#50 reply to #42 #43 The states chose Madison’s disestablishment of the Church from the state.
Post #42
The states were free to establish state religions. The federal government was not.
But now we know that you know that Hamilton’s Intent was to disestablish the states from religion.
That’s important because I believe established state Christianity is cited as evidence for Christian Nationalists to call America a Christian nation.
So based on 1807 status with 3 States not yet disestablished, Christian Nationalists would
be more accurate to say America is 0.23% a Christian Nation.
Post #43
How do I know this? Because Hamilton originally drafted the establishment clause to include states but that was defeated in the senate. Just as the Blaine amendment was defeated in the senate when he tried to apply the establishment clause to the states.
So the ‘majority did rule’ in the Senate that day, but at least we know that you know all about Madison’s Intent. And I’m sure you know Madison won the Presidency in 1801 and served two terms through 1809.
Sse “Memorial and Remonstrance “(1785) be low.
Madison had plenty of political victories over establishment Christians like Patrick Henry. But during his presidency, all but three states were disestablished.
In 1784,
Patrick Henry proposed a general tax called the Bill Establishing a Provision for Teachers [Ministers] of the Christian Religion. Similar to some New England state laws, citizens would choose which Christian church received their support, or the money could go to a general fund to be distributed by the state legislature.
James Madison was a vocal opponent of the bill, writing the Memorial and Remonstrance (1785) opposing the proposed tax. He asserted that religion could not be forced on people, and that state support actually corrupted religion. Government properly limited, rather, would promote a civil society in which people of different faiths could maintain their beliefs according to their own consciences. Madison’s side won the debate and Henry’s religious assessments bill did not pass.
Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments
By James Madison
To the Honorable the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia A Memorial and Remonstrance
We the subscribers, citizens of the said Commonwealth, having taken into serious consideration, a Bill printed by order of the last Session of General Assembly, entitled “A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion,” and conceiving that the same if finally armed with the sanctions of a law, will be a dangerous abuse of power, are bound as faithful members of a free State to remonstrate against it, and to declare the reasons by which we are determined. We remonstrate against the said Bill,
1. Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, “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.” [Virginia Declaration of Rights, art. 16] The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, who enters into any subordinate Association, must always do it with a reservation of his duty to the General Authority; much more must every man who becomes a member of any particular Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no mans right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.
