No One Shall Be Compelled

February 16, 1986
Lakeland

1986 is the 200th anniversary of the beginnings of religious freedom in our country. The Assembly of Virginia passed “An Act for Establishing Religious Freedom in the Commonwealth of Virginia.” Thomas Jefferson wrote the Act; James Madison, with wisdom, judgment, and legislative skill saw that it was passed by the Assembly of Virginia. [It reads:]

“Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporal rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labors for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that, therefore, the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to the offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow citizens he has a natural right; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honors and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles, on the supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency, will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.

“Be it therefore 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 opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

“And though we well know this Assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no powers equal to our own and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law, yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.”

Source: http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/vaact.html

This was a momentous legislative act. In history, particularly Western history, for thousands of years, the allegiance between church and state had permitted and encouraged all manner of oppression, torture, and death in the name of religion.

In this 200th anniversary of the Virginia Statute (January 16, 1786) there are many important issues which could be highlighted. Under the limitations of time, the following deserve emphasis:

1. The “founding fathers” did not intend or presume that the United States was, or should be, a “Christian” nation.

2. The freedom of religion clause in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, written by James Madison (and which was a distillation of the Virginia Statute), has been both broadened to include the several states under the rule of the Federal Constitution, and extended to include many thorny issues.

3. There have been constant and continuing attempts to breach this “wall of separation between church and state” (Jefferson’s phrase). At this time, the hot issues are prayer in the public schools and President Reagan’s “Voucher Parochial Plan.”

First, the founders of this country did not believe or intend that this should be a “Christian nation.”

George Washington, first President of the United States, on at least two specific occasions stated this was not a Christian nation. He wrote a letter to this effect to the Jewish congregation in Newport, Rhode Island. In the Treaty with Tripoli, he also stated clearly that ours was not a Christian nation.

John Adams, second President of the United States, wrote, “It will never be pretended that the men who set up the American government had interviews with the gods or were in any degree under the inspiration of Heaven.” (Quoted, Muller, RELIGION AND FREEDOM IN THE MODERN WORLD, p. 8)

Thomas Jefferson, third President of the United States: there is little verification needed of his attitude. He had drafted the Virginia Statute in 1777, although he was in Paris as Ambassador to France when Madison labored to secure the passage of the Statute in 1786. In Jefferson’s Autobiography (he was 77), he wrote that in 1786, an amendment was proposed inserting the words “Jesus Christ” before the phrase “holy author of our religion” (see Christian Century). Jefferson noted, “The insertion was rejected by a great majority in proof that they comprehend the mantle of the Statute’s protection, the Jew and Gentile, the Christian and Mohametan, the Hindoo and the infidel of every denomination.”

James Madison, fourth President of the United States, as we have noted, was responsible for the passage of the Virginia Statute and defeat of the proposed “Jesus Christ, holy author of our faith” amendment. Interestingly, that amendment was argued for by the Virginia patriot Patrick Henry, who may have forgotten his courageous declaration in the Revolutionary cause, “give me liberty or give me death.”

So any claims that are made by right-wing religious fundamentalists that our founders intended a Christian nation is simply false.

Second, the “freedom of religion” clause in the First Amendment to the Constitution, for which James Madison was primarily responsible, has been both broadened to include the several States, and extended to include many thorny issues.

For some years the First Amendment was not accepted or enforced by many individual States. Massachusetts did not completely separate church and state until 1833. Now, however, all the States must abide by the First Amendment.

Edwin Meese, the present Attorney General, seems to ignore or be ignorant of the development of Constitutional law. Meese derided the Supreme Court decision which struck down an Alabama prayer law. Meese claims that the First Amendment was not intended to limit the power of the States. But U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens criticized Attorney General Meese for this distortion or misinterpretation. (C+S, 12/85, p. 3). Stevens said, “Meese overlooks the importance of subsequent events in the development of our law. The Attorney General fails to mention the fact that no justice who has sat on the Supreme Court during the past sixty years has questioned the proposition that the prohibitions against State action that are incorporated in the 14th Amendment include the prohibitions against federal action that are found in the First Amendment.”

Within memory, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against state laws that would have permitted prayer in the schools, released time for religious purposes, and similar decisions.

Third, there have been and will be constant and persisting attempts to breach this “wall of separation between church and state.” The President of the U.S. is exerting his considerable power and charm to break down this “wall of separation”; I want to discuss briefly the issues of prayer in the public schools and the voucher system for taxpayers’ money to go to parochial and private schools.

Prayer in the public schools has been ruled unconstitutional. New York State, some years ago, was the scene of the “Regents Prayer” case. Hoping to compose a prayer to be recited by public school pupils, a prayer supposedly acceptable was composed. But after much publicity and controversy, the Regents Prayer was found unconstitutional. American pluralism in religion is a fact. The wide range and many differences in the religions, not to speak of the many who reject religion in its particular forms, make it impossible to write a prayer that will not offend some, who can make a legitimate claim that their religious freedom under the First Amendment would be invalid by any particular prayer in the public schools.

Nevertheless, the President, in his State of the Union address, used his eloquence to argue for prayer in the public schools and will use his appointee powers to reverse Supreme Court decisions, if he can.

The absurdity of trying to create a public school prayer which will infringe on no one’s rights is illustrated by Mark Russell, the humorous writer and speaker. He composed a “generic” Lord’s Prayer as follows:

“Our Father or Mother,
Who art either in heaven, nirvana, Mecca, or Salt Lake City,
Hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come, thy will be done,
Providing thy will is that America is always the big winner over the foreign heathen.
Give us this day our daily white bread, black bread, Italian bread, Jewish rye, English muffins, or tacos,
And a quarter-pounder with cheese and a large fries to go.
And lead us not into temptation,
Or into school buses that take us to neighborhoods where the kids are different.
For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory,
Especially for people who still use words like ‘thine.’”

(CONTEXT)

Heavy-handed and exaggerated? Yes, but it illustrates how unlikely there can be any public school prayer which will invade no one’s rights.

Then, too, there is the current issue pushed by the current administration called the “Voucher Parochial Plan.”

This voucher bill, apparently written by Education Secretary William Bennett, would provide that parents of disadvantaged children could choose to take their children out of public schools and get tax-paid vouchers of $600.00 per child to apply to tuition at parochial and private schools.

The bill has been sponsored in the Senate by Senator Orrin Hatch, Republican of Utah, and in the House by Representative Pat Swindall, Republican of Georgia. “Hatch and Swindall” - sounds like a law firm from a Charles Dickens novel!

As I see it – and believe thoroughly, the proposal is dangerous and damaging.

Public monies should be under public control. We do pay taxes for our public school system. If I choose, I can make my voice heard at school board meetings. I have a vote on bond issues. I can cast my ballot for choosing members of the county school board. None of these rights would prevail in the Voucher Parochial Plan. I would have no voice or influence in where that part of my tax money went or how it was to be distributed.

I have no objection whatsoever to private or parochial schools or to parents who choose to send their children to such institutions. Parents, for their own reasons which I would not question or oppose, have the right to opt for parochial or private schools. But I don’t want to pay for such choices.

Carl Rowan, the syndicated columnist, made pertinent comments, “The administration has tried to cut drastically federal appropriations for education. It has been unwilling to accept any federal responsibility for bringing salaries of teachers to a responsible level.” Furthermore, Rowan commented “to believe such a proposal will make under-privileged children better off is fantasy-land thinking.”

Voucher Parochial is both a not very subtle attempt to breach the wall of separation between church and state, and it is an attack on the public school system. How odd when our President is attempting to slash programs for public education, he eager to spend tax money for parochial and private schools. Aren’t we supposed to be in a budget crisis?

I’m not only negative toward Voucher Parochial, I’m positive toward the American system of public education. Of course many criticisms can be leveled. The public schools must deal with huge problems. But be it noted that most of the problems are handed to the public schools, not created by the public schools. Urban ghettos, parental disinterest or neglect, stultifying environments, young delinquents, the druggies, the malnourished, the hostile – all these arrive at the public school, [and are] not made by the public schools.

I believe any fair reading of American history will support the thesis that public schools have educated; in the great tidal years of immigrants, the public schools Americanized the children of parents from many lands and different cultures. How much of America’s wealth is due to the public schools preparing students for business, technical, scientific, and governmental careers?

In times such as these, the public school system needs more support and adequate funding, not diversion of resources to institutions beyond public control.

In conclusion, I’m intrigued that some religious groups want to break down a system that has worked so well for them. In no other country where Christians of the hundreds of varieties are in the majority is organized religion stronger. Churches, large and small, are supported and supported well by the voluntary subscriptions of its members. All reports and observations indicate that not in the U.K., not in Europe, not in Scandinavia, is there enthusiasm and support for religious institutions as there is in the U.S. Why should the right-wing fundamentalists want to change that? The system has worked for them and all of us. Furthermore, those whose beliefs rule out any formal religious affiliation are free here NOT to support institutions in which they do not believe.

Thus, 1986, the anniversary of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, is a not-to-be forgotten historical landmark and reminder of a most precious element in our national life: religious freedom, a freedom which, if diluted or infringed, will be an incalculable loss.