The more important document is the New Hampshire of 1784. That Constitution established church and that esablishment existed into the 1870s or beyond. The 1902 --YES *1902* -- that is not a type --Constitution provides "for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality." (Part First, Bill of Rights, Art. 6). The same clause allows for freedom of worship for "every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves quietly and as good subjects of the state." So much for Jews, Moslems (there were Moslem immigrants coming in significant numbers by this time) or for that matter, perhaps some boisterous Protestants. (this language was also in the 1784 Constitution.
This is important because Mr. New is making the disingenuous and completely misleading argument that at the founding NH had an establishment, but did not mention religion in its Constitution.. This is not so. The 1784 Constitution, with a number of references to God and religion, was in place when the Constitution was written.
As for Mr. New's "believe" ("I think...") there are a number of very significant historians who have spent years studying these issues who would dispute his simplistic notions of what the framers "acknowledged." Moreover, what they meant by "God" might be quite different from what we mean today. I am also uncertain what in fact he means witht the sentence: "I think there is no question that the framers of the U.S. Constitution acknowledged God." Does he mean individual framers believed in God. Well sure! No one doubts that. (althought some like Franklin were diests, which would mean their belief in "God" was not what most religious people would accept); but if he thinks they acknowledged "God" in the Constitution he must be working with a different set of standards for historical analysis than I learned when I got my Ph.D.
David W. New wrote:
I think contemporary historians read too much in the fact that the word "God" does not appear in the U.S. Constitution. It is true that most early state constitutions had a lot to say about God and religion generally. The Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 is a good example of this. But some did not. For example, most historians agree that New Hampshire had an established religion until 1817. However, the first state Constitution of New Hampshire did not use the word "God" at all nor did it have anything to say about religion generally-- even though it had an established religion. I think there is no question that the framers of the U.S. Constitution acknowledged God. I cite George Washington's very first proclamation as President of the United States on October 3, 1789. As you know, George Washington was President of the constitutional convention. Here is the opening sentence of the Proclamaiton: "Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits..." I have written an article "Where is God in the Constitution?" If you wish, please enter the title on Google and you may read it at your leisure. I explain why the word "God" does not appear in the Preamble or in the First Amendment. I like the discussion.David W. New, Esq. Washington, D.C. 202-333-2678. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kurt Lash" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2005 1:44 PM Subject: Re: God in the ConstitutionRobert Justin Lipkin wrote: "Nevertheless, it seems odd (that is, worthy of explanation if not necessary) that the Constitution of a deeply devout population would simply be silent on the issue of God. If so, some explanation seems desirable, if not absolutely necessary." I think the most likely explanation is federalism. Any recognition of God in the federal Constitution could be read to imply a certain degree of federal responsibility over a matters religious. Everyone agreed that the federal government was to have no power to regulate religion, so, following the Madisonian approach, the subject of God was not addressed--it was not a federal matter. The people of each state had their own different approaches, from the establishment of Mass. to the disestablishment of Va.--and this independent approach was positively protected under the First and Tenth Amendments. . . at least until the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. Kurt Lash Loyola Law School, L.A. Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1107107937" -------------------------------1107107937 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/30/2005 12:39:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Some New England antifederalists complained that the Constitution didnotestablish religion. Although perhaps difficult to draw, in every case, I think there's a distinction between establishing religion in the sense of recognizingonly oneofficial church and expressing that church's religious values into lawand simplywanting to express that the new republic acknowledges its dependence (in several different senses of course) on God. In other words, threedistinctproposals seem possible. First, the new republic will establish religion(andreligious law) as the law of the republic. Second, the new republicrecognizesthe role of God in human morality and politics, especially, as theargumentgoes, democratic politics without requiring from the start the _expression_ofGod's role into law. And finally, the new republic rejects any relation necessary (or formally required) relationship between religion andgovernment. Ofcourse, a fourth possibility exists, namely, the Constitution of the new republic is simply silent on the relationship between religion andgovernment,neither embracing it or rejecting it. The Constitution's silence can beunderstoodas embracing the fourth possibility, not the third. Nevertheless, itseemsodd (that is, worthy of explanation if not necessary) that theConstitutionof a deeply devout population would simply be silent on the issue of God.Ifso, some explanation seems desirable, if not absolutely necessary. Bobby Robert Justin Lipkin Professor of Law Widener University School of Law Delaware -------------------------------1107107937 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3DUS-ASCII"> <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2523" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY id=3Drole_body style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000;FONT-FAMILY:=20=Arial"=20 bottomMargin=3D7 leftMargin=3D7 topMargin=3D7 rightMargin=3D7><FONTid=3Drol=e_document=20 face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D2> <DIV> <DIV> <DIV>In a message dated 1/30/2005 12:39:18 PM Eastern Standard Time,=20 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE=20 style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2pxsolid"><=FONT=20 style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=3DArial color=3D#000000size==3D2>Some New=20 England antifederalists complained that the Constitution didnot=20establish religion. </FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV> <DIV></DIV> Althoughperhaps=20difficult to draw, in every case, I think there's a distinction between=20 establishing religion in the sense of recognizing only one official churcha=nd=20 expressing that church's religious values into law and simply wanting toexp=ress=20 that the new republic acknowledges its dependence (in several differentsens=es=20 of course) on God. In other words, three distinct proposals seempossib=le.=20 First, the new republic will establish religion (and religious law) as thel=aw=20 of the republic. Second, the new republic recognizes the role of Godi=n=20 human morality and politics, especially, as the argument goes,democratic=20politics without requiring from the start the _expression_ of God's roleinto=20=law.=20 And finally, the new republic rejects any relation necessary (orformally=20required) relationship between religion and government. Of course, afourth=20possibility exists, namely, the Constitution of the new republic issimply=20silent on the relationship between religion and government, neitherembracin=g it=20 or rejecting it. The Constitution's silence can be understood asembrac=ing=20 the fourth possibility, not the third. Nevertheless, it seems odd (thatis,=20worthy of explanation if not necessary) that the Constitution of adee=ply=20 devout population would simply be silent on the issue of God. If so,some=20explanation seems desirable, if not absolutely necessary.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Bobby</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT lang=3D0 face=3DArial size=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF"PTSIZE=3D"10"=Robert Justin=20Lipkin<BR>Professor of Law<BR>Widener University School of=20 Law<BR>Delaware</FONT></DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML> -------------------------------1107107937------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, seehttp://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed asprivate. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, seehttp://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed asprivate. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
-- Paul Finkelman Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law University of Tulsa College of Law 3120 East 4th Place Tulsa, OK 74104-3189 918-631-3706 (office) 918-631-2194 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
