Religionskritik
Memorial and
Remonstrance
Against Religious Assessments (1785)
von
James Madison
herausgegeben von Alois Payer
(payer@payer.de)
Zitierweise / cite as:
Madison, James <1751-1836>: Memorial and
Remonstrance
Against Religious Assessments. -- 1785. -- Fassung vom 2005-02-16. -- URL:
http://www.payer.de/religionskritik/madison01.htm
Erstmals publiziert: 2005-02-16
Überarbeitungen:
©opyright: Public Domain
Dieser Text ist Teil der Abteilung
Religionskritik von Tüpfli's Global Village Library
Abb.: James Madison [Bildquelle:
http://www.ngb.army.mil/gallery/presidential/madison.asp. -- Zugriff am
2005-02-16]
"James Madison (* 16. März 1751 in Port Conway, Virginia;
† 28. Juni 1836 in Montpelier, Virginia) war der 4.
Präsident der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika (1809-1817). James Madison ist
neben
Thomas Jefferson und
Alexander Hamilton einer der wichtigsten geistigen Führer der amerikanischen
Unabhängigkeitsbewegung, er gilt auch als Vater der Verfassung.
Mit Hamilton und John Jay verteidigte er das Verfassungskonstrukt
öffentlich unter dem Pseudonym Publius in den
Federalist Papers.
Auf ihn geht nicht nur das System der checks and balances
(gegenseitige Kontrolle der staatlichen Instanzen Exekutive,
Legislative und Judikative) zurück, sondern vor allem der
Grundrechtskatalog in den ersten zehn Verfassungszusätzen, die zum
entscheidenden Vorbild für alle folgenden Deklarationen der
Menschenrechte geworden ist.
Von 1801 bis 1809 war er Außenminister unter Jefferson, danach
wurde er selbst Präsident. Das einzige bemerkenswerte Ereignis
seiner Präsidentschaft ist der Krieg mit
Großbritannien 1812-1814 (Krieg von 1812). Der unter Verweis auf zahlreiche
britische Übergriffe zur See begonnene Krieg zielte auf eine
Eroberung Kanadas. Trotz großer zahlenmäßiger Überlegenheit - die
Briten konnten, bedingt durch die gleichzeitigen
Napoleonischen Kriege, wenig Truppen aufbieten - erlitt die US-Armee bei ihren
wiederholten Invasionsversuchen eine Reihe teils demütigender
Niederlagen, die 1814 in der Zerstörung der öffentlichen Gebäude der
Hauptstadt
Washington durch an der
Chesapeake Bay gelandete britische Truppen gipfelten. Madison war durch die
Auswahl meist inkompetenter Generäle für diese Rückschläge mit
verantwortlich. Es war neben einzelnen fähigen Offizieren wie
Andrew Jackson und
William Henry Harrison vor allem der wesentlich professioneller agierenden US Navy
zu verdanken, dass dieser Krieg kein Desaster für die USA wurde. Die
US-Kriegsschiffe konnten zwar nicht die wirtschaftlich verheerend
wirkende Blockade der amerikanischen Küste durch die britische
Marine durchbrechen. Es gelang jedoch eine Reihe von psychologisch
wichtigen Erfolge in Gefechten zwischen einzelnen Schiffen.
Kriegsentscheidend waren vor allem aber Siege in der
Schlacht auf dem Eriesee und in der
Schlacht bei Plattsburg auf dem
Champlainsee, mit denen die Briten von einem Teil der Großen Seen vertrieben und
1814 eine bedrohliche Invasion im Bundesstaat
New York abgewehrt wurde. Angesichts des militärischen Patts und der zunehmenden
Bedrohung für den Zusammenhalt der Union - Teile der
Neuenglandstaaten drohten mit einer Sezession - schloss Madison Ende 1814 mit
den Briten den
Frieden von Gent ab, in dem die USA keines ihrer Kriegsziele erreichen konnte.
Der nach der Unterzeichnung des Friedensvertrags von General
Andrew Jackson erkämpfte und deshalb militärisch bedeutungslose Sieg in der
Schlacht bei New Orleans ermöglichte es Madison, den Krieg trotzdem als
amerikanischen Erfolg darzustellen, eine Meinung, die bis heute
verbreitet ist. Trotz des unbefriedigenden Verlaufs gewannen die USA
insbesondere durch die Erfolge ihrer Marine an internationalem
Ansehen und konnten durch die Bereinigung der Grenzstreitigkeiten
mit Kanada ungestört nach Westen expandieren.
Madison, die Hauptstadt von Wisconsin ist nach ihm benannt.
Madison, der anders als seine Vorgänger körperlich vollkommen gesund
war, war als
Hypochonder davon überzeugt an einer unheilbaren Krankheit zu leiden."
[Quelle:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Madison. -- Zugriff am
2005-02-16] |
Abb.: Lage von Virginia
Hintergrund des folgenden Textes: 1784 brachte Patrick Henry in der General
Assembly von Virginia einen Gesetzesentwurf ein, der allgemeine Steuern für den
Unterhalt von Lehrern der christlichen Religion beinhaltete. Danach würden statt
der Episcopal Church alle christlichen Denominationen mit staatlicher
Unterstützung bedacht. James Madison lehnte dieses Gestz ab mit seinem berühmten
"Memorial and Remonstrance". Wegen der Ablehnung durch Liberale und Evangelikale
kam der Gesetzesentwurf zu Fall. Der Text ist eines der Glanzlichter im Kampf um
Trennung von Religion und Staat in den künftigen USA.
"Geschichte. Virginia wurde 1497 von Sebastian Cabot
zuerst besucht. 1584 landete Sir W. Raleigh bei der Insel Wocokom
und ging von da auf das Festland über, das er zu Ehren der Königin
Elisabeth Virginia nannte. Er erhielt das Land von der Krone als
Eigentum verliehen. 1607 wurde die erste Kolonie zu Jamestown am
James River unter dem Kapitän John Smith gegründet, doch bestand sie
nicht lange; spätere Versuche Richard Greenvilles, Kolonien
anzulegen, mißglückten ebenfalls; erst Lord Delawares Bemühungen
lieferten ein günstigeres Resultat. Infolge der Verurteilung und
Hinrichtung Raleighs unter Jakob I. (1618) fiel das Land wieder an
die Krone zurück, die es der London- und Plymouthkompanie zuwies.
Bei Beginn des Streites mit dem Mutterland 1773 trat Virginia an die
Spitze der Unabhängigkeitsbestrebungen. Es gab sich 1776 seine erste
Verfassung und nahm 25. Juni 1788 die Konstitution der Vereinigten
Staaten an. 1789 trennte sich Kentucky von Virginia, das dadurch
seinen gegenwärtigen Umfang erhielt. Als Heimat Washingtons und
andrer berühmter Staatsmänner war Virginia lange Zeit der wichtigste
Staat der Union. Infolge des Anschlusses an die Südstaaten trennte
es sich 1862 in Ostvirginia und Westvirginia, welch letzteres, schon
länger der Politik der Unionsstaaten sich zuneigend, 31. Dez. 1862
als besonderer Staat in die Union aufgenommen wurde. Ersteres, das
eigentliche (oben behandelte) Virginia, hauptsächlich
Kriegsschauplatz während des Bürgerkrieges und erst 1865 von der
Nordarmee erobert, weigerte sich mit am längsten, die
Verfassungsabänderung und die politische Berechtigung der Schwarzen
anzuerkennen." [Quelle: Meyers großes Konversations-Lexikon.
-- DVD-ROM-Ausg. Faksimile und Volltext der 6. Aufl.
1905-1909. -- Berlin : Directmedia Publ. --2003.
-- 1 DVD-ROM. -- (Digitale Bibliothek ; 100). -- ISBN
3-89853-200-3. -- s.v.] |
James Madison: Memorial and
Remonstrance
Against Religious Assessments (1785)
To the Honorable the General Assembly of the Commonwealth
of Virginia A Memorial and Remonstrance
We the subscribers, citizens of the said Commonwealth,
having taken into serious consideration, a Bill printed by order of the last
Session of General Assembly, entitled "A Bill establishing a provision for
Teachers of the Christian Religion," and conceiving that the same if finally
armed with the sanctions of a law, will be a dangerous abuse of power, are bound
as faithful members of a free State to remonstrate against it, and to declare
the reasons by which we are determined. We remonstrate against the said Bill,
- Because we hold it for a fundamental and
undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and
the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction,
not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to
the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man
to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an
unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending
only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the
dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right
towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to
render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be
acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in
degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be
considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject
of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it
with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain
therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the
institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its
cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question
which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of
the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the
rights of the minority.
- Because Religion be exempt from the authority of
the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the
Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the
former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited
with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited
with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government
requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each
department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that
neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the
rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment,
exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are
Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by
themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.
- Because it is proper to take alarm at the first
experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first
duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late
Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had
strengthened itself by exercise, and entagled the question in precedents.
They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the
consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon
to forget it. Who does not see that the same authority which can establish
Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the
same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?
that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence
only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him
to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?
- Because the Bill violates the equality which
ought to be the basis of every law, and which is more indispensible, in
proportion as the validity or expediency of any law is more liable to be
impeached. If "all men are by nature equally free and independent," all men
are to be considered as entering into Society on equal conditions; as
relinquishing no more, and therefore retaining no less, one than another, of
their natural rights. Above all are they to be considered as retaining an "equal
title to the free exercise of Religion according to the dictates of
Conscience." Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess
and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we
cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to
the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an
offence against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an
account of it be rendered. As the Bill violates equality by subjecting some
to peculiar burdens, so it violates the same principle, by granting to
others peculiar exemptions. Are the quakers and Menonists the only sects who
think a compulsive support of their Religions unnecessary and unwarrantable?
can their piety alone be entrusted with the care of public worship? Ought
their Religions to be endowed above all others with extraordinary privileges
by which proselytes may be enticed from all others? We think too favorably
of the justice and good sense of these demoninations to believe that they
either covet pre-eminences over their fellow citizens or that they will be
seduced by them from the common opposition to the measure.
- Because the Bill implies either that the Civil
Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ
Religion as an engine of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension
falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and
throughout the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of
salvation.
- Because the establishment proposed by the Bill is
not requisite for the support of the Christian Religion. To say that it is,
is a contradiction to the Christian Religion itself, for every page of it
disavows a dependence on the powers of this world: it is a contradiction to
fact; for it is known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not
only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition
from them, and not only during the period of miraculous aid, but long after
it had been left to its own evidence and the ordinary care of Providence.
Nay, it is a contradiction in terms; for a Religion not invented by human
policy, must have pre-existed and been supported, before it was established
by human policy. It is moreover to weaken in those who profess this Religion
a pious confidence in its innate excellence and the patronage of its Author;
and to foster in those who still reject it, a suspicion that its friends are
too conscious of its fallacies to trust it to its own merits.
- Because experience witnesseth that eccelsiastical
establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion,
have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal
establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More
or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and
servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.
Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in
its greatest lustre; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its
incorporation with Civil policy. Propose a restoration of this primitive
State in which its Teachers depended on the voluntary rewards of their
flocks, many of them predict its downfall. On which Side ought their
testimony to have greatest weight, when for or when against their interest?
- Because the establishment in question is not
necessary for the support of Civil Government. If it be urged as necessary
for the support of Civil Government only as it is a means of supporting
Religion, and it be not necessary for the latter purpose, it cannot be
necessary for the former. If Religion be not within the cognizance of Civil
Government how can its legal establishment be necessary to Civil Government?
What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil
Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny
on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen
upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been
seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to
subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient
auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs
them not. Such a Government will be best supported by protecting every
Citizen in the enjoyment of his Religion with the same equal hand which
protects his person and his property; by neither invading the equal rights
of any Sect, nor suffering any Sect to invade those of another.
- Because the proposed establishment is a departure
from the generous policy, which, offering an Asylum to the persecuted and
oppressed of every Nation and Religion, promised a lustre to our country,
and an accession to the number of its citizens. What a melancholy mark is
the Bill of sudden degeneracy? Instead of holding forth an Asylum to the
persecuted, it is itself a signal of persecution. It degrades from the equal
rank of Citizens all those whose opinions in Religion do not bend to those
of the Legislative authority. Distant as it may be in its present form from
the Inquisition, it differs from it only in degree. The one is the first
step, the other the last in the career of intolerance. The maganimous
sufferer under this cruel scourge in foreign Regions, must view the Bill as
a Beacon on our Coast, warning him to seek some other haven, where liberty
and philanthrophy in their due extent, may offer a more certain respose from
his Troubles.
- Because it will have a like tendency to banish
our Citizens. The allurements presented by other situations are every day
thinning their number. To superadd a fresh motive to emigration by revoking
the liberty which they now enjoy, would be the same species of folly which
has dishonoured and depopulated flourishing kingdoms
- 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 split in the
old world, by vain attempts of the secular arm, to extinguish Religious
disscord, 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 assauge the disease.
The American Theatre has exhibited proofs that equal and compleat 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 chairty," which of late mutually prevailed, into
animosities and jeolousies, 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 go 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 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 Vriginia, as the basis and
foundation of Government," it is enumerated with equal solemnity, or rather
studied emphasis. Either the, 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 re]dound to their own praise,
and may establish more firmly the liberties, the prosperity and the happiness of
the Commonwealth.
Zurück zu
Religionskritik