|
U. S.
SENATE DEBATE
ON THE
ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE
At the
time of the creation of the Bill of Rights, efforts were made to
continue the same government involvement with religion that was
experienced under the colonial governments and which had
continued under the Articles of Confederation. When the Bill of
Rights was being debating in Congress, proponents of a limited
establishment sought to incorporate into the First Amendment
provisions that would prevent the establishment of a national
denomination, but allow other types of federal establishments.
The Senate
overwhelmingly rejected every such effort, requiring a broad
interpretation of the Establishment Clause, as they did with the
Free Exercise Clause. The founding fathers valued full civil and
religious freedoms.
Both
legislative bodies had opportunity to expressly limit the bar to
preferential establishment, but refused. The First Amendment
(Article III at the time) as adopted by the House was debated in
the Senate in 1791, the following proceeding took place.
The resolve of the House of
Representatives . . . was read, as followeth: “Article III Congress shall make no
law establishing religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof; nor shall the rights of conscience be infringed.”
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the resolve of the House of Representatives on the amendments
the Constitution of the United States.
On motion to amend Article the third,
and to strike out these words;
“Religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,: and
insert “No religious sect or society
in preference to others”:
The vote was in the negative
-
- - - -
On motion to adopt the following, in
lieu of the third article: “Congress
shall make no law infringing the rights of conscience, or
establishing any religious sect or society”:
The
vote was in the negative
On motion to amend the third Article,
to read thus: “Congress shall make no
law establishing any particular denomination or religion in
preference to another, or prohibiting the fee exercise thereof,
nor shall the rights of conscience be infringed”
The vote was in the negative
On motion to adopt the third Article
proposed in the resolve of the House of Representatives, amended
by striking out these words, “Nor
shall the rights of conscience be infringed”
The vote was in the negative
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Leo Pfeffer, specialist in the First
Amendment law of church state relations, synthesized the purpose
of the proposed changes as follows:
“Congress shall make no law
establishing one religious Sect or society in preference to
others, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, nor shall the
rights of conscience be infringed; {and:} Congress shall make no
law establishing any particular denomination or religion in
preference to another, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,
nor shall the rights of conscience be infringed.”
The refection of these more limited versions, each of which
expressly and unambiguously spells out a narrow,
non-preferentiality interpretation of the First Amendment,
indicates that Congress did not intend such a narrow
interpretation.
|