History Forum / General / General Topics / July 2009

You were corrected on the above quote before but you don't seem to want to
correct it:

This is the correct version:  

The above quote isn't quite accurate.  Madison did say the above but not
as one quote. See below:

Congressional Debates: Religious Amendments, 1789
http://candst.tripod.com/1stdebat.htm

August 15, 1789 First Federal Congress (Amendments-religious reference)

[House of Representatives]

The House again went into a Committee of the Whole on the proposed
amendments to the Constitution. Mr. Boudinot in the chair.

The fourth proposition being under consideration, as follows:

(Religious Reference)

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 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 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, a 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 opinion he 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.

[**** EMPHASIS ADDED BY ME ****]

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 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 on it. The ministers of their
congregations to the eastward were maintained by contributions of those who
belong to their society; the expense of building meeting houses was
contributed in the same manner. These things were regulated by bylaws. 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 buildings 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 the free exercise 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 combined
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 the amendment; but he did not wish
them to dwell long on the subject. He thought it would be better if it were
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 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
did 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 single 'no
National religion shall be established by law', did not apply that the
government was a national one; the question was then taken on MR.
LIVERMORE's motion, and passed in the affirmative 31 for it, and 20 against
it.(5)

(End of Religious Reference)

(5). The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States
(Annals of Congress), August 15, 1789, Vol. I, Joseph Gales, published by
Gales and Seaton, Washington, 1834, pp 729-749.

ALSO there is some problems with the page numbers  

From the online sorce we have the following:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=380
It shows the entire converstation is recored on pages 757 -759.  

Though it is possible that print publications, different editions of such
might have shown different page numbers.  They shouldn't have since they
should have photocopied the original pages.

I am in a hurry but will post the exact pages numbers of that particular
discourse later today when I have more time.
************************************************************

It is always good to get in the habit of using proper citation. That
greatly reduces the number of bogus quotes that can be found all over the
Internet and makes it possible to verify the quotes.  It is also the proper
way of doing it  

The following gives the complete and proper cites:

************************************************************
James Madison on Separation of Church and State
Direct references to separation to be found in the writings of James
Madison
----------------------------------------
OCTOBER 1, 1803

Notes for annual message, Oct. 17, 1803: alterations and additions, etc [1]
(3) after "assure"-are proposed "in due season, and under prudent
arrangements, important aids to our Treasury, as well as," an ample etc.  
    Quere: if the two or three succeeding paragraphs be not more
adapted to the separate and subsequent communication, if adopted as above
suggested.
(4) For the first sentence, may be substituted "In the territory between
the Mississippi and the Ohio another valuable acquisition has been made by
a treaty etc."[3.] As it stands, it does not sufficiently distinguish the
nature of the one acquisition from that of the other, and seems to imply
that the acquisition from France was wholly on the other side of the
Mississippi
    May it not be as well to omit the detail of the stipulated
considerations, and particularly that of the Roman Catholic Pastor. The
jealousy of some may see in it a principle, not according with the
exemption of Religion from Civil power. In the Indian Treaty it will be
less noticed than in a President's speech.[4.]
FOOTNOTES:
[1.] For TJ's third annual message to Congress, Oct. 17, 1803, see Ford,
VIII, pp. 266-7)
[3.] TI's message announced the acquisition of territory by treaty from the
Kaskaskia Indians; see
Ford, VIII, pp. 269-70.
[4.] TJ accepted JM's suggestion to omit any discussion of Indian treaty
requirements to maintain a Roman Catholic priest, leaving the stipulations
in the treaty to "the competence of both
houses.... as soon as the senate shall have advised its ratification"; see
ibid.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, Washington, Oct.
1, 1803, Notes for annual message, Oct. 17, 1803: alterations and
additions, etc.[1.],
The Republic of Letters, the Correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and
James Madison, 1776-1826, Edited by James Morton Smith, Vol. II, 1790
-1804, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, London, (1995) pp 1297-98)
--------------------------------------------------------------

MARCH 2, 1819

"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated
hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions
with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of
the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly
increased by the total separation of the church from the State."
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION:  Excert of a letter to Robert Walsh from James
Madison.  MARCH 2, 1819  Letters and Other writings of James Madison, in
Four Volumes, Published by Order of Congress. VOL. III, J. B. Lippincott &
Co. Philadelphia, (1865), pp 121-126.  James Madison on Religious Liberty,
Robert S.Alley, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N.Y. (1985) pp 82-83)

----------------------------------------------------------
1817-1833

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and Gov't in the
Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by
Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents' already furnished
in their short history"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excerpt from Madison's Detached Memoranda. This
document was discovered in 1946 among the papers of William Cabell Rives, a
biographer of Madison. Scholars date these observations in Madison's hand
sometime between 1817 and 1832.  The entire document was published by
Elizabeth Fleet in the William and Mary Quarterly of October 1946.
----------------------------------------------------------
JULY 10, 1822

"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation
between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have
no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done,
in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity
the less they are mixed together"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excerpt of letter to Edward Livingston from James
Madison, July 10, 1822.  Letters and Other writings of James Madison, in
Four Volumes, Published by Order of Congress. VOL. III, J. B. Lippincott &
Co. Philadelphia, (1865), pp 273-276.  James Madison on Religious Liberty,
Robert S.Alley, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N.Y. (1985) pp 82-83)

---------------------------------------------------------------
SEPTEMBER 1833

"I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to
trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil
authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on
unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other
or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded
against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way
whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting
each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others".
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Letter written by James Madison to Rev. Jasper
Adams, September, 1833.Writings of James Madison, edited by Gaillard Hunt,
[not sure what the volume number is but have enough information presented
here to locate the letter] microform Z1236.L53, pp 484-488. )
------------------------------------------------------------------

There is another here you didn't include:

DECEMBER 3, 1816

    And may I not be allowed to add to this gratifying spectacle that I
shall read in the character of the American people, in their devotion to
true liberty and to the Constitution which is its palladium, sure presages
that the destined career of my country will exhibit a Government pursuing
the public good as its sole object, and regulating its means by the great
principles consecrated in its charter and by those moral principles to
which they are so well allied; a Government which watches over the purity
of elections, the freedom of speech and of the press, the trial by jury,
and the equal interdict against encroachments and compacts between religion
and the state; . . .

JAMES MADISON.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excerpt from James Madison's 8th Annual Message  to
Congress pp. A compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents,
1789-1897, James D Richardson ed. Volume I, Bureau of National Literature,
NY (1897) 564-565

***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:

The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm

American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm

The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]

HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/

***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning.  Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic."  New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
James Veverka wrote:
One of the ways to counter the attack on American Constitutional principles
by the religious right is to address their revisionism, misinformation and
distortions.

****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote

"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"

That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.

It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.

*****************************************************************
      THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
   SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
   
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

****************************************************************

The correct version of the above should read as follows:

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
contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-
eminence, or two combined together, . . .

. . .  He believed that the people feared one sect might obtain a
pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion, to which
they would compel others to conform. . .
The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States
(Annals of Congress), August 15, 1789, Vol. I, Joseph Gales, published by
Gales and Seaton, Washington, 1834,  pp 730 - 731.

From the online sorce we have the following:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=380
It shows the entire converstation is recorded on pages 757 -759.  

***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:

The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm

American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm

The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]

HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/

***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning.  Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic."  New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
James Veverka wrote:
One of the ways to counter the attack on American Constitutional principles
by the religious right is to address their revisionism, misinformation and
distortions.

****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote

"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"

That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.

It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.

*****************************************************************
      THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
   SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
   
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

****************************************************************

Separation of church and states was embodied in the unamended constitution,
directly with the right to affirm rather than swear and the religious test
ban. Indirectly the entire document as a whole.

The religious clauses of the BORS did not  create church state separation,
it only reinforced what was already there.

***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:

The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm

American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm

The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]

HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/

***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning.  Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic."  New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
James Veverka wrote:
One of the ways to counter the attack on American Constitutional principles
by the religious right is to address their revisionism, misinformation and
distortions.

****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote

"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"

That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.

It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.

*****************************************************************
      THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
   SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
   
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

****************************************************************