Civil Government: any secular government. means that the Bill for religious assessment
Beacon on our Coast: the signal from a would cause people to avoid moving to Virginia, lighthouse warning of danger. Here, Madison thinking it hostile to those seeking freedom.
Because it will destroy that moderation and harmony which the forbearance of our laws to intermeddle with Religion has produced among its several sects. Torrents of blood have been spilt in the old world,[192] by vain attempts of the secular arm, to extinguish Religious discord, by proscribing all difference in Religious opinion. Time has at length revealed the true remedy. Every relaxation of narrow and rigorous policy, wherever it has been tried, has been found to assuage the disease. The American Theatre[193] has exhibited proofs that equal and compleat14 liberty, if it does not wholly eradicate it, sufficiently destroys its malignant influence on the health and prosperity of the State. If with the salutary effects of this system under our own eyes, we begin to contract the bounds of Religious freedom, we know no name that will too severely reproach our folly. At least let warning be taken at the first fruits of the threatened innovation. The very appearance of the Bill has transformed "that Christian forbearance, love and charity," which of late mutually prevailed, into animosities and jealousies, which may not soon be appeased. What mischiefs may not be dreaded, should this enemy to the public quiet be armed with the force of a law?
Because the policy of the Bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift ought to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind. Compare the number of those who have as yet received it with the number still remaining under the dominion of false Religions; and how small is the former! Does the policy of the Bill tend to lessen the disproportion? No; it at once discourages those who are strangers to the light of revelation from coming into the Region of it; and countenances by example the nations who continue in darkness, in shutting out those who might convey it to them. Instead of Levelling as far as possible, every obstacle to the victorious progress of Truth, the Bill with an ignoble and unchristian timidity would circumscribe it with a wall of defence against the encroachments of error.
Because attempts to enforce by legal sanctions, acts obnoxious to so great a proportion of Citizens, tend to enervate the laws in general, and to slacken the bands of Society. If it be difficult to execute any law which is not generally deemed necessary or salutary, what must be the case, where it is deemed invalid and dangerous? And what may be the effect of so striking an example of impotency in the Government, on its general authority?
Because a measure of such singular magnitude and delicacy ought not to be imposed, without the clearest evidence that it is called for by a majority of citizens, and no satisfactory method is yet proposed by which the voice of the majority in this case may be determined, or its influence secured. "The people of the respective counties are indeed requested to signify their opinion respecting the adoption of the Bill to the next Session of Assembly." But the representation must be made equal, before the voice either of the Representatives or of the Counties will be that of the people. Our hope is that neither of the former will, after due consideration, espouse the dangerous principle of the Bill. Should the event disappoint us, it will still leave us in full confidence, that a fair appeal to the latter will reverse the sentence against our liberties.
Because finally, "the equal right of every citizen to the free exercise of his Religion according to the dictates of conscience" is held by the same tenure with all our other rights. If we recur to its origin, it is equally the gift of nature; if we weigh its importance, it cannot be less dear to us; if we consult the "Declaration of those rights which pertain to the good people of Virginia, as the basis and foundation of Government," it is enumerated with equal solemnity, or rather studied emphasis. Either then, we must say, that the Will of the Legislature is the only measure of their authority; and that in the plenitude of this authority, they may sweep away all our fundamental rights; or, that they are bound to leave this particular right untouched and sacred: Either we must say, that they may controul the freedom of the press, may abolish the Trial by Jury, may swallow up the Executive and Judiciary Powers of the State; nay that they may despoil us of our very right of suffrage, and erect themselves into an independent and hereditary Assembly or, we must say, that they have no authority to enact into the law the Bill under consideration.
We the Subscribers say, that the General Assembly of this Commonwealth have no such authority: And that no effort may be omitted on our part against so dangerous an usurpation, we oppose to it, this remonstrance; earnestly praying, as we are in duty bound, that the Supreme Lawgiver of the Universe, by illuminating those to whom it is addressed, may on the one hand, turn their Councils from every act which would affront his holy prerogative, or violate the trust committed to them: and on the other, guide them into every measure which may be worthy of his blessing, may redound to their own praise, and may establish more firmly the liberties, the prosperity and the happiness of the Commonwealth.
UNDERSTANDING THE TEXT
Why is it significant to Madison that a person's relationship with God exists prior to that person's relationship with the government?
Why does Madison bring up the possibility of the majority trespassing on the rights of the minority? How might this occur if the state recognizes religion?
How does Madison treat non-Christians and those who practice no religion at all? Does he believe that it is acceptable to support Christianity generally as long as individual denominations are not given any preference?
How does Madison counter the argument that requiring small donations to religious causes through taxation does not constitute religious establishment?
How does Madison see governmental support of religion as potentially damaging to the aims of religions themselves? How is such support damaging to the governments that support religions?
Over the past 1500 years, what have been the outcomes of governments that support Christianity, according to Madison? How has this made the Christian religion something different than it was originally designed to be?
How does Madison see the freedom of religion in relation to other rights and freedoms? How would passing a law that limited some people's freedom to choose their religion affect the framework that guarantees all of the other rights to the people of Virginia?
MAKING CONNECTIONS
How might Madison's concept of the separation of church and state be considered part of the minimalist form of government advocated by the Tao Te Ching (p. 384)? Does Madison suggest that leaders should avoid interfering with the natural order of things the way that a Taoist might?
How do Madison's views of religious toleration compare with the other kinds of toleration discussed by Simone Weil (p. 571), Martin Luther King Jr. (p. 425), Barack Obama (p. 460), and Vandana Shiva (p. 374)?
What is similar and what is different in the way that James Madison and Martha Nussbaum (p. 61) see the idea of democracy?
WRITING ABOUT THE TEXT
Write a paper that examines Madison's fourteen major points and determine which are the most relevant today. Are some no longer pertinent to our society?
Apply Madison's argument to a current debate involving questions of church and state, such as religious displays on public property, prayers at state-sanctioned events, or taxpayer subsidies of religious education.
Write your own argument about the proper role of religion in the public sphere. Look at both historical and contemporary debates to determine how governments should treat religions and vice versa.