at that time, complained that they were in favor of a federal government, and the others were in favor of a National one; the federalists were for ratifying the constitution as it stood, and the others did not until amendments were made. Their names then ought not to have been distinguished by federalists and anti-federalists, but rats and anti-rats.MR. MADISON withdrew his motion but observed that the words 'no National religion shall be established by law', did not imply that the government was a national one; the question was then taken on MR. LIVERMORE's motion, and passed in the affirmative 31 for it, and 20 against it. (Annals of Congress 1:729-731)_Ah, those were the days.See the pages from [Gales & Seaton's History]3. ([Transcription][4].) [1]: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/bill_of_rights.html [2]: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwac.html [3]: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=380 [4]: http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/basic4a.htm
Comments
lawrence.com does not necessarily agree with comments posted below - responsibility lies with the relevant user alone. Read our full policy.
counterlife (anonymous) says...
Mr. Gerry was right. Of course, what we ended up with was the usual compromise: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" (Gerry would be pleased) or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (the compromise for Mr. Huntington and others), the latter being the "subject to interpretation" wild card that, to this day and for the future term, gets the whole thing interestingly and perplexingly conflicted. Perhaps someone needs to write a book entitled "Misquoting the Founding Fathers" along the lines of Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus", lately of NPR and other book press fame. Of course, it has probably been done, just not in a popular context. And unfortunately, who but a few would care enough to consider it. After all, Survivor, Fear Factor or some pretty, white, blonde, kidnap-murder victim, preferably pregnant, are up next. Or, better yet, some controversy about the real Jesus. Doesn't stand a chance. Too bad. Thanks for the insights.
December 14, 2005 at 10:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
manofleisure (anonymous) says...
DR
Nice work, as usual.
ML
December 15, 2005 at 8:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )