Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892)
Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States
. . . no purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation.
(1) The commission to Christopher Columbus, prior to his sail westward, is from "Ferdinand and Isabella, by the grace of God, King and Queen of Castile," etc., and recites that "it is hoped that by God's assistance some of the continents and islands in the ocean will be discovered," etc.;
(2) The first colonial grant, that made to Sir Walter Raleigh;
(3) The first charter of Virginia, granted by King James I in 1606;
(4) 1609 Charter by King James I;
(5) 1611 Charter by King James I;
(6) Establishment of the Christian Religion as one of the purposes of the grant of other colonies;
(7) Mayflower Compact;
(8) The fundamental orders of Connecticut;
(9) In the charter of privileges granted by William Penn to the province of Pennsylvania;
(10) The Declaration of Independence ";
(11-54) Every Constitution of every one of the forty-four states contains language which, either directly or by clear implication, recognizes a profound reverence for religion, and an assumption that its influence in all human affairs is essential to the wellbeing of the community;
(55) It may be only in the familiar requisition that all officers shall take an oath closing with the declaration, "so help me God.";
(56) Or in provisions such as are found in Articles 36 and 37 of the declaration of rights of the Constitution of Maryland, 1867:
(57) Or like that in Articles 2 and 3 of part 1st of the Constitution of Massachusetts, 1780:
(58) Or, as in sections 5 and 14 of Article 7 of the Constitution of Mississippi, 1832:
(59) Or by Article 22 of the Constitution of Delaware, (1776), which required all officers, besides an oath of allegiance, to make and subscribe the following declaration:
"I, do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore, and I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.";
(60) Even the Constitution of the United States, which is supposed to have little touch upon the private life of the individual, contains in the First Amendment a declaration common to the constitutions of all the states, as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," etc., and also provides in Article I, Section 7, a provision common to many constitutions, that the executive shall have ten days (Sundays excepted) within which to determine whether he will approve or veto a bill;
There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning. They affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons. They are organic utterances. They speak the voice of the entire people. While, because of a general recognition of this truth, the question has seldom been presented to the courts, (61) yet we find that in Updegraph v. Commonwealth, 11 S. & R. 394, 400, it was decided that
"Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law of Pennsylvania; . . . not Christianity with an established church and tithes and spiritual courts, but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men.";
(62) People v. Ruggles, 8 Johns. 290, 294-295, Chancellor Kent, the great commentator on American law, speaking as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New York;
(63) And in the famous case of @ 43 U. S. 198, this Court, while sustaining the will of Mr. Girard, with its provision for the creation of a college into which no minister should be permitted to enter, observed: "It is also said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of the common law of Pennsylvania.";
If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life,
(64) as expressed by its laws,
(65) its business,
(66) its customs,
(67) and its society,
we find every where a clear recognition of the same truth. Among other matters, note the following:
(68) the form of oath universally prevailing, concluding with an appeal to the Almighty;
(69) the custom of opening sessions of all deliberative bodies and most conventions with prayer;
(70) the prefatory words of all wills, "In the name of God, amen;"
(71) the laws respecting the observance of the Sabbath, with the general cessation of all secular business, and the closing of courts, legislatures, and other similar public assemblies on that day;
(72) the churches and church organizations which abound in every city, town, and hamlet;
(73) the multitude of charitable organizations existing every where under Christian auspices;
(74) the gigantic missionary associations, with general support,
(75) and aiming to establish Christian missions in every quarter of the globe.
These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation. In the face of all these, shall it be believed that a Congress of the United States intended to make it a misdemeanor for a church of this country to contract for the services of a Christian minister residing in another nation?
Recent Comments