2. The Political Crisis and Its Significance for the Proclamation of Religious Freedom of Conscience. The First Sounds of Freedom. The Revolution in the Views of Congress and Its Causes. New Constitutions and the Paragraph on Religious Freedom of Conscience. The Limitation of Civil Rights of Catholics. The Federal Constitution and the Abolition of the Religious Test. Discussions on This at Conventions. The Significance of the Paragraph in the Federal Constitution. The Separation of Church and State. (Cont.) (2)
When the federal constitution was proposed to the private conventions for ratification, the article abolishing the restriction on the right to hold public offices due to differences of religious profession met with considerable opposition, especially in those states where such restriction existed. Many objected that by virtue of such an article even the Roman Pope could become President of the United States, and even a pamphlet appeared supporting this objection[1]. Especially heated debates took place in the convention in North Carolina. Convention member Abbott said: “The exclusion of religious tests (tests) is considered dangerous and impolitic by many. It is supposed that if religious tests are not required, pagans, deists, and Mohammedans might obtain offices among us, and that senators and representatives might all be pagans”[2]. Iredell responded to him, pointing to the disastrous results of religious tests throughout the ages, he said: “America has given humanity an example to think more humbly and carefully, that a man may differ from us in religious feelings without being a bad member of society… But it is objected that the people of America might elect representatives who have no religion at all, and that pagans and Mohammedans might be admitted to offices. But how is it possible to exclude any class of people without taking away the principle of religious freedom for which we ourselves fought so ardently… This morning I happened to meet a pamphlet in which the author points out the great danger that the Roman Pope might be elected President. I confess this never occurred to me before; but had the author read all the rules conditioning the election of President, his fears might perhaps be calmed. President can only be elected a native or one who lived in America fourteen years. I do not know all the rules for the election of a pope, but I think he must be taken from the college of cardinals; and probably there are many preliminary steps necessary to reach that dignity. An American native must have an extraordinarily fortunate chance who, after living fourteen years in his country, should go to Europe, enter the Roman order, receive elevation to cardinal, then to pope, and finally be so long in the confidence of his country that he would be elected President. It would be even more extraordinary if he renounced the papacy for our presidency. Sir, it is impossible to discuss such fears with any degree of seriousness… This country has already had the honor to present an example of civil liberty, and I hope it will equally have the honor to show the rest of the world the way to religious freedom as well. May God grant that both continue to the end of time”[3]. Governor Johnson said: “when I heard the fears expressed that the Roman Pope might become President of the United States, I was greatly surprised. In that case one could likewise say that the King of England or France, or the Sultan of Turkey, could be elected to this office. This would be exactly the same argument… There is also fear that Jews, Mohammedans, pagans, etc., might be elected to the highest offices in the government of the United States. Those who are Mohammedans or otherwise do not profess the Christian religion can never be elected to the office of President or any other high office, except in one of two cases: first, this might happen if the people of America completely abandon the Christian religion. If this unfortunately happens, the people will elect such men as they themselves are. The other case, if persons of this kind, despite their religion, acquire the trust and respect of the American people through their good conduct and works of virtue, then they might be elected”[4]. Member Caldwell said: “Here is an invitation given to Jews and pagans of every kind to come and settle among us. In the future this may threaten danger to the character of the United States. I think that in political views, the gentlemen who drew up this constitution should not have given such an invitation to Jews and pagans.” Spencer said: “Religious tests have always been a cause of persecution in all countries. Persons with a strict conscience will not take the oath required by religious tests and will therefore be excluded from offices, though they might be as capable of performing them as any member of society.”[5] Spaight, who was a representative at the federal convention, said: “No test is required. All people of equal capacity and honesty may be equally elected to offices. Civil violence may make people evil, but never religious. A test would enable the dominant sect to persecute the rest.” But Wilson expressed the wish that “the constitution exclude papal priests from office”[6]. Lancaster said: “As regards religious test, if the article which excludes it had only ordained what had hitherto been in the states, I would not have objected to it… For myself, reviewing the rules conditioning the election of President, I do not suppose the Pope could occupy the presidential chair. But we must remember that we are framing a government for millions who do not yet exist. I have no gift of prophecy. I do not know how it will work in the course of four or five hundred years. But it is entirely true that papists might occupy this chair, and Mohammedans might take it. I see nothing against this. In every state of the union there are, I think, limitations; so there should be in this system too”[7].
Similar debates occurred in other states. At the Massachusetts convention, member Singletary declared that the constitution overturned all privileges “since it had no provision that government officials must have any religion”; he hoped to see Christians in office, “while by the constitution both a papist and an infidel are equally eligible for them”[8]. Many convention members said that such a provision “was a departure from the principles of our forefathers, who came here to preserve their religion; since it admits deists, atheists, etc., into the general government.” To such objections, the reverend Daniel Shute responded with an extensive speech, which is remarkable coming from a clergyman of the most intolerant colony hitherto, and shows a great step in the people’s consciousness toward the recognition of the rights of religious conscience. He said: “The establishment of a religious test as a condition of eligibility to offices in the proposed federal convention seems to me would have brought harmful consequences to some persons, without any benefit to all… In this great and extensive country, there is and will be great diversity of feeling in religion among its inhabitants. To the proposal of a religious test, I think one should ask: who should be excluded from national trust (trusts)? Whatever answer fanaticism might suggest, inspired by openness and equality, I think will be – no one. Far from limiting my goodwill and trust toward men of my own religious profession, I suppose and think, sir, that worthy men exist among the adherents of all confessions, among Quakers, Baptists, the English church, papists, and further among those who have no other guide on the path to virtue and heaven but natural religion. I am obliged therefore to think that the proposed plan of government is in this particularly wisely constructed; that as all have an equal right to the blessings of the government under which they live and which they support, so no one should be excluded from office because they are of a particular religion. It is probable supposition that the eyes of the people will be on the capable of the earth; and in view of his own safety, he will elect as his rulers people of known ability, known honesty and good moral character. The Apostle Peter tells us that God is not a respecter of persons, but in every people accepts those who fear Him and do righteousness. And I do not know the reason why men of this character, to whatever confession of religion they belong, other things being equal, by their natural qualities, should not be accepted by the people, and why the people could not employ them with safety and advantage in important offices of government. The exclusion of religious test in the proposed constitution therefore clearly seems to me worthy of recognition,” concluded the speaker[9]. General-Major Lincoln spoke in the same spirit. But Colonel Jones “thought that rulers should believe in God or Christ”, and that, whatever abuse religious tests might suffer in England, he nevertheless thought that if our public officials were of those who had a good standing in the church, this would be a blessing for the United States[10]. Major Lux concluded his argument on the abolition of religious test with the words that he “shudders at the very thought that Roman Catholics, papists, and pagans might hold office, and that popery and the Inquisition might be established in America”[11]. The Reverend Backus said: “I now ask permission to propose some thoughts on certain points in the constitution proposed to us, and will begin with the exclusion of religious test. Many apparently are very anxious about it; but there is nothing more evident, in reason as well as in Scripture, than that religion is always a matter between God and individuals; and therefore no one can establish a religious test without violating the essential prerogatives of our Lord Jesus Christ. Priests first seized this power under the Christian name, and then Constantine approved this practice when he made the profession of Christianity a spring of state policy. And examine the history of all peoples from that day to this, and it will be clear that the establishment of religious tests was the greatest spring of tyranny in the world. And I rejoice to see how so many gentlemen now surrender their rights of conscience in this great and important matter. Some serious-minded people see danger in that, if all religious tests are excluded, Congress might afterwards establish the papacy or some other tyrannical form of worship; but one can be fully assured that no such form of worship can be established and without any religious test”[12] – The same article was discussed, though more briefly, in the conventions of Virginia and Connecticut and in the legislative assembly of South Carolina, and after the final ratification of the constitution, the principle of this article appeared to find universal recognition[13].
In discussing the federal constitution at private conventions, the remarkable fact became apparent that the common constitution took a different point of view on the religious question compared to the private constitutions of the individual states. The latter, as we have seen above, decisively proclaimed freedom of religious conscience, the separation of religion from the state, but retained religious tests for holding public offices. Meanwhile, the federal constitution abolished religious tests and passed over in silence the general question of the relationship of the state to religion. More than that, Congress not only passed this question in silence but directly rejected its positive solution. In discussing the relationship of religion to the state, member Pinckney proposed inserting into the Constitution of the United States a provision by which “the legislative assembly of the United States shall make no law concerning religion.” This proposal fully corresponded to the spirit of the provisions of private constitutions regarding religion and aimed at a complete separation of religion from the jurisdiction of the Union. But Congress rejected it and adopted the same member’s proposal for the abolition of religious tests[14].
Thus Congress in essence removed only the external signs of inequality of various confessions before the state, but refrained from giving complete renunciation of interference in matters of religion, that is, in other words did not dare to fully separate the state from religion. Given the state of the constitution, Congress did not lose the power to make legislative provisions in the area of religion, it could establish a state religion, and in view of the supposed possibility for the Roman Pope to become President, such a state religion could even be the Roman Catholic Church hated by the population. This gap in the federal constitution was noticed by many private conventions, which were even troubled to recognize it in such a form, and accompanied their ratification with the expression of a desire for an appropriate supplement to the constitution. The conventions of New York, New Hampshire, and Virginia, recognizing the constitution, insisted on the necessity of an amendment to it concerning the complete separation of religion from the state. The convention of North Carolina in its first session refused altogether to recognize the constitution, and later accompanied its ratification with the expression of a desire for appropriate correction. The convention of Rhode Island did the same[15]. The convention of New York recommended such an amendment: “no religious sect or body shall be preferred or established by law in preference to others[16]. Virginia, North Carolina, and Rhode Island also proposed that “no separate religious sect or body be preferred by law in preference to others”[17]. The convention of Maryland expressed as desirable such a provision “that no national religion be established by law”[18]. New Hampshire recommended such an amendment: “Congress should make no laws” concerning religion, or violate the rights of conscience”[19]. As both these declarations of private conventions and many internal public and political reasons led to Congress deciding to insert an amendment to the constitution concerning complete separation of religion from the state, and this amendment, ratified in 1791, appeared in the following form: “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”[20].