Re: Bishop John Hughes, Protestant Public Schools in New York, and Political Activity by Clergy
I also refer briefly to Hughes' political activity in my The Bible, the School and the Constitution (OUP, 2012). -- Steven K. Green, J.D., Ph.D. Fred H. Paulus Professor of Law and Director Center for Religion, Law and Democracy Willamette University 900 State St., S.E. Salem, Oregon 97301 503-370-6732 On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 5:23 AM, Marc Stern ste...@ajc.org wrote: The story is well told in Diane ravitch's The Great School Wars Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Verizon Wireless 4G LTE network. Original Message From: Graber, Mark Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2014 7:51 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Reply To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Bishop John Hughes, Protestant Public Schools in New York, and Political Activity by Clergy For those interested in the actual debates, the sacred Gillman, Graber, Whittington, Volume II has excerpts from John Hughes call for public support for Catholic Schools and the Episcopal response. Pages 230-34. I probably can send people a word version if interested. From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [ religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] on behalf of Saperstein, David [ dsaperst...@rac.org] Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2014 7:27 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Bishop John Hughes, Protestant Public Schools in New York, and Political Activity by Clergy Paul and Mark's posts raise fascinating historical insights. As some of you know, I have been working on a book for a while on the use of religion in American elections, so any interesting historical examples you come across like this, I would greatly appreciate being sent . But as to the debate over clergy involvement on political issues , the posts appear to conflate religious institutional involvement in partisan electoral political activity (which according to the IRS/FEC rules cannot be done at all --except in a purely personal capacity by clergy--and no tax exempt money could be used for) and Paul's reference to speak out on public issues type political activity, which, as Paul and everyone on the list knows, can be done with tax exempt money, with the obvious substantiality or 501h limitations as to lobbying. Since these rules did not exist in Archbishop Hughes' day, I would think , Mark , that his model, or that of the political practices of other religious groups at that time, is of great historical public policy interest but (with few or any on point court decisions from that era), not really relevant to the debates we face today on e.g. candidate endorsements from the pulpit with no IRS/FEC restrictions. As to Marty Lederman's query to Mark (who opposes clergy political activity?), that this latter example is the kind of political activity some (many?) on this list oppose to which Mark's challenge is addressed. But Mark can certainly clarify for himself. Best wishes for a joyful and meaningful Christmas to all who celebrate it. David Sent from my iPhone Sent from my iPhone On Dec 24, 2014, at 7:19 PM, Finkelman, Paul paul.finkel...@albanylaw.edu wrote: I have written a bit about this in my biography of Millard Fillmore --who was totally insensitive to issues involving Catholics, Jews, and blacks -- a sort of equal opportunity bigot. If was state wide, not just NYC. Fillmore lost the NY Gov. race in 1844 in part over this issue -- to the extent that he alienated almost all Catholic voters in the state. The issue may have affected the presidential race as well, since Clay lots NY State to Polk by about 5,000 votes. The issue is in part that the school day began with a prayer and a Bible reading, and the prayer was Protestant (usually the Protestant Lord's Prayer, not to be confused with the Catholic Lord's Prayer), followed by Bible reading from the King James Bible -- which was also both Protestant and in places translated to be anti-Catholic. Almost all of the teachers were Protestant in a pre-Civil Service world. I am not sure what the curriculum was, but there was certainly a sense among Catholics that the schools were hostile to their faith. It was doubtless tied up up in British vs. Irish ethnic hostility as well (although were there a minority of German Catholics as well, but most of the political conflict was over the Irish). It helped set the stage for various anti-Catholic and anti-Immigrant parties, most famously the Know Nothings, but there were others before that one. (For what it is worth, Millard Fillmore ran for president in 1856 on the Know Nothing ticket, with a party platform provision against Catholics ever holding office in the US). While the Irish generally voted for Democrats, some Whigs -- like William Henry Seward -- supported their position,, not merely to get Catholic votes but because he saw the bigotry in the issue. Mark, I am not sure what you
Re: Bishop John Hughes, Protestant Public Schools in New York, and Political Activity by Clergy
Paul and Mark's posts raise fascinating historical insights. As some of you know, I have been working on a book for a while on the use of religion in American elections, so any interesting historical examples you come across like this, I would greatly appreciate being sent . But as to the debate over clergy involvement on political issues , the posts appear to conflate religious institutional involvement in partisan electoral political activity (which according to the IRS/FEC rules cannot be done at all --except in a purely personal capacity by clergy--and no tax exempt money could be used for) and Paul's reference to speak out on public issues type political activity, which, as Paul and everyone on the list knows, can be done with tax exempt money, with the obvious substantiality or 501h limitations as to lobbying. Since these rules did not exist in Archbishop Hughes' day, I would think , Mark , that his model, or that of the political practices of other religious groups at that time, is of great historical public policy interest but (with few or any on point court decisions from that era), not really relevant to the debates we face today on e.g. candidate endorsements from the pulpit with no IRS/FEC restrictions. As to Marty Lederman's query to Mark (who opposes clergy political activity?), that this latter example is the kind of political activity some (many?) on this list oppose to which Mark's challenge is addressed. But Mark can certainly clarify for himself. Best wishes for a joyful and meaningful Christmas to all who celebrate it. David Sent from my iPhone Sent from my iPhone On Dec 24, 2014, at 7:19 PM, Finkelman, Paul paul.finkel...@albanylaw.edu wrote: I have written a bit about this in my biography of Millard Fillmore --who was totally insensitive to issues involving Catholics, Jews, and blacks -- a sort of equal opportunity bigot. If was state wide, not just NYC. Fillmore lost the NY Gov. race in 1844 in part over this issue -- to the extent that he alienated almost all Catholic voters in the state. The issue may have affected the presidential race as well, since Clay lots NY State to Polk by about 5,000 votes. The issue is in part that the school day began with a prayer and a Bible reading, and the prayer was Protestant (usually the Protestant Lord's Prayer, not to be confused with the Catholic Lord's Prayer), followed by Bible reading from the King James Bible -- which was also both Protestant and in places translated to be anti-Catholic. Almost all of the teachers were Protestant in a pre-Civil Service world. I am not sure what the curriculum was, but there was certainly a sense among Catholics that the schools were hostile to their faith. It was doubtless tied up up in British vs. Irish ethnic hostility as well (although were there a minority of German Catholics as well, but most of the political conflict was over the Irish). It helped set the stage for various anti-Catholic and anti-Immigrant parties, most famously the Know Nothings, but there were others before that one. (For what it is worth, Millard Fillmore ran for president in 1856 on the Know Nothing ticket, with a party platform provision against Catholics ever holding office in the US). While the Irish generally voted for Democrats, some Whigs -- like William Henry Seward -- supported their position,, not merely to get Catholic votes but because he saw the bigotry in the issue. Mark, I am not sure what you mean by oppose clergy political activity. I oppose religious bodies using their tax exempt status for political purposes. I think that is wrong and probably illegal. I think all Americans should be politically active, and that includes the Clergy. I think members of the Clergy should speak out -- as citizens -- on public issues, as long as they are not doing it on tax exempt money. The easy way is to create organizations that are not religious but are supportive of religious goals, to support political issues. I am pretty sure the Catholic Church, for example, did not fund Father Robert Drinan's successful campaigns for Congress. There are number of members of Congress now (or in the recent past) who are members of the clergy. Surely that is not a problem as long as their campaigns are not funded by tax-deductible contributions to their church. Obviously this analysis is anachronistic and perhaps irrelevant for the mid-19th century. In that period members of the clergy were deeply involved in political issues, although not (as far as I know) ever telling their flock how to vote or arguing that politicians should be denied communion based on their political position. The most obvious example of political/religious debate was over slavery; where three church split into southern and northern branches and thousands of ministers gave sermons for or against slavery. The
RE: Bishop John Hughes, Protestant Public Schools in New York, and Political Activity by Clergy
For those interested in the actual debates, the sacred Gillman, Graber, Whittington, Volume II has excerpts from John Hughes call for public support for Catholic Schools and the Episcopal response. Pages 230-34. I probably can send people a word version if interested. From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] on behalf of Saperstein, David [dsaperst...@rac.org] Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2014 7:27 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Bishop John Hughes, Protestant Public Schools in New York, and Political Activity by Clergy Paul and Mark's posts raise fascinating historical insights. As some of you know, I have been working on a book for a while on the use of religion in American elections, so any interesting historical examples you come across like this, I would greatly appreciate being sent . But as to the debate over clergy involvement on political issues , the posts appear to conflate religious institutional involvement in partisan electoral political activity (which according to the IRS/FEC rules cannot be done at all --except in a purely personal capacity by clergy--and no tax exempt money could be used for) and Paul's reference to speak out on public issues type political activity, which, as Paul and everyone on the list knows, can be done with tax exempt money, with the obvious substantiality or 501h limitations as to lobbying. Since these rules did not exist in Archbishop Hughes' day, I would think , Mark , that his model, or that of the political practices of other religious groups at that time, is of great historical public policy interest but (with few or any on point court decisions from that era), not really relevant to the debates we face today on e.g. candidate endorsements from the pulpit with no IRS/FEC restrictions. As to Marty Lederman's query to Mark (who opposes clergy political activity?), that this latter example is the kind of political activity some (many?) on this list oppose to which Mark's challenge is addressed. But Mark can certainly clarify for himself. Best wishes for a joyful and meaningful Christmas to all who celebrate it. David Sent from my iPhone Sent from my iPhone On Dec 24, 2014, at 7:19 PM, Finkelman, Paul paul.finkel...@albanylaw.edu wrote: I have written a bit about this in my biography of Millard Fillmore --who was totally insensitive to issues involving Catholics, Jews, and blacks -- a sort of equal opportunity bigot. If was state wide, not just NYC. Fillmore lost the NY Gov. race in 1844 in part over this issue -- to the extent that he alienated almost all Catholic voters in the state. The issue may have affected the presidential race as well, since Clay lots NY State to Polk by about 5,000 votes. The issue is in part that the school day began with a prayer and a Bible reading, and the prayer was Protestant (usually the Protestant Lord's Prayer, not to be confused with the Catholic Lord's Prayer), followed by Bible reading from the King James Bible -- which was also both Protestant and in places translated to be anti-Catholic. Almost all of the teachers were Protestant in a pre-Civil Service world. I am not sure what the curriculum was, but there was certainly a sense among Catholics that the schools were hostile to their faith. It was doubtless tied up up in British vs. Irish ethnic hostility as well (although were there a minority of German Catholics as well, but most of the political conflict was over the Irish). It helped set the stage for various anti-Catholic and anti-Immigrant parties, most famously the Know Nothings, but there were others before that one. (For what it is worth, Millard Fillmore ran for president in 1856 on the Know Nothing ticket, with a party platform provision against Catholics ever holding office in the US). While the Irish generally voted for Democrats, some Whigs -- like William Henry Seward -- supported their position,, not merely to get Catholic votes but because he saw the bigotry in the issue. Mark, I am not sure what you mean by oppose clergy political activity. I oppose religious bodies using their tax exempt status for political purposes. I think that is wrong and probably illegal. I think all Americans should be politically active, and that includes the Clergy. I think members of the Clergy should speak out -- as citizens -- on public issues, as long as they are not doing it on tax exempt money. The easy way is to create organizations that are not religious but are supportive of religious goals, to support political issues. I am pretty sure the Catholic Church, for example, did not fund Father Robert Drinan's successful campaigns for Congress. There are number of members of Congress now (or in the recent past) who are members of the clergy. Surely that is not a problem as long as their campaigns
Re: Bishop John Hughes, Protestant Public Schools in New York, and Political Activity by Clergy
The story is well told in Diane ravitch's The Great School Wars Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Verizon Wireless 4G LTE network. Original Message From: Graber, Mark Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2014 7:51 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Reply To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Bishop John Hughes, Protestant Public Schools in New York, and Political Activity by Clergy For those interested in the actual debates, the sacred Gillman, Graber, Whittington, Volume II has excerpts from John Hughes call for public support for Catholic Schools and the Episcopal response. Pages 230-34. I probably can send people a word version if interested. From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] on behalf of Saperstein, David [dsaperst...@rac.org] Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2014 7:27 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Bishop John Hughes, Protestant Public Schools in New York, and Political Activity by Clergy Paul and Mark's posts raise fascinating historical insights. As some of you know, I have been working on a book for a while on the use of religion in American elections, so any interesting historical examples you come across like this, I would greatly appreciate being sent . But as to the debate over clergy involvement on political issues , the posts appear to conflate religious institutional involvement in partisan electoral political activity (which according to the IRS/FEC rules cannot be done at all --except in a purely personal capacity by clergy--and no tax exempt money could be used for) and Paul's reference to speak out on public issues type political activity, which, as Paul and everyone on the list knows, can be done with tax exempt money, with the obvious substantiality or 501h limitations as to lobbying. Since these rules did not exist in Archbishop Hughes' day, I would think , Mark , that his model, or that of the political practices of other religious groups at that time, is of great historical public policy interest but (with few or any on point court decisions from that era), not really relevant to the debates we face today on e.g. candidate endorsements from the pulpit with no IRS/FEC restrictions. As to Marty Lederman's query to Mark (who opposes clergy political activity?), that this latter example is the kind of political activity some (many?) on this list oppose to which Mark's challenge is addressed. But Mark can certainly clarify for himself. Best wishes for a joyful and meaningful Christmas to all who celebrate it. David Sent from my iPhone Sent from my iPhone On Dec 24, 2014, at 7:19 PM, Finkelman, Paul paul.finkel...@albanylaw.edu wrote: I have written a bit about this in my biography of Millard Fillmore --who was totally insensitive to issues involving Catholics, Jews, and blacks -- a sort of equal opportunity bigot. If was state wide, not just NYC. Fillmore lost the NY Gov. race in 1844 in part over this issue -- to the extent that he alienated almost all Catholic voters in the state. The issue may have affected the presidential race as well, since Clay lots NY State to Polk by about 5,000 votes. The issue is in part that the school day began with a prayer and a Bible reading, and the prayer was Protestant (usually the Protestant Lord's Prayer, not to be confused with the Catholic Lord's Prayer), followed by Bible reading from the King James Bible -- which was also both Protestant and in places translated to be anti-Catholic. Almost all of the teachers were Protestant in a pre-Civil Service world. I am not sure what the curriculum was, but there was certainly a sense among Catholics that the schools were hostile to their faith. It was doubtless tied up up in British vs. Irish ethnic hostility as well (although were there a minority of German Catholics as well, but most of the political conflict was over the Irish). It helped set the stage for various anti-Catholic and anti-Immigrant parties, most famously the Know Nothings, but there were others before that one. (For what it is worth, Millard Fillmore ran for president in 1856 on the Know Nothing ticket, with a party platform provision against Catholics ever holding office in the US). While the Irish generally voted for Democrats, some Whigs -- like William Henry Seward -- supported their position,, not merely to get Catholic votes but because he saw the bigotry in the issue. Mark, I am not sure what you mean by oppose clergy political activity. I oppose religious bodies using their tax exempt status for political purposes. I think that is wrong and probably illegal. I think all Americans should be politically active, and that includes the Clergy. I think members of the Clergy should speak out -- as citizens -- on public issues, as long as they are not doing it on tax exempt
RE: Bishop John Hughes, Protestant Public Schools in New York, and Political Activity by Clergy
I have written a bit about this in my biography of Millard Fillmore --who was totally insensitive to issues involving Catholics, Jews, and blacks -- a sort of equal opportunity bigot. If was state wide, not just NYC. Fillmore lost the NY Gov. race in 1844 in part over this issue -- to the extent that he alienated almost all Catholic voters in the state. The issue may have affected the presidential race as well, since Clay lots NY State to Polk by about 5,000 votes. The issue is in part that the school day began with a prayer and a Bible reading, and the prayer was Protestant (usually the Protestant Lord's Prayer, not to be confused with the Catholic Lord's Prayer), followed by Bible reading from the King James Bible -- which was also both Protestant and in places translated to be anti-Catholic. Almost all of the teachers were Protestant in a pre-Civil Service world. I am not sure what the curriculum was, but there was certainly a sense among Catholics that the schools were hostile to their faith. It was doubtless tied up up in British vs. Irish ethnic hostility as well (although were there a minority of German Catholics as well, but most of the political conflict was over the Irish). It helped set the stage for various anti-Catholic and anti-Immigrant parties, most famously the Know Nothings, but there were others before that one. (For what it is worth, Millard Fillmore ran for president in 1856 on the Know Nothing ticket, with a party platform provision against Catholics ever holding office in the US). While the Irish generally voted for Democrats, some Whigs -- like William Henry Seward -- supported their position,, not merely to get Catholic votes but because he saw the bigotry in the issue. Mark, I am not sure what you mean by oppose clergy political activity. I oppose religious bodies using their tax exempt status for political purposes. I think that is wrong and probably illegal. I think all Americans should be politically active, and that includes the Clergy. I think members of the Clergy should speak out -- as citizens -- on public issues, as long as they are not doing it on tax exempt money. The easy way is to create organizations that are not religious but are supportive of religious goals, to support political issues. I am pretty sure the Catholic Church, for example, did not fund Father Robert Drinan's successful campaigns for Congress. There are number of members of Congress now (or in the recent past) who are members of the clergy. Surely that is not a problem as long as their campaigns are not funded by tax-deductible contributions to their church. Obviously this analysis is anachronistic and perhaps irrelevant for the mid-19th century. In that period members of the clergy were deeply involved in political issues, although not (as far as I know) ever telling their flock how to vote or arguing that politicians should be denied communion based on their political position. The most obvious example of political/religious debate was over slavery; where three church split into southern and northern branches and thousands of ministers gave sermons for or against slavery. The southern churches funded books and essay contests to prove that the Bible supported slavery. My favorite book title of the period is The Duties of a Christian Master, which was not (as some might think today) to free his slaves! * Paul Finkelman Senior Fellow Penn Program on Democracy, Citizenship, and Constitutionalism University of Pennsylvania and Scholar-in-Residence National Constitution Center Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 518-439-7296 (p) 518-605-0296 (c) paul.finkel...@albanylaw.edu www.paulfinkelman.com * From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] on behalf of Scarberry, Mark [mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu] Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2014 6:21 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Bishop John Hughes, Protestant Public Schools in New York, and Political Activity by Clergy It seems that Bishop John Hughes in New York endorsed political candidates. Apparently he opposed public funding of schools that taught Protestantism unless funds were also provided for Catholic schools, as he requested. When the request was denied, he endorsed political candidates who took steps to remove religion from NY public schools (New York City, I think, rather than New York State, but I could be wrong). My sense is that New York public schools (perhaps in NY City or perhaps just elsewhere in the state) continued to (or eventually later began again to) promulgate Protestantism, at least of a sort. I'd be interested in hearing from list members who oppose clergy political activity what they think about this example. Mark Mark S. Scarberry Professor of Law
Re: Bishop John Hughes, Protestant Public Schools in New York, and Political Activity by Clergy
Who opposes clergy political activity? Sent from my iPhone On Dec 24, 2014, at 6:21 PM, Scarberry, Mark mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu wrote: It seems that Bishop John Hughes in New York endorsed political candidates. Apparently he opposed public funding of schools that taught Protestantism unless funds were also provided for Catholic schools, as he requested. When the request was denied, he endorsed political candidates who took steps to remove religion from NY public schools (New York City, I think, rather than New York State, but I could be wrong). My sense is that New York public schools (perhaps in NY City or perhaps just elsewhere in the state) continued to (or eventually later began again to) promulgate Protestantism, at least of a sort. I'd be interested in hearing from list members who oppose clergy political activity what they think about this example. Mark Mark S. Scarberry Professor of Law Pepperdine Univ. School of Law ___ 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. ___ 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.
