The nation coming under the rule of the Constitution was one that had been founded for a diversity of reasons. Central among these was the desire to live in a setting with one’s co-religionists. The motive was to protect one’s own religious practices, not necessarily those of the neighbors. The Puritan colonists in Massachusetts, for example, were fleeing persecution by the established Church of England, but they were most certainly not seeking to allow true freedom of conscience. They were establishing, as John Winthrop would put it, a shining city on a hill, an example to humanity. (This may be the root of the widespread sense of American exceptionalism, the idea that God has chosen the American people for a historic spiritual mission.) The intolerance of the Puritans drove Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson to found settlements in what would later be known as Rhode Island. Other colonies mirrored the religious issues of Europe. Maryland was established as a Catholic refuge; Pennsylvania to guarantee the tolerance of Quakers (who in turn extended this tolerance to others). For many decades, Virginia required adherence to the Church of England.
No one can doubt that the attitudes of the American colonists were deeply affected by religious conviction. Further, the colonists expressed their faith in both public and private ways. They saw their faith as an integral part of their own lives and the life of the larger society around them. (This is the crux of the conservative argument that the concept of separation of church and state is contrary to the reality of America’s early centuries). But there were those among the American founders who, while often professing profound religious faith themselves, understood the awful power of government to tilt the balance toward one faction or the other. In 1787, James Madison, in discussing the need for a new Constitution based on republican principles, wrote the following:
…A still more fatal if not more frequent cause [of injustice] lies among the people themselves. All civilized societies are divided into different interests and factions, as they happen to be creditors or debtors — Rich or poor — husbandmen, merchants or manufacturers — members of different religious sects — followers of different political leaders — inhabitants of different districts — owners of different kinds of property &c &c. In republican Government the majority however composed, ultimately give the law. Whenever therefore an apparent interest or common passion unites a majority what is to restrain them from unjust violations of the rights and interests of the minority, or of individuals?.... When indeed Religion is kindled into enthusiasm, its force like that of other passions, is increased by the sympathy of a multitude. But enthusiasm is only a temporary state of religion, and while it lasts will hardly be seen with pleasure at the helm of Government. Besides as religion in its coolest state, is not infallible, it may become a motive to oppression as well as a restraint from injustice. Place three individuals in a situation wherein the interest of each depends on the voice of the others, and give to two of them an interest opposed to the rights of the third? Will the latter be secure? The prudence of every man would shun the danger. The rules & forms of justice suppose & guard against it. Will two thousand in a like situation be less likely to encroach on the rights of one thousand? The contrary is witnessed by the notorious factions & oppressions which take place in corporate towns limited as the opportunities are, and in little republics when uncontrouled by apprehensions of external danger. If an enlargement of the sphere is found to lessen the insecurity of private rights, it is not because the impulse of a common interest or passion is less predominant in this case with the majority; but because a common interest or passion is less apt to be felt and the requisite combinations less easy to be formed by a great than by a small number. The Society becomes broken into a greater variety of interests, of pursuits, of passions, which check each other, whilst those who may feel a common sentiment have less opportunity of communication and concert. It may be inferred that the inconveniences of popular States contrary to the prevailing Theory, are in proportion not to the extent, but to the narrowness of their limits.
The great desideratum in Government is such a modification of the Sovereignty as will render it sufficiently neutral between the different interests and factions, to controul one part of the Society from invading the rights of another, and at the same time sufficiently controuled itself, from setting up an interest adverse to that of the whole Society. In absolute Monarchies, the prince is sufficiently, neutral towards his subjects, but frequently sacrifices their happiness to his ambition or his avarice. In small Republics, the sovereign will is sufficiently controuled from such a Sacrifice of the entire Society, but is not sufficiently neutral towards the parts composing it. As a limited Monarchy tempers the evils of an absolute one; so an extensive Republic meliorates the administration of a small Republic.
(Extracted from Selected Works of James Madison. Spelling is that of the original.)
It was this concept of the government's neutrality in the face of factionalism, especially religious factionalism, that Madison considered essential. Similar sentiments were echoed by Thomas Jefferson, who in the draft of a constitution for Virginia had written:
Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
(Reference)
In his "Letter to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport", George Washington added his own thoughts to this general theme:
The citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy—a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship.
It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support. (Reference).
So while it is true that religious sentiment in early America was pervasive, our wisest minds understood that it was this very fact that required government to be a referee in religious matters, not an enforcer of religious orthodoxy. True, there were those such as John Adams who professed Calvinism and said that American government was not intended for atheists, but such views were hardly universal. (Thomas Paine's work is a useful reminder of this.) This was the historical context in which the Constitution's statement that no religious test would be required for public office was made. It was also the basis of the First Amendment's carefully worded balancing act in regard to religion. But as we all know, the Constitution hardly resolved this matter. About the fights which followed, I'll have more to say.
No comments:
Post a Comment