The government has not a shadow of right to intermeddle with religion. COMMENTS ON THE CONSTITUTION. VIRGINIA CONVENTION. MR. MADISON: There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it would be a most flagrant usurpation. I can appeal to my uniform conduct on this subject, that I have warmly supported religious freedom. It is better that this security should be depended upon from the general legislature, than from one particular State. A particular State might concur in one religious project.' Liberty the direct end of government. Should be guarded with jealousy. Cause of England's prosperity. MR. HENRY: Mr. Chairman. You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor tion the public liberty. 1 Elliot's "Debates on the Federal Constitution," volume iii, page 330. There were few objections urged so strongly against the proposed Constitution as that it did not sufficiently insure religious liberty. of government is liberty. Secure our liberty and privileges, and the end of government is answered. If this be not effectually done, government is an evil.1 Without liberty government is an evil. NORTH CAROLINA CONVENTION. Constitution an invitation among us. MR. CALDWELL thought that some danger might arise. He imagined it might be objected to in a political as well as in a religious view. In the first place, he said, there was an invitation for Jews and to all to come pagans of every kind to come among us. I think, then, added he, that, in a political view, those gentlemen who formed this Constitution should not have given this invitation to Jews and heathens." MASSACHUSETTS CONVENTION. Speech of the Rev. Mr. REV. MR. BACKUS: Mr. President, I have said. very little to this honorable convention; but I now Backus. 1 Elliot's "Debates on the Federal Constitution," volume iii, pages 43 et seq., 53 et seq., 651. 2 Article six of the Federal Constitution, providing that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. 3 Elliot's "Debates on the Federal Constitution," volume iv, page 199. This speech of Mr. Caldwell shows in what light the Federal Constitution was regarded at the time of its adoption,-- by its opponents as well as by its friends,— that it intended absolute equality, irrespective of religious belief or worship. This point was emphasized by the adop tion of the first amendment to the Constitution. The idea that Christianity, or any other religion, was intended to be either favored or discountenanced, was entirely foreign to the intentions of the framers of our government. Such charges are the gratuitous inventions of the opponents of the absolute religious equality provided for by the Constitution - persons who desire to have their religious belief, Christianity, or its institutions, forced upon others. How different would be their tone if it was some other person's religion that was being attempted to be forced on them! 4 Rev. Mr. Isaac Backus was the author of the " History of New England" (three volumes), published 1777-1796; and, as Appleton's 66 Intention of Constitution. A difference in the person. religious tests. Christianity's first usurpation. Thoughts on beg leave to offer a few thoughts upon some points in the Constitution proposed to us, and I shall begin with the exclusion of any religious test. Many appear to be much concerned about it; but nothing is more evident, both in reason and the Holy Scriptures, than that religion is ever a matter between God and individuals; and, therefore, no man or men can impose any religious test without invading the essential prerogatives of our Lord Jesus Christ. Ministers first assumed this power under the Christian name; and then Constantine approved of the practice, when he adopted the profession of Christianity as an engine of state policy. And let the history of all nations be searched from that day to this, and it will appear that the imposing of religious tests has been the greatest engine of tyranny in the world. And I rejoice to see so many gentlemen who are now giving in their rights of conscience in this great and important matter. Some serious minds discover a concern lest if all religious test should be excluded, the Congress would hereafter establish popery or some other tyrannical way of worship. But it is most certain that no such way of worship can be established without any religious test.1 Effect. A characteristic Protestant argument. An earnest advocate of the tmost religous freedom, Not a conflict between religion and irreligion. Wisdom manifested. Cyclopedia of American Biography" says, Thoughout his life he was an earnest and consistent advocate of the utmost religious freedom." He was one of the many early liberal ministers who worked heart and hand with the statesmen of the times to sever for the first time in the world's history the connection which had so long existed between religion and the powers of earth. It was not a conflict between religion and irreligion, nor between Christianity and infidelity; but it was a conflict between free-churchism and state-churchism, between the liberty of the gospel and the superstition of heathenism, between human rights and the usurpations of ecclesiastics, and Dr. Backus and many other clergymen of the same stamp took the side of liberty, of humanity, and of the gospel of Christ. And upward of a century of unexampled prosperity by both the state and the church attests to the wisdom of their course. 1 Elliot's "Debates on the Federal Constitution," volume ii, pages 148, 149. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION. NEW YORK CONVENTION. Sept. 17, 1787. All equally entitled to the religion. That the people have an equal, natural, and unalienable right freely and peaceably to exercise their free exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience; and that no religious sect or society ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.1 Religious preferences wrong. PENNSYLVANIA CONVENTION. Dec. 12, 1787. The right of conscience to lable. The right of conscience shall be held inviolable, and neither the legislative, executive, nor judicial be held inviopowers of the United States shall have authority to alter, abrogate, or infringe any part of the Constitutions of the several States, which provide for the preservation of liberty in matters of religion." NEW HAMPSHIRE CONVENTION. June 21, 1788 Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or to infringe the rights of conscience." No laws touching religion. 328. 1 Elliot's "Debates on the Federal Constitution," volume i, page 2 In Pennsylvania, the minority of the convention issued an address entitled, "Reasons of Dissent," etc., in which several amendments were proposed, the first of which was the above. The "Reasons of Dissent" were published, Philadelphia, December 12, 1787, and reprinted in Carey's "American Museum," volume ii, number 5, pages 536-553; quoted by Schaff in "Church and State in the United States," page 31. Elliot's "Debates on the Federal Constitution," volume i, page June 27, 1788. Natural rights inalienable. All power vested in the people. Magistrates their trustees. Religion can be directed not by force. VIRGINIA CONVENTION. That there are certain natural rights, of which men, when they form a social compact, cannot deprive or divest their posterity; among which are the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety. That all power is naturally invested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are therefore their trustees and agents, at all times amenable to them. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our only by reason, Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force. or violence; and, therefore, all men have an equal, natural, and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience, and that no particular religious sect or society ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.1 Religious preferences wrong. Aug. 1, 1788. NORTH CAROLINA CONVENTION. Religion can be directed not by force. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our only by reason, Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and, therefore, all men have an equal, natural, and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular religious sect or society ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.2 Religious preferences wrong. 1 Elliot's "Debates on the Federal Constitution," volume iii, page 659. 2 Elliot's "Debates on the Federal Constitution," volume iv, pages 242, 244. This amendment was among twenty others proposed in |