It is impossible to rule a nation without God and the Bible.
--George Washington, 1st Pres. Of the United States

The most salient, arduous, and culturally impactive cause of effects upon a people-group is religion. No other collection or conflux of ideas, no other collage of human beliefs can more completely and effectively shape a persons worldview than that persons own religion. Beyond our occasional, circumstance prompted questionings of why, why am I here, who am I, who knows me, and who loves me, lies the deeper longing, the closer need, for understanding. The deeper longing of a man and his mind; his desire to know, and to believe. The American republic has lifted itself to a nearly unbelievable plateau of material wealth, individual as well as corporate freedom, and peace with a greater part of the world. Despite, however, this seemingly invincible combination of world prosperity, the lack of common, traditional morals and the exhibition of wide-spread perversion in thought as well as actions, recognizable from the times of the Romans or the Greeks, is a stigma, that renders America ultimately ugly, once more, in the beginning of her third century of existence. This paper is intended to be a comprehensive exploration of the first Amendment, in so far as it pertains to matters of religion and the government of the United States. More importantly though than a simple exploration of the connection of these two, are the effects that religion has upon us, and the freedom that is necessary in order for religion to remain an active and restorative part of American culture.

Culture is, by its very nature, an outward manifestation of what our heart desires, and what our mind truly values. It is an honest, perhaps finally so, reflection of who we really are. If we as a people are obsessed with money, for example, then our culture will reflect this fixation and tailor to our desires accordingly. Advertisements will permeate our senses; greed and hoarding of possessions will become the goal and all other things such as positive values and family attentions will become secondary. If, on the other hand, we are a people focused on breakthroughs and discoveries in, say, science, so as to make a better world for ourselves and our children, our culture will be shaped according to this mindset, that technology is the ultimate answer to all lifes problems. If, we were to go even further past the first example and say that we as a people are fixed on not obsession but merely the pursuit of money, then the emphasis will naturally be placed on social recognition and superiority, the rewards of the career, so to speak.

Social status is the over-riding concern, pressing us to reach farther and farther for just that little bit more which would put us on top. America is, for the most part, more fixed upon these three elements, in the most Neanderthal way, than she is upon finding fulfillment or understanding in her creation, and the forces that were. As a society, less has been drawn from the firm religious convictions of her founding fathers and the exploration of why they first founded this nation than from the bustle and hubbub of a rebounding economy, and new innovations in technology for her peoples amusement. Her courts of law and her halls of justice are more interested in the expulsion of intolerants or politically insensitive viewpoints than they are in seeking to preserve a strong moral and religious framework for future generations to build themselves upon. Whether this has led America to become a stronger nation, or a weaker one, is a question mark. Were there a simple answer, to be dispensed in primordial fashion, I would give it to you freely, and without hesitation. Alas, no single answer awaits the reader, in this treatise. The end, however, to which I will explore the subject, is this: How did the framers of the American Constitution expect our government to handle our faith? And secondly, how did these framers expect our people to handle their. But before we may begin to examine the primary focus of this treatise, that is, the discussion of the two main interpretations of the Establishment clause of the First Amendment, it would be prudent to review the feelings and the beliefs of the men who wrote the First Amendment.

At the conclusion of the American War for Independence, religion as sanctioned and promulgated by government was fast at a decline. The cry for liberty was taken up in every sphere of public life possible, and matters of God and divinity were no exception. One by one, the states began to dismiss their pre-war charters with England that typically included a state supported church in favor of new constitutions that banned such regulation altogether. The centuries old practices from the European continent were being re-examined once more, as the new nation sought to forge for itself an identity of its own where individual freedom, above all, would be heralded as the one defense against tyranny and repression. To explain this fully, it must be noted that this was no mere revolution occurring in the fledgling seed of democracy but a true reformation, powered by some of the greatest thinkers in the world at the time. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Samuel Adams, George Washington, Patrick Henry, Rufus King, Richard Henry Lee, John Hancock, George Mason, the list truly is endless, of the great men who birthed the great new American experiment in Politick. It was clear that for tyranny to be extinguished on all fronts, government must not be allowed to have direct control over the churches. It is significant to make the distinction between church and churches. In America it was widely expected that no single church would be allowed to dominate, by the full backing of government. In addition, the second question for the Constitutional wizards of the respective states, was whether government should be allowed to sponsor multiple churches in its laws, so long as no one denomination was favored over the rest.

The debate over the issue of governmental involvement flared up across the thirteen principal isolated states as orators, preachers, statesmen, students of the law and common man took up the podium, in search of answer to the question that plagued their respective communities. Fresh into the stable, democratically operating nation that they had fought so persistently for, the American people lost no time in attacking the next single greatest issue (short of civil war) in their land: religion. Chief among these thirteen in the struggle for a clear precedent was not surprisingly, the largest and most handily involved state of the union, Virginia. In all honesty, however, this particular state of the American republic was practically begging for a public contest in opinion, particularly on the subject of religion, as the state was home to a number of political firebrands, all with expectedly intense religious feelings. To name a few would be near to naming none, but nevertheless, there are at least three whose efforts in clarifying the conclusions of all must be noted. Patrick Henry, the most highly revered and celebrated public orator during the War for Independence. His was an incredible power, of being able to command mens spirits to the point where anyone within earshot of his voice, could fall prey to his earnest and patriotic pleas for action, and take up a musket in hand, where ten minutes before had lain a simple hoe. Thomas Jefferson, an auspiciously high-minded visionary and intellectual who strove above all for both liberty and harmony to reign across all lands. His mind was brilliant, in its ability to see through the events and problems of the moment, and construct a rational, far-sighted response, that would both neutralize the problem, and set out a clear, defined policy at the same time. And the last of these three, would be none other then James Madison, a brilliantly composed architect of political thought and governance. If there can be any one man who was more thoroughly involved in helping to influence nearly every aspect of the proceedings that led to the formation of the American Constitution, it is he.

In the voice and platform of the debates held in Virginias legislature, Patrick Henry represented the side of those who believed in total, free interaction between government and the peoples religion. So much so, that nothing less than out right monetary sponsorship of Christian churches could be expected, if the morals of the people were intended to survive. His was a side entirely devoted to the governmental sponsorship of Christianity in America, regardless if members of opposing religions called foul play. Whatever the fate of those who disagreed with or did not wish to sponsor Christianity at all was irrelevant. Their defense was that if the majority of the people in the respective communities of the state wished there to be such inherent governmental involvement and thus passed the laws to create a model as such, than so be it; it is their right. There were many within Virginia that felt this way, because as a former colony, they had had the freedom to enact whatsoever rules they wanted regarding religion. Their relationship with England had promoted a form of Salutary Neglect, where each individual colony had freedom over nearly all its internal affairs. So now, even now a member of a unified body of states, why should they be expected to outlaw even the possibility of such a freedom they enjoyed, even while under England? The opposite school of thought was led by Jefferson, and Madison, who contended that such involvement of government within the sphere of private life violated both the protection of equal opportunity for religions to grow and compete as well as the private individuals wish as to how he wished his taxed monies to be used. For if after all, the Muslim or the Jew is taxed for the support of Christianity along with the majority of Christians, where is individual liberty preserved? To them, a total separation of religion and government in Virginia was justified, in order to avoid this excessive entanglement. Henry,
whose bill was in session first, led the state legislature in mastery, evincing the skills for which he was so well known, and had at least half of the members behind him within the initial two or three days. Madison, however, while not the gifted orator that Henry was, possessed a conspicuous talent of his own: the power of the written word. His published pamphlet, a Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, absolutely demolished all support for Henrys bill, public and private, and allowed the bill to die a slow death on the floor. This was surprising, demonstrating a definite change in opinion since Virginia had first declared its independence from England in 1776. At that time a victory was won by those who advocated integration of church and state, by the following clause in Virginias Declaration of Rights, May 27, 1776:

That religion, or the duty which we owe to our CREATOR, and the manner of discharging it, can be "directed" only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore, that all men should enjoy the fullest toleration in the exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience, and unpunished and unrestricted by the magistrate, unless, under colour of religion, any man disturb the peace, happiness, or safety of society. And that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity, towards each other.

For while distinctly flavored with the convictions of protestant Christianity, it was generally agreed by all that the declaration was a sound defense against undue abuse or unjust dominance by any particular sect. This was probable the one commonly held opinion on the subject of any statesman or patriot of the day who was involved in the preservation of religious liberty. That being, that no one denomination would obtain exclusive national authority. This was immortalized when James Madison stated in his General Defense of the Constitution, June 12, 1788:

For where there is such a variety of sects, there cannot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the rest. This is a strong security against religious persecution and is sufficient to authorize a conclusion, that no one sect will ever be able to out-number or depress the rest.

Madison's stance on the issue, in respect to the debate in Virginia, is further affirmed by his collaboration with Thomas Jefferson in 1786 to pass Jeffersons Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, which essentially shut the door for Virginian legislature to allow governmental sanctioning of any religious denomination, multiple or not. This in turn gave momentum within the other newly christened states to adopt similar clauses that dissolved associations of religion by governmental charter. Individual positions on this involvement were (and still are) as diverse as the founding fathers themselves across the United States. Pre-dominant legislature, however, across all States, compounded with the brand new first Amendment, which contained numerous guarantees of freedom, of which religion was a part, declared that the government could not, in either local, state, or federal spheres of authority sponsor any single religious denomination. There now existed in America an absolute minimum of governmental regulation, and it would seem that the American people, after eight years of war, and an initial declaration of independence in 1776 finally arrived in peace, when the US became a legally recognized nation on Dec. 15, 1791 with the ratification of the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution made law. And so passed the first era of early interaction between American churches and the civil magistrates. A new method of worship was forged, that being an entirely private one, with no restraints or restrictions imposed on the individual that would hinder him from any religion he would choose. It would seem, to the casual observer, that the Americans had perfected the balance, between individual liberty and civil involvement.

In truth, the United States balancing act proved unpredictable, impracticable, and ultimately wanting in clarity, as a policy to prove beneficial to its citizens. Over the next two hundred years, an ideological schism would surface, to divide the intellectuals who cared to discuss it, and to allow for plenty of debate to be concluded in, of course, the halls of the Supreme Court of the United States. It is to this arena that we must now turn our attention. For contrary to the style of public oratory and ardent discussion within homes that proved so meaningful and effective during those formative days of our fledgling nation, the ruling authority on matters between liberty, and people, would now be held by the nine men and women appointed to be arbiters of the spirit expressed by the founding fathers in the Constitution. The divide I spoke of a moment ago, would be the difference in opinion on the intention of the Establishment clause of the first Amendment. Necessarily a divide would divide the people to two sides, two positions on the issue. These positions are those of the Separationists and the Accomodationists. It must be stated now that as this author rests his beliefs along with those of the Accomodational circle, the benefit of first explanation must go to the other side. Here then, let us see what and why those who would advocate a wall of separation between Church and state believe as they do.

The phrase a wall of separation between church and state was made by Thomas Jefferson, as President, in a letter to the Danbury Baptists of Connecticut. Despite the fact that this letter was sent fourteen years after the Constitution was written, by an American statesman who did not have any influence in the drafting of that Constitution because he was in France at the time, this phrase has nevertheless served as the bedrock of Separational thinking since its inception. This is a significant point to be made because it is Thomas Jeffersons life-long efforts to ensure religious liberty, and James Madisons formidable writings on the same subject, that have long been held up by the Supreme Court as the ultimate authority on which to decide their interpretations of the first Amendment to the Constitution. If we are then to examine the rulings of the Supreme Court as pertains to religion, we must examine them in light of their common denominator, the first Amendment. The first Amendment states, among other things, that oCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; The second half of that clause or prohibiting the free exercise thereof is relatively agreed upon by all, that no individuals liberty to practice religion as they see fit should be interfered with unless any man disturb the peace, happiness, or safety of society. What was precisely meant by those first ten words, however, is a matter of a more focused discussion. To the Separational line of thinking, so prevalent in 20th Century culture, the establishment clause Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion means that Congress is barred from creating any law, that interacts with religion in any way, shape, or form. This judicial interpretation though, has not always been. The theory of absolute Separation between Church-and-state was first integrated into official US policy in 1947, in the landmark case, Everson v. Board of Education. The plaintiff involved questioned whether the New Jersey state government was justified in providing school buses to children in attendance of private religious schools. While ultimately ruling that such an interaction was, in fact, permissible under the Constitution, and thus not violating the wall of Separation, Justice Black, in his majority opinion nevertheless defined what he intimated the meaning of the first Amendment to be:

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."

The court was divided in its opinion though, with Justices Rutledge, Frankfurter, Jackson, and Burton in dissent. Justice Jackson voiced the overall consensus of the dissent in his court opinion:

The state cannot maintain a Church and it can no more tax its citizens to furnish free carriage to those who attend a Church. The prohibition against establishment of religion cannot be circumvented by a subsidy, bonus or reimbursement of expense to individuals for receiving religious instruction and indoctrination.

Virtually all the court that day agreed that a level of separation was necessary, even though they disagreed on whether it had been breached. What is most easily ascertainable from their opinions is that, to Separationists, wall of separation between Church and state means wall of separation between Church and state. Even as the Supreme Court was declaring that public services could be used to support private religious schools, it simultaneously declared, The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable New Jersey has not breached it here.While it is dubious whether such a high standard of non-interaction was preserved that day, the judicial interpretation of Separationism was first applied in Everson v. Board of education and has stood ever since. The significant occurrence that day was that the court let it be known, that they would not tolerate any interaction of any kind. The justification for a policy devoted to such a pain-staking amount of detail is found, once again, with Madison:

The tendency to an usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded by an entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order.

So now we see, that the intention of a Separational legislative policy is to avoid a corruption of either the Churches or the government, and to leave the two to exist and flourish entirely ignorant of each others spheres of authority, insofar is possible. To that end, it might seem that Separational thinking has merit, in attempting to prevent abuses of power. However, in the attempt of applying this strict dogma of separationism over the next twenty years, such a course of action in actual application has proved difficult to manage, and the courts have come to acknowledge that Church-state issues, rather than simply being struck down at any sight of interaction at all, must be dealt with instead on a case-by-case basis. In the 1970 case, Walz v. Tax Commission, a certain New York resident questioned state granted tax exemption to religious organizations, arguing that tax exemption was tantamount to a direct subsidy.

The courts decision, however, was that the state wasjustified in granting the tax exemption, even if it did amount to an encouragement of religion, because the alternative course of action, taxing the organization, would involve an interaction of a greater degree. Thus, a tax exemption in this case was simply the lesser of the two evils. Chief Justice Burger delivered the Supreme Courts majority opinion in which he espoused a new development of the Courts Separational policy, that of Benevolent Neutrality. Recognizing that an absolute wall, high and impregnable, was not realistically feasible given the language of the two religion clauses of the first Amendment, the Court instead introduced a sort of compromise to settle the old conflict between Separationism and Accomodationism:

The Court has struggled to find a neutral course between the two Religion Clauses, both of which are cast in absolute terms, and either of which, if expanded to a logical extreme, would tend to clash with the other. No perfect or absolute separation is really possible; the very existence of the Religion Clauses is an involvement of sorts-one that seeks to mark boundaries to avoid excessive entanglement.

The course of constitutional neutrality in this area cannot be an absolutely straight line; rigidity could well defeat the basic purpose of these provisions, which is to insure that no religion be sponsored or favored, none commanded, and none inhibited. The general principle deducible from the First Amendment and all that has been said by the Court is this: that we will not tolerate either governmentally established religion or governmental interference with religion. Short of those expressly proscribed governmental acts there is room for play in the joints productive of a benevolent neutrality which will permit religious exercise to exist without sponsorship and without interference.

This ruling was significant in two respects. First, it acknowledged that,rigidity could well defeat the basic purpose of these provisions, i.e., it could destroy the carefully enshrined principle of religious liberty. The Supreme Court realized that while in theory, absolute Separationism made some good sense, in application it did not line up with the Founding Fathers ideas of necessary freedom. And secondly, this first conclusion gives rise to another: It is possible that Separationism was not even the original intent of the founding fathers at all. The Supreme Court gave ground in this case, relaxing their standard from neutrality to obenevolent neutrality. This coming a mere 23 years since Everson v. Board, the Courts doctrine of an absolute neutrality of the side of government in order to main an absolute Separation seemed to be not quite as clear as it first appeared. Over the next 30 years the Courts would remain focused in their attempts to mainta
in separation between gov. and the churches, drafting new qualifications and rules to markedly insure that no level of separation was breached; but over time, the judicial philosophy of the justices ceased to be that of one accord as new justices came to occupy places on the bench. What was once true for one set of judges (and one generation of Americans) is not always true for the next; the justices and therefore the courts began to change their line of thinking, as America demonstrated one of its most valuable assets: diversity and freedom of thought. The turning point of this shift in interpretation came in 1986, with the appointment of then Associate Justice William Rehnquist to Chief Justice Rehnquist. Rehnquist, who had been on the bench of the Supreme Court for 15 years, was an adamant Accomodationist, believing the true meaning of the first Amendment to be solely that of limiting the US government from establishing a national church. Since then, the Court has become
divided, and remains so to this very day, in a fierce struggle. The old school of Separationists has had to contend with the ideas of Accomodationism exerting new influence within this highest court in the land. It is this second interpretation of the Establishment clause that we will now examine in detail.

Accomodationism begins with a very simple platform. This platform is the acknowledgement that the American people were, and still are, a nation composed primarily of Christians. There are many denominations that might potentially fit within that designation, and it is a broad term. But rightfully so. The founding fathers recognized that America was a nation of Christians, though not necessarily a Christian nation. As Mr. John F. Wilson, historian of early American life, affirms, the influence and significance of Christianity was a cultural reality in the new nation. And also, from Mr. Donald L. Drakeman The Protestant faith & theology shared by so many citizens of the new Republic provided a cultural framework in which the events of the world were viewed. There is no doubt that a majority of American citizens were Christians in some way. Therefore, it is the contention of those who would advocate an accommodation of religion by the courts, that the founding fathers never banished any interaction between the new government and the nations churches. Rather, the founding fathers acknowledged the deep religious character of the people and simply limited Congress from establishing a single, national denomination for the people. Justice Joseph Story, an active member of the Supreme Court from 1811 to 1845, presented his own understanding of what the intention of the first Amendment was, in his commentary upon the Constitution of the United States, published post humously in 1891:

The real object of the [First] amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government. It thus cut off the means of religious persecution (the vice and pest of former ages), and of the subversion of the rights of conscience in matters of religion, which had been trampled upon almost from the days of the Apostles to the present age. . .

America and its distinctly Christian ties were acknowledged in even the most absent-minded of ways in its Constitution as is noted by William Lee Miller, in his study of the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

[In describing the days available to the President to veto a bill, (Article 1, Section 7, Clause 2)]If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) But why except Sundays? Because Sunday was built into the law and custom and culture as the Sabbath. In the same Constitution, how was the date given? In the year of our Lord 1787. No confessing state and join the year of our Lord. No religious test?" and a believing people. No established Church" and a still somewhat Christian culture.

This serves to give the Accommodation circle a firm footing in their bid for a more lenient style of judicial interpretation. The strongest reason for adopting such a judicial interpretation, however, has not yet been revealed. For though historical precedent can be used as a solid justification in some respects, the more concurrent and definite means of ascertaining the precise meaning of the founding fathers in writing those first 10 words of the first Amendment would be to examine the actual proceedings that first wrought them. These proceedings were of course, the debates of 1789 in the US House of Representatives that forged the first ten Amendments to the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights. It is important that we attempt to derive some understanding from these initial debates, particularly so when we are attempting to clearly understand the position of the Accomodationists. You will remember that the Accomodational interpretation of the Establishment clause is that go
vernment is merely prohibited from establishing any single national religion, but that it is free to advance religion in general, so long as no sect is advanced at the expense of the others. This constituted a not altogether novel idea to many at the time. And as we shall see, it was a view held by more than one of participating in the discussion. Herein then, is the recorded references to the religion clauses of the Bill of Rights, Saturday, August 15, 1789:

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)

To put it delicately, the delegates were not all on the same page with one another. Mr. Sherman believed that as the power to establish religion was not one enumerated within the Constitution, it was not an issue worthy of debate. Mr. Sylvester was fearful of future generations construing the clauses to destroying religion altogether. Mr. Gerry first thought that the clauses should solely be restricted from touching matters of church doctrine, and then hastily declared his hope that that the committee would not use the word National, for fear stepping on the toes of those states who might not ratify the Constitution or its Amendments because they did not like the word national. Mr. Livermore did not like the way the proceedings were playing out at all, and was apparently in a hurry to move on to other things, we can only hope more important things, and proposed a version that would simply limit government from touching religion in any possible way.

Mr. Madison thought the Amendment already well expressed as the nature of the language would admit. However, in order to remove any doubt from any persons mind as to the true object of the Amendment, he proposed specifically introducing the word National, to explicitly prevent one sect from obtaining a pre-eminence over the rest. His opinion here was agreed with by Mr. Huntington, and though the motion was voted on and eventually passed to the Senate and back to the House once more before finally being settled upon as the words we know today, its is clear that James Madison, ever a champion of religious liberty, was propounding a different judicial philosophy in the National debates, than he was in Virginian State debate. While in the debate over religious liberty in the Virginian legislature, Madison was advocating a more Separational line of thinking. When discussing matters of religion and the federal government, however, Madison appeared to have believed that a
different policy was necessary. Therefore, it is logical to establish the following thought, that there are two different types of church-state relations in the American system of government: State and Federal. And as concerns the religious clauses of the first Amendment, Madison wished for an accommodation of religion, by government. And, indeed, Madison was exerting his influence upon the delegates, helping to reaffirm and shape their own convictions of governments role in the matter, as we shall see in the next paragraph.

The brand-new, United States of America lost no time in administering itself as a centralized power for the nation. With the Constitution legalized by the ratification of the required number of states and the multiple guarantees of freedom contained by the Bill of Rights in hand, America took her first steps as a new nation boldly, with the first two terms of President under the new Constitution held by George Washington, who proved a masterful leader in uniting great minds of the day; John Adams, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, all working fastidiously and effectively in a single administrative body. Key also to the success of America first executive was the new Congress, who was filled almost entirely by members of the old Congress, and the Constitutional Convention. Thus the men who led America in application of her new powers and duties were those who helped to formulate those same powers and duties, at her inception. With this fact realized, it should come as no surprise to see how early America dealt with the religion clauses of the first Amendment, in stark comparison to our modern government. To attain this view, I would reference a short history given by Justice William Rehnquist in his dissenting opinion in Wallace v. Jaffree, 1985. This especial case discussed the right of public schools to have regular, voluntary prayer at the beginning of the day, as mandated by the government. The history, however, is as follows:

The actions of the First Congress, which reenacted the Northwest Ordinance for the governance of the Northwest Territory in 1789, confirm the view that Congress did not mean that the Government should be neutral between religion and irreligion. The Northwest Ordinance [which was took up the same day as Madison introduced his proposed amendments which became the Bill of Rights] provided that "[religion], morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged." [I]t seems highly unlikely that the House of Representatives would simultaneously consider proposed amendments to the Constitution and enact an important piece of territorial legislation which conflicted with the intent of those proposals.

Within two weeks of the day after the House of Representatives voted to adopt the form of the First Amendment Religion Clauses which was ultimately proposed and ratified, George Washington responded to the Joint Resolution which by now had been changed to include the language that the President "recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness."

As the United States moved from the 18th into the 19th century, Congress appropriated time and again public moneys in support of sectarian Indian education carried on by religious organizations. Typical of these was Jefferson's treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians, which provided annual cash support for the Tribe's Roman Catholic priest and church. It was not until 1897, when aid to sectarian education for Indians had reached $ 500,000 annually, that Congress Decided thereafter to cease appropriating money for education in sectarian schools.

Indeed, during the infantile years of the new Republic, federal structures such as the Congressional capitol, the Treasury building, and"dare we note it "even the Supreme Court chambers were permitted to be used for church services and meetings when not in use. More than half of the money allocated for civilizing and educating the Indian tribes was given directly to missionaries. Chaplains, of various denominations and sects, were and are still are duly appointed for the use of Congress and its occupants. If there is any one thing to be grasped from this information, it is that regardless of however our modern courts and government officials interpret the religion clauses of the first Amendment today, there was a different understanding and a different application held by those closer to the actual meaning of the Constitution than we.

The acute observer will take note of this, and not for the mere sake of justifying one position over another, but to acknowledge the plurality of opinions that can be found when closely examining the American Constitution and its authors. For therein lies the greatest seed of strength sown by the Founding Fathers: diversity. One man may look at the Constitution and see something perfectly clear and perfunctory, and another may look and see something totally different. This was one faculty that the framers embraced, and as such, they made sure to vest it into every aspect of the system of government that they were drafting for the people of the United States. Difference of opinion, and difference of interpretation were not something to be feared or necessarily avoided by the Founding Fathers, because they recognized that it kept the Republic alive, that it kept the powers that be from imposing one, unchallenged and unchallengeable rule of governance upon all future generations to come. This can most easily be seen from the language of the first Amendment itself. You will remember that the phraseology mandated that Congress should make no law respecting an establishment of religion. This provision in itself, however, imposes no such burden upon the State governments from legislating any such arrangement with the religious organizations that they pleased. This harmonizes perfectly with the Congressional record we examined above, the point to be had that the framers were chiefly interested in preventing any single national religion from assuming dominance. And upon this understanding, the framers believed matters of religion best left to the State governments in their own individual jurisdictions. Thomas Jefferson, in his Notes on the State of Virginia (Philadelphia: Matthew Carey, 1794), Query XVIII, p. 237) expressed this view in plain terms.[The] power to prescribe any religious exercise. . . must rest with the States. It was not until Everson v. Board, 158 years after the passage of the Bill of Rights, that the first Amendment was radically construed to now apply to the States, as well as Congress, which is a branch of the federal government. This occurred, naturally, through a new interpretation by the Supreme Court of the 14th Amendment, which came into the American Constitution in 1868. The 14th Amendment was originally designed to protect the rights of the newly freed black American citizens from abrogation by the Southern states. The crucial clause from the Amendment is this:[neither] shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; This was obviously a clause designed for the protection of rights of American citizens, granted. However, it was not within the clear progression of thought to allow the Supreme Court to use the above clause to incorporate the first Amendment, from applying solely to Congress, to the whole of American government. Although originally intending to only insure that no state would violate the rights of any of its residents on account of their skin color, future be
nches of the Supreme Court would use this Amendment to apply solely federal clauses found in the Constitution to all the levels of American government, and in so doing, they violated the original intent and beliefs of the framers. As A.E. Dick Howard notes in his publication, The Supreme Court and the Establishment of Religion, 1985, Moreover, as to establishment, some [such as Justice Frankfurter] question how the Courts could apply to the states a provision which, they argued, was put in the Constitution primarily to keep Congress from interfering with State establishments existing at the time the first Amendment was proposed.

What, in the end, will most succinctly suit the needs of each generation of Americans is only what that generation of Americans decide. The nature of the American Constitution permits this, as it does with all of its other issues and matters and things. It is my sincere hope that the reader will be first enlightened and secondly emboldened to help share the information you have gathered here and then to go out and shape our government into what it really needs to be. I hope that my opinions of the original intent of the Founding Fathers, have been accurate insofar as I possibly can be, and that they have been adequately relayed by this pamphlet. If you will recall, we acknowledged, in the beginning of this treatise, that what holds the most sway over a persons or a societys beliefs and thereafter its actions, is, religion. The paramount concern then, and single imperative, for you, and for me is the preservation of religious liberty. I am as firmly committed to the survival of that principle as Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Henry, Washington, Jackson, Whitefield, de Tocqueville, Black, Frankfurter, Burger, Rehnquist,Connor, Howard, Drakeman, Alley, and all they that ever were. They that sought to preserve mans single hope, whether by their pen, or their words, or their actions. It must be understood that all of these realized that without religion, man is destitute. His governments do not work, his values are shifting sand, and even America, in its prosperity and order would cease to exist as we know it, if not vanish as a nation altogether, should its religion die altogether as a result of the government. Rally yourselves then, to protect the liberties of all, and forsake none. Culture evolves constantly and it is the duty of those who have a hand in shaping it, to do so to the good of their fellow man, and to lead by example, the system they wish to exist after them. If not with your own hand will you seek to protect liberty, than by whose then shall it prevail? If the spirit of goodwill and good faith has left the hearts of the people, then the culture is doomed to failure. Be of no mind then, to promote your interests above that of another, recognizing that the greater condemnation lies with those who have the responsibility of leadership.

Thomas Jefferson

And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?

The Bible is the cornerstone of liberty.

Andrew Jackson

The Bible is the rock upon which our republic stands.

John Adams

Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. Only Jesus can insure freedom for the people of this poor fallen world.