MORE ON RELIGIOUS TESTS

Some time ago, I went through The Debates on the Constitution and scanned in portions that are relevant to the wingnut's claim that America is a Christian nation, founded on Christian principles. They are wrong, of course, but it's good to get some backup in case one of them blathers about "original intent."

Here are some snippets of articles and letters AGAINST the view that America was meant to be a formally Christian nation as the wingnuts suggest. I made a earlier post about one of the articles, here are the restfrom Part One:

AN EXAMINATION INTO THE LEADING PRINCIPLES OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION
“A Citizen of America” [Noah Webster]
Philadelphia, Oct. 17, 1787

FROM: The Debates, Part One, pp. 154-155

But what is tyranny? Or how can a free people be deprived of their liberties? Tyranny is the exercise of some power over a man, which is not warranted by law, or necessary for the public safety. A people can never be deprived of their liber­ties, while they retain in their own hands, a power superior to any other power in the state. This position leads me directly to enquire, in what consists the power of a nation or of an order of men?
In some nations, legislators have derived much of their power from the influence of religion, or from that implicit belief which an ignorant and superstitious people entertain of the gods, and their interposition in every transaction of life. The Roman senate sometimes availed themselves of this en­gine to carry their decrees and maintain their authority. This was particularly the case, under the aristocracy which suc­ceeded the abolition of the monarchy. The augurs and priests were taken wholly from patrician families. They constituted a distinct order of men—had power to negative any law of the people, by declaring that it was passed during the taking of the auspices. This influence derived from the authority of opinion, was less perceptible, but as tyrannical as a military force. The same influence constitutes, at this day, a principal support of several governments on the Eastern continent, and perhaps in South America. But in North America, by a singular concurrence of circumstances, the possibility of es­tablishing this influence, as a pillar of government, is totally precluded.


"NO RELIGIOUS TEST SHALL EVER BE REQUIRED"
"A Landholder" [Oliver Ellsworth] VII
Connecticut Courant (Hartford), December 17, 1787
FROM The Debates, Part One, pp. 521-524

Some very worthy persons, who have not had great advantages for information, have objected against that clause in the constitution, which provides, that no religious Test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. They have been afraid that this clause is unfavourable to religion. But, my countrymen, the sole purpose and effect of it is to exclude persecution, and to secure to you the important right of religious liberty.

[SNIP]
From this account of test-laws, there arises an avourable presumption against them. But if we consider nature of them and the effects which they are calculated to prouce, we shall find that they are useless, tyrannical, and peculiarly unfit for the people of this country.

[SNIP]

But to come to the true principle, by which this question ought to be determined: ... Civil government has no business to meddle with the private opinions of the people. ... I am accountable, not to man, but to God, for the religious opinions which I embrace, and the manner in which I worship the supreme being.


"OUR SECURITY MUST REST IN OUR FREQUENTLY REFERRING BACK TO THE PEOPLE"

SAMUEL PARSONS TO WILLIAM CUSHING
Middleton, Connecticut
January 11, 1788

From The Debates, Part One, p. 753

[SNIP]
-the Want of Power to establish religious Tests is a grievance in the Minds of some; in addition to the very many & conclusive Arguments against religious Tests—I am fully convinced of the Expediency of incerting the exclusive Clause lest in future Time by Construction such Right may be supposd to exist, and under the Influence of the enthusiasm which has impeld men to the greatest Absurdities, we may in future hang Witches or establish such Tests as would disgrace humane Nature

The Reverend Daniel Shute and
Colonel William Jones on Religious Tests
and Christian Belief
January 31, 1788

From The Debates, Part One, pp. 919-20

SHUTE: To establish a religious test as a qualification for offices in proposed Federal Constitution, appears to me, sir, would attended with injurious consequences to some individuals, and with no advantage to the whole.

Far from limiting my charity and confidence to men of own denomination in religion, I suppose, and I believe, that there are worthy characters among men of every denomination—among the Quakers—the Baptists—Church of England—the Papists—and even among who have no other guide, in the way to virtue and heaven than the dictates of natural religion.

I must therefore think, sir, that the proposed plan of government, in this particular, is wisely constructed: That as have an equal claim to the blessings of the government which they live, and which they support, so none should excluded from them for being of any particular denomination in religion.

Isaac Backus on Religion and the State,
Slavery, and Nobility
February 4, 1788

From The Debates, Part One, pp. 931-33

Rev. Mr. BACKUS. ... And I shall begin with the exclusion of any religious test. Many appear to be much concerned about it, but nothing is more evident, both in reason, and in the holy scriptures, than that religion is ever a matter between God and individuals; and therefore no man or men can impose any religious test, without invading the essential prerogatives of Lord Jesus Christ.

[SNIP]

And let the history of all nations searched, from that day to this, and it will appear that the posing of religious tests hath been the greatest engine of tyranny in the world.