Some en

deavor to impose their opinions on others.

Compulsion

money for the

opinions, ty

rannical.

one to support

own belief, de

prives him of rightful lib

erty.

their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the in furnishing world, and through all time; that to compel a mán propagation of to furnish contributions of money for the propagations of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and Even forcing tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporal rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labors for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that, therefore, the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to the offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow-citizens he has a natural right; that it tends also to corrupt the prinion it is meant ciples of that very religion it is meant to encourage,

Civil rights

have no dependence on

religious opin

ions.

Any civil in

capacitation

on account of

religion is a deprivation of natural right.

It also corrupts the relig

to encourage.

by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honors and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powpower into the ers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profield of opinion destroys fession or propagation of principles, on the supposireligious lib. erty. tion of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy,

The intru

sion of civil

which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency, will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt actions against peace and good order; and, finally, that truth is great, and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.

No man shall be mo

Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise lested or bursuffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by ligious belief. argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, maintain their enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

And though we well know that this Assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies, constituted with the powers. equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable, would be of no effect in law, yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.

dened in body or goods on account of re

All men shall be free to

opinions in matters of religion.

These rights

rights of man

kind.

Any act to an infringe

the contrary

ment of natural right.

July 13, 1787.

FOR THE

No orderly

person shall ever be mo

lested on account of his worship.

AN ORDINANCE

GOVERNMENT OF THE TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES NORTHWEST OF

THE RIVER OHIO.1

ADOPTED IN THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS, JULY 13, 1787.

ARTICLE I.

No person demeaning himself in a peaceable and orderly manner, shall ever be molested on account of his mode of worship or religious sentiments in the said territory.

ARTICLE III.

Religion, morality, and

Religion, morality, and knowledge being necesknowledge be- Sary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.*

ing a necessity, education

shall forever be encouraged.

Adoption of ordinance.

Articles to forever remain unalterable.

Erroneous

views.

1.While the Constitutional Convention was in session at Philadelphia, the Continental Congress, sitting under the Articles of Confederation, passed an ordinance July 13, 1787, for the government of the territory of the United States northwest of the river Ohio.' This territory was ceded by Virginia to the United States, and embraced the present States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin. The same ordinance was afterwards extended to Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi. This ordinance provides for full religious liberty on the one hand, and for the cultivation of religion, morality, and education, as essential conditions of national prosperity." Schaff's "Church and State in the United States" (Ed. 1888), page 119. The articles above were among those which were to "forever remain unalterable." See Charters and Constitutions of the United States," volume ii, page 431.

2 It is maintained that the word "religion" in this article has reference specifically to the "Christian religion," and that provision is here made for the teaching of "Christian principles" in the public schools. No such idea, however, is contained in the article. The word "religion' as used in our early state documents, was a generic term, and had reference to all systems of belief in a superior power. A similar question arose about a year previous to the adoption of this ordinance, in the

very Assembly that ceded this territory to the United States - the General Assembly of the State of Virginia. And in reporting this, Jefferson says: "Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy Author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting the word 'Jesus Christ,' so that it should read, ‘a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy Author of our religion;' the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination." "Works of Thomas Jefferson," volume i, page 45.

Declaration

of the General Assembly of Virginia.

Religion meant to comprehend allbelievers or unbelievers of the Bible.

Decision of the Ohio Supreme Court.

On the provision in question, which was afterwards incorporated in the Constitution of the State of Ohio, the Supreme Court says as follows: "If, by this generic word 'religion,' was really meant the Christian religion,' or 'Bible religion,' why was it not plainly so written? Surely the subject was of importance enough to justify the pains, and surely it was of interest enough to exclude the supposition that it was written in haste, or thoughtlessly slurred over. At the time of adopting our present Constitution, this word 'religion' had had a place in our old Constitution for half a century, which was surely ample time for studying its meaning and effect, in order to make the necessary correction or alteration, so as to render its true meaning definite and certain. The same word 'religion,' and in much the same connection, is found in the Constitution of the United States. The latter Constitution, at least, if not our own also, in a sense, speaks to mankind, and speaks of the rights of man. Neither the word 'Christianity,' 'Christian,' nor 'Bible,' is to be found in either. When they speak of religion,' they must mean the religion of man, and not the religion of any class of men. When they ligion." speak of all men' having certain rights, they cannot mean merely all Christian men.' Some of the very men who helped to frame these Constitutions were themselves not Christian men.

Meaning of the word "re

Government essential to re

ligion only to protect it.

"The declaration is, not that government is essential to good religion, but that religion is essential to good government. Both propositions are true, but they are true in quite different senses. Good government is essential to religion for the purpose declared elsewhere in the same section of the Constitution, namely, for the purpose of mere protection. But religion, morality, and knowledge are essential to government, in the sense that they have the instrumentalities for producing and perfecting a good form of government. On the other hand, no government is at all adapted for producing, perfecting, or propagating a good religion. Religion, in its widest and best sense, has most, if not good religion. all, the instrumentalities for producing the best form of government. Religion is the parent, and not the offspring, of good government. Its kingdom is to be first sought, and good government is one of those things which will be added thereto. True religion is the sun which gives to government all its true lights, while the latter merely acts upon religion by reflection.

No goverament adapted to propagate

State religion is some individual's religion.

Whose religion shall the state adopt?

To what extent will it go?

Religious instruction viola

tive of Ohio's Constitution.

Christianity

not a part of Ohio's common law.

Duty of the government to religion.

"Properly speaking, there is no such thing as religion of state.' What we mean by that phrase is, the religion of some individual, or set of individuals, taught and enforced by the state. The state can have no religious opinions; and if it undertakes to enforce the teaching of such opinions, they must be the opinions of some natural person or class of persons. If it embarks in this business, whose opinion shall it adopt? If it adopts the opinions of more than one man, or one class of men, to what extent may it group together conflicting opinions? or may it group together the opinions of all? And where this conflict exists, how thorough will the teaching be? Will it be exhaustive and exact, as it is in elementary literature and in the sciences usually taught to children? and, if not, which of the doctrines or truths claimed by each will be blurred over, and which taught in preference to those in conflict? These are difficulties which we do not have to encounter when teaching the ordinary branches of learning. It is only when we come to teach what lies beyond the scope of sense and reason'— what, from its very nature, can only be the object of faith that we encounter these difficulties.” And the counsel (among them Hon. Stanley Matthews and Hon. George Hoadley) for the Cincinnati Board of Education under the Ohio Constitution containing the above provision, in their argument to the Supreme Court in this case, said:

"The State is, in Ohio, forbidden to interfere with, or exercise the office of, the church. Religious instruction and the reading of religious books, including the Holy Bible,' cannot be prosecuted in schools supported by the taxation of men of all religious opinions, without the violation of section 7, article 1, and section 2, article 6, of the Constitution. Neither Christianity nor any other system of religion is a part of the law of this State. Bloom v. Richards, 2 Ohio State, 387; Thurman, Justice, in Mc Gatrick v. Wason, 4 Ohio State, 571; article 11 of the treaty with Tripoli, concluded by the administration of George Washington, November 4, 1796, 8 United States Statutes at Large, 155."

It is the duty of the state to "encourage" religion by giving every individual of whatever belief a full and impartial protection in the promulgation and exercise of his belief. As this has been the general policy of this government, we have as a result, better government and a better morality than any other nation. The encouragement of religion is an incident in insuring civil liberty, of which religious liberty and free thought are the most important branches. Religion in general has been encouraged to such an extent that America has been termed the ment given by "home of the persecuted;" for here the Jew or Mahometan has equal rights. even though through the inefficiency or prejudice of the internal police they may not always be protected as they should be - with the highest professor of Christianity in the land. The teaching of Christianity constitutionally has no right in our public schools, or in any of our public institutions.

Encourage

our government to re

ligion.