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 have a tendency to abolish religion
altogether.
Mr. VINING suggested the propriety of transposing the two members of the
sentence.
Mr. GERRY said, it would read better if it was, that 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, of
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 amendment he had 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 enforce 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 a 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 upon it. The
ministers of their congregations to the eastward were maintained by the
contributions of those who belonged to their society; the expense of
building meeting-houses was contributed in the same manner. These things
were regulated by by-laws. 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 building 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 a free exercise of the rights 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 combine
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 that amendment; but he did not wish
them to dwell long on the subject. He thought it would be better if it
was 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 had injustice done
them by the title, because 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 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, thirty-one for, and
twenty against it.
_Amendments to the Constitution._