Madison In Context by Jeff Jackson (7/10/04)

"Because experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." - James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785

This quote is often used by the radical left in order to show that our founding fathers were not followers of "Judeo-Christian" beliefs or that they did not like Judeo-Christians.  To understand this quote which looks damning on it's face, we must understand the whole issue discussed in this presentation by Mr. Madison.  In fact, this quote is a prime example of quotes taken out of context and comes from point number 7 of the entire argument against a particular Bill.

Madison had a fear.  This fear was that if the Bill in debate and entitled "A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion" were placed into law that the state could use this Bill to enforce a particular sect of Christianity upon the people.  "A Memorial and Remonstrance" is a chronology, presented by Mr. Madison that shows how such an innocent Bill could be used for sinister purposes.

A review of the Bill shows that it was proposed to enact a "tax" on the people and that this "tax" should be dispersed proportionately to the different sects of Christianity based on a summary of how many people from each sect paid.  Then further that these taxes, once distributed would be used by the sects to pay for teachers of the Christian religion as each sect approved for themselves.

Mr. Madison, however saw many problems with this and his reasoning of these problems is sound in that if the government establishes itself as the controller of the teachers of Christianity by paying them through taxing the public, then the state could use those teachers to teach it's version of Christianity and thus usurp religious freedom.  His fear was that government could twist the Bill into not paying certain teachers that were critical of elected officials and government and then pay for others that were more favorable.  He was a student of history and had seen how kings and despots had used the church to prosecute in the past.  By putting the clergy or the teachers directly on the payroll of the government, Madison feared that it would make them beholden to the government and easily controlled by simply applying pressure.

Madison further believed that it did not take forced government confiscation of wealth to "promote Christianity".  He believed that tithing and voluntary donation worked better and in fact he noted in this same presentation "(I)t is a contradiction to fact; for it is known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them, and not only during the period of miraculous aid, but long after it had been left to its own evidence and the ordinary care of Providence".  The entire point of Patrick Henry's proposed Bill was to support religion.  James Madison saw, rightfully, that religion and God flourishes without government interference.

He further said "the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy" and showed his fear of an inquisition by magistrates who chose to interpret what was and what was not Christian "truth" and perhaps even withhold funds from sects that did not agree.  He further backed up this position by saying "What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people"

Once again however he is talking about the "church" not Christianity as a basic religion.

Mr. Madison is not criticizing Judeo-Christian beliefs as a religious ideology or denouncing them.  He is criticizing the "church" and the problems inherent in an organized religion that breed a distortion of its true form and further issuing a warning of what becomes when the State puts the Church on it's payroll.  And in the end he is not arguing against Judeo-Christianity, but rather putting forth his fears that such a Bill would make one particular sect dominant and government sanctioned (violating the first amendment), thus infringing on the liberties of all.

It is easy to see the misconceptions that stem forth from this quote when taken out of context.  That is why we must put these things IN context lest we be destroyed from within.

Further it should be noted that this debate focused squarely around the concept of sects of Christianity.  It did not include Buddhism or Islam or any other religion and Madison never states that America was not founded upon Christian ideas as some would have you believe this quote is meant to infer or that the government was to be non religious entirely.  Nor did he ever voice a concern about religions other than Christianity.

We can look even further into this issue for more proof of what Madison meant.  If we look at the annals of Congress (Volume 1, starting on page 757) we can see what in fact Madison truly believed the first amendment was to mean.  On Saturday, August 15th, Madison, Sylvester, Gerry, Boudinot, Carrol, Sherman, Vining, and Huntington were hashing out the first amendment to make certain it said exactly as they wanted it to and it's meaning clear.

Mr. Sylvester (pg 757) clearly states that his opinion is that the first amendment should not be reworded such as to imply that it was meant to abolish or hinder religion and Mr. Gerry expressed that the amendment would be clearer if it stated "no religious doctrine shall be established by law" and Mr. Sherman expressed that the amendment was entirely unnecessary as Congress had not explicitly been granted the right to make religious establishments (i.e. churches) anyway.

Enter Mr. Madison (pg 758), who further clarified that it was his understanding that the "Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law".  This pretty clearly defines what Madison meant by the first amendment which he himself proposed.  Further he contemplated "if the word national was inserted before religion, it would satisfy the minds of the honorable gentlemen".  And that according to the annals "He feared that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence or two combine together and establish a religion in which they would compel others to conform."  Further that "if the word national was introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent."

We can see by James Madison's own words EXACTLY what he thought about the first amendment and religion.  He though that Christian religion was fine, but that government should not pass a law that directly forced people to worship a certain way "or else" and that it shouldn't pass law that made any sect potential subservient to the government (see A Memorial And Remonstrance).

Some will, however not find this enough and will attempt to focus on two later curious statements by Madison.  The first is his veto message of February 21, 1811 in which he replies to "An Act incorporating the Protestant Episcopal Church in the town of Alexander, in the District of Columbia" with "Because the bill exceeds the rightful authority to which governments are limited by the essential distinction between civil and religious functions, and violates in particular the article of the Constitution of the United States which declares 'Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment.'"

Some constitutional "scholars" comment that his rewording of the first amendment is proof that Madison viewed the first amendment as preventing Congress from "respecting" or touching religious institutions in any way.  Which, with all due respect to to these "scholars" this is contradictory to Madison's own words above and had they continued on they would see that Mr. Madison clearly states that his veto is because of his thoughts that this Bill enacted potential rules regulating the Church beyond what the Church had set forth and thus constituted a "religious establishment by law" by making the Church potentially accountable to the State.

Madison also likely objected because, like in "A Memorial and Remonstrance" he understood the potential of future abuse should a law be established citing a specific sect and used the phrase here interchangeably and with the same meaning as the actual wording of the first amendment.  His use of the phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment" is entirely in line with the first amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" because doing the first leads into the second by correlation.  Any time the State makes laws that effects a religious establishment, it makes that religious establishment part of and submissive to the State.

His second veto of February 28th, 1811 where he again using the wording "'Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment" is in response to "An Act for the relief of Richard Trevin, William Coleman, Edwin Lewis, Samuel Mims, Joseph Wilson, and the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, in the Mississippi Territory,"  Madison, if he is being consistent is again using the wording interchangeably with what he clearly stated as the purpose of the first amendment above and not as some would have you believe that Madison was against religion or Christianity as a whole.  Instead, he again recognized the potential for abuse of any Bill put forth that specifically favors one sect or makes that sect beholden to the government.

So when people point out to you that Madison himself was against Judeo-Christian beliefs please remember to put it in context.  Everything changes when you do that.  It is very easy to take a small section of a longer piece and point to it as "proof".  Look at the passages around it however and the real truth is often revealed.