The Rise and Fall of Religious Liberty in America
By C. M. S.
The “Christian Nation” Decision
The great growth in power and influence of that element which is seeking to turn this nation back to religious tyranny was pointed out last week. It was shown that from one organization in 1864, working to that end, the number had grown to four in 1888. Besides these there are numerous subsidiary organizations working toward the accomplishment of the same purpose. It is but natural to suppose that with this great growth in numbers, in power, and in influence, we should begin to see the effects of the national reform propaganda upon the legislation of the country, and upon the legislators themselves in their attitude toward church-and-state problems. And we do see that effect at the present time. Not only do we see it in legislation and legislators, but we see it in the interpretations of law, both State and national. If the acquisition of numbers and influence has been instrumental in accomplishing much, the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of “The Rector, Church Wardens, and Vestrymen of the Church of the Holy Trinity vs. the United States,” has opened the door for the accomplishment of much more. The decision was rendered Feb. 29, 1892, and was prepared and read by Mr. Justice Brewer. In the argument giving the reason for the decision which was to follow, Justice Brewer declared that “this is a Christian nation,” basing that dictum largely upon the declared purposes of those who sent out the exploring and colonizing expeditions, and upon certain expressions in the constitutions of the several States of the United States. It will not be out of harmony with the plan of these articles to consider, briefly, Justice Brewer’s reasons for such a pronouncement concerning this country. In showing that it was not the intent of the lawmakers to prohibit an American church from contracting with a foreign minister for his services as pastor, the justice says:— This is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour there is a single voice making this affirmation. For this to be true, even in name only, it would be necessary that every inhabitant of the country be at least a professed Christian; but not only is this not the case, but not even a majority of the people make such profession. That is not gold which is half copper or three-fourths silver; neither is that nation Christian or religious which is half outside the pale of the organized church, or three-fourths infidel at heart. And even if Justice Brewer’s statement, as quoted above, were strictly true, so long as this nation remains true to the principles upon which it was founded, this still would not be a Christian nation; for the separation of church and state makes it impossible that the nation should be designated by the name of any religion. And this does not preclude the idea, either, of Christianity being the dominant faith in the country, at the same time, even to the extent that every heart has been converted to God, and believed in and accepted Jesus Christ as the Redeemer of the race. It could be a nation of Christians, and yet not be a Christian nation. The Christian nation must have Christ as its king in temporal or civil affairs as well as in “spiritual concernments;” and our Lord has plainly declared, “My kingdom is not of this world.” The Christian nation is Christ’s nation, and that will not come until after he has broken all others “with a rod of iron,” scattered their fragments to the four winds, and burned the residue in the purifying fires of the last great day. Because there was a religious idea in the minds of those who sent out exploring parties and companies of immigrants, we are not forced to the conclusion that the new nation must be a Christian nation, any more than we are compelled to conclude that because those who financed the first expedition were monarchs, and thus imbued with the monarchical idea, the nation to be brought forth upon this continent must be a monarchy. If this nation must be a Christian nation because of the religious idea in the minds of those who sent out the exploring and colonizing expeditions, we have a right to ask, “Of what brand of Christianity shall it be?” Ferdinand and Isabella, who commissioned Columbus, and who “hoped that by God’s assistance some of the continents and islands in the ocean will be discovered,” were ardent Catholics. Episcopal Elizabeth, “by the grace of God, of England, Fraunce, and Ireland, queene, defender of the faith,” particularly specified in her6grant to Sir Walter Raleigh that in making laws for the colony “they be not against the true Christian faith nowe professed in the Church of England.” As it was impossible that both purposes should be carried out in the making of this nation,—that is, that it should be both Roman Catholic and Episcopal at the same time,—the argument of Justice Brewer falls by its own weight. If the purpose of European monarchs is to be woven into great governing facts for the present time, then this is not a republic, but a monarchy, and is still ruled by despots across the sea, for all that was in their purpose. In referring to the same grant made to Sir Walter Raleigh, Justice Brewer says:— In language more or less emphatic, is the establishment of the Christian religion declared to be one of the purposes of the grant. But what has this nation to do with the “establishment of the Christian religion,” especially since the adoption of the First Amendment to the Constitution? That amendment reads:— Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. If the religious purpose of European sovereigns concerning America makes this a Christian nation, then their purpose to establish the Christian religion here does so establish that religion as the religion of this nation. But neither is true. The religious purpose of a dead European sovereign is far from sufficient to make this a Christian nation, and the national Constitution specifically prohibits the enactment of any federal statute establishing any religion. It is the Constitution of the country, and not the obsolete purpose of a foreign ruler, that determines the character of the nation. While a large portion of the people are religiously inclined, and while the majority have some sort of respect for religion in the abstract, it is not true that the people as a people are religious, or that the nation as a nation is Christian. The prohibition against the establishment of any religion by law in this country precludes the possibility of correctly designating this nation as a Christian nation. In further effort to prove this a Christian nation, Justice Brewer refers to the religious-test oath of Delaware found in the constitution of 1776, Article 22:— I, A. B., do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ his only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed forevermore; and I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration. Under that constitution no citizen, however well qualified, could hold “any office or place of trust” unless he would take the above oath; and Justice Brewer uses that as one of the proofs that this is a Christian nation. It would have been but just to the State of Delaware for Justice Brewer to have stated that in her constitution of 1792 Delaware repudiated that provision in these words: No religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, under this State.—Constitution of 1792, Article I, Section 2. Delaware repeats the repudiation of that principle in her constitution of 1831, Article I, Section 2. If her organic utterance of 1776 helped to make this a Christian nation, what shall be said of her organic utterances of 1792 and 1831? Whatever the former proved, the latter disproved. It is therefore a fact, which must be patent to all, that neither the organic utterances of individual States nor the declared purpose of foreign sovereigns have anything to do in determining the character of the nation as it exists to-day. The nation must be judged by its own organic utterances; and these are to the effect that church and state are separate, religious tests abolished, no religion established, and the nation not in any sense “founded on the Christian religion.” Nevertheless Justice Brewer declared:— These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations in the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation. The effect of this declaration (concurred in by the other members of the Supreme court by virtue of their concurrence in the decision to which it led up) was immediately apparent. Within two months from the date of that Supreme Court decision, the president of the American Sabbath Union appeared before committees of the Senate and the House, and demanded the closing of the Columbian Exposition on Sunday “because this is a Christian nation,” quoting the argument of Justice Brewer to prove his contention, and citing his dictum upon that point to show the necessity of closing the exposition gates on Sunday. Thus the first use to which that dictum was put was to commit the nation to a course of religious legislation subversive of the fundamental principles of the government. The influence of this dictum, and the result of the advantage taken of it by ecclesiastical politicians, will be considered in another article. C. M. S.