Religion & American Culture 11/17/03 The First Amendment: Then and Now In 1791, with the passage of the Bill of Rights, consisting of the first ten amendments, the United States took on a new character unlike any other nation to that day. The Bill of Rights, largely drawn up by James Madison has been the topic of many heated debates almost since its inception, and in fact continues to be a topic of debate to this very day. The amendments to the Constitution did not come into existence without resistance and many, in the late 18 th and early 19 th centuries, felt its changes as necessary for the health of the Union and for the states therein. However, perhaps the ideas behind the amendment when it was first conceived and the amendment as we read it today are no longer congruent. A historical look at the amendment and its perceptions by the people at the time it was written and a look at the amendment as it is used today in the now famous Virginia court case against Judge Roy Moore will perhaps demonstrate how the amendment has changed over time.
In 1773, the Quebec Act guaranteed the Catholic clergy in Quebec their “custom dues and rites.” Many colonists reacted strongly claiming that this act is tyrannical in that it imposes Catholicism on the general population. All colonial governments demanded religious tests in order to get into office, and many levied religious taxes. Whether they had or had not supported religion, as England had as a State establishment, many were concerned that America was on an English path. In Virginia, after a Declaration of rights was established and had guaranteed religious freedom, a general assessment bill was proposed forcing citizens to pay a religious tax to the church.
14th Amendment Essay United State
More often than not, most Americans look upon the constitution as the guiding light of our country. Recent events occurring in our national election no doubt prove that. There are many important amendments to our Constitution regarding our rights as citizens and the delegation of powers to branches and states. However, I believe that the 14 th amendment is the most important to our constitution. ...
The bill established Christianity as the religion of the state, and furthermore, it freely tolerated only those who acknowledged one God, a future state of reward and punishment, and the necessity for public worship. Non- Christians would have to pay and would not be given any say as to what the money should go towards- a type of freedom of religion so long as you ” re Christian. James Madison was ardently against the bill and argued that when Church and state did commingle, they ultimately corrupted each other. Several other states had similar events.
South Carolina non-Anglicans submitted a petition of dissent that asked “That there never shall be any establishment of any one religious denomination or sect of Protestant Christians in this state by way of preference to another; that no Protestant Inhabitant of this state shall by law be denied the enjoyment of any civil right merely on account of his religious principles, but that all Protestants demeaning themselves peaceably… Shall enjoy free and equal civil and religious privilege.” North Carolina also excluded ministers from the legislature and limited office holdings to Protestants. It declared the free exercise of religion to all and declared that there “shall be no establishment of any religious church or denomination… in preference to any other.” Different groups had different feelings toward the Constitution. The Federalists believed the Constitution was strong and lucid, while the anti-Federalists felt the need for amendments.
Many felt that the new government would deprive them of their religious liberty, and paradoxically, they were also concerned about the absence of a religious test to obtain office. Clearly, religion was ingrained in most people on one level or another. In the first of a series of amendments proposed, James Madison writes: “The Civil Rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed. The Amendment complicates things by instituting federal rule over what is normally state-controlled. Furthermore, it is highly likely that the common feeling that freedom of religion must be a necessity stems from the English religious “establishment.” Such a tyrannical establishment would not be tolerated in the new world, and a system had to be established early on. In 1789, as well as before and after the revolution, Americans thought of establishment as an exclusive government preference for one religion, and not a preference for all religion, which was a possibility as well.
The Term Paper on First Amendment Free Speech Freedom
... abstract (Wyatt 87). This amendment states: Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the ... or other learning resource because it includes social, political, or religious views believed to be inappropriate or threatening. A movie or ...
But when Americans of the 18 th century spoke of religious establishment, they thought of tyranny and not an actual religious system. After much deliberation and careful wording, the first amendment was passed: Amendment I. ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.’ Both houses of congress, after they had agreed to a Bill of Rights passed a resolution for a day of “public thanksgiving and prayers to be observed… for the many signal favors of Almighty God.” For some reason, taking religion from the authority of a religious government was not simple; perhaps it is impossible when religion is so ingrained in the fabric of political society. In a 1947 court case known as the Everson decision, a majority of the justices held that the “establishment of religion” clause of the first amendment means that neither the state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws, which aid one religion, aid all religion, or prefer one religion over another.
The word establishment had already taken on a new meaning. Anson Phelps Stokes writes in 1950 that the Continental Congress showed interest in religion by often using terms such as God, Jesus Christ, the Christian religion and the free Protestant colonies. He concluded that congress saw the importance and the need of encouraging the religious spirit in the new nation, while at the same time avoiding favoritism to any denomination. At the time it was proposed, the first amendment most likely meant that each citizen had a right to the free exercise of his or her religion as long as it did not break out into overt acts against peace and order.
The Essay on Taboo: Religion vs. Government
Church, religion, belief, government? Whenever somebody mentions religion and the government in the same sentence, it seems to be very controversial. The word religion seems to frighten most of society these days, whereas the government and/or politics are discussed frequently. There is a thin line between religion and government. What is religion exactly? How do we as a society view religion ...
The people of almost every state believed that religion should be maintained and supported voluntarily. They saw government attempts to organize and regulate such support as a usurpation of power, as a violation of liberty of conscience and free exercise of religion, and as falling within the scope of what they termed an establishment of religion. More recently, people often refer to the first amendment as the bill that separates church and state, though neither the word church nor state appear in the amendment. In 2001, Chief Justice Judge Roy Moore wheeled in a large sculpture of the Ten Commandments into his courthouse. Since then, there have been heated debates and court cases over whether the sculpture transgresses the first amendment and whether the judge is obligated to remove it. The United States Court of Appeals for the 11 th Circuit explained that the sculpture is a clear violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment clause.
Once again, the word establishment of the late 18 th century could for all intents and purposes have been defined as English tyranny. As quoted in the Times “The Problem with religious displays, such as Judge Moore’s, is that they give the impression that the government endorses religion, in this case Christianity.” Ironically, this issue seems to declare what the government of the time was hoping for, endorsing religion without establishing it. One opponent of the statue says “It offends me going to work everyday and coming face to face with that symbol, which says to me that the state endorses Judge Moore’s version of the Judeo-Christian God above all others.” I am in no position to comment on the legalities of the situation, but it is clear that the authors of the first amendment did not intend to remove religion from the public domain, but to maintain a type of spirituality in the country and a more relaxed attitude toward it. What the first amendment was first and foremost combating was the coercion of Anglicanism forced upon the Colonists by the English. No such coercion has ever existed in the US government. The common conception that the government has no right to touch religion or anything religious in nature appears to be a relatively recent phenomenon, and is most likely not what the originators of the amendment had in mind.
The Term Paper on American Governmen State Government Man
Resistance to Civil Government, or Civil Disobedience Henry David Thoreau [1] I heartily accept the motto, That government is best which governs least; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believeTh at government is best which governs not at all; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of ...
Regardless of the outcome of the case, one thing is certain. The first amendment then is not what it is now, as a number of words have come to be defined differently over the years. Curry, Thomas J. The First Freedoms, Oxford University Press, 1986, pg. 136 149 151 Ibid. 199 209 217 207 221 222 Butler, John Awash in a Sea of Faith, Harvard University Press, 1990, pg.
259 New York Times Editorial, The Ten Commandments Judge, 10/02/03 Christian Science Monitor, Glynn Wilson; Monumental Clash over Ten Commandments; A trial examines whether a judge’s decision to display a stone tablet at a courthouse violates church-state divide, 10/25/02.
