Was the United States established to
be a “Christian Nation?” This question,
perhaps more than any other, has been at the center of America’s ongoing
culture war, as devout Christian believers and skeptical doubters battle in a
seemingly never-ending tug-o-war over the legacy of this nation’s
founding. Both camps in this battle feel
armed to the teeth with various quotes, sources and documents from the past,
which they believe supports their respective conclusions.
One of the most popular forms of evidence
cited by both believers and skeptics has been Supreme Court cases of the
past. Since many of these rulings, by
our nation’s highest court, serve to set a legal precedent, any ruling for or
against the “Christian Nation” thesis would carry a great deal of weight. One of these cases, I believe, illustrates
both the complexity of the Christian nation question, along with how both camps
tend to misjudge the strength of their respective positions.
The day after Christmas of 1831,
Stephen Girard, a French immigrant who resided in Philadelphia, passed away at the
age of 81. Girard was a banker and philanthropist who had amassed an
incredible fortune that made him the richest man at that time in the United
States. Girard was also a widower who
had no children. As a result, Girard elected to leave a large portion of
his fortune to the City of Philadelphia.[1] In his will, Girard wished for the City
of Philadelphia to establish an orphanage/college for "poor male
white orphans." In addition, Girard's will contained a clause which called
for the complete ban on the Bible and Bible readings in said orphanage, along
with a ban on every type of religious minister:
I enjoin and
require that no ecclesiastic, missionary, or minister of any sect whatsoever,
shall ever hold or exercise any station or duty whatever in the said college;
nor shall any such person ever be admitted for any purpose, or as a visitor,
within the premises appropriated to the purposes of the said college.[2]
On the surface Girard's request for
a ban on religion and the Bible itself seems incredibly judgmental. This
is an understandable conclusion, especially when we discover that Girard was
somewhat hostile to religion throughout his life. Before passing
judgement, however, there is some important historical context we should
consider.
The 19th century was a period of extreme growth in the United States. The swell of Irish Catholics, during the 19th century, sparked a fire of anti-Catholic sentiment that consumed large segments of the American populace to include Philadelphia. During the first decades of the 19th century, Catholic churches and clergy grew at an exponential rate. Protestants reacted by inciting discord within their ranks. Catholics responded to this growing disapproval of their faith by mounting an attack of their own. The strife that ensued divided American Christians over fundamental Christian doctrines. In addition, this division caused both Protestant and Catholic adherents to double down on their faith.
This Protestant/Catholic battle
eventually found its way into America's schools. In Philadelphia these
schools were controlled by the Protestant majority, who insisted that their
religious views take center stage as part of the regular school
curriculum. Catholics tried to respond to this action by establishing
schools of their own, where Catholic beliefs could be taught and practiced
without opposition.[3]
In the wake of what became known as
the Philadelphia Bible Riots, we can better understand why Mr. Girard was so
vehemently opposed to religion in his schools.
Again, from his will:
In making
this restriction, I do not mean to cast any reflection upon any sect or person
whatsoever; but, as there is such a multitude of sects, and such a diversity of
opinion amongst them, I desire to keep the tender minds of the orphans, who are
to derive advantage from this bequest, free from the excitement which clashing
doctrines and sectarian controversy are so apt to produce.[4]
As is the case with most who leave
a large fortune, the extended relatives of Girard, some still residing in
France, wanted a piece of the pie. The argument became intense enough
that eventually the Supreme Court chose to deal with the matter. The
Girard family hired attorney Daniel Webster, former Senator and Secretary of
State to Presidents Harrison and Tyler, while Horace Binney represented the
City of Philadelphia.
The case essentially centered on two key issues: first, could the Corporation of the City of Philadelphia take real property and act as trust in the same manner as a private individual? The second issue dealt with whether Girard's will violated the laws of Pennsylvania, particularly as it related to the issue of ministers being banned from the college. In other words, did Girard's will create an institution (the orphanage) that was specifically hostile to the Christian faith?
The case essentially centered on two key issues: first, could the Corporation of the City of Philadelphia take real property and act as trust in the same manner as a private individual? The second issue dealt with whether Girard's will violated the laws of Pennsylvania, particularly as it related to the issue of ministers being banned from the college. In other words, did Girard's will create an institution (the orphanage) that was specifically hostile to the Christian faith?
Daniel Webster focused most of his energies on this second issue. In his mind, Girard's will did violate Pennsylvania law and common law because it suggested that sectarian differences within Christianity meant the entire Christian institution was a waste. Webster stated:
[T]his
objection to the multitude and differences of sects is but the old story—the
old infidel argument. It is notorious that there are certain great religious
truths which are admitted and believed by all Christians. All believe in the
existence of a God. All believe in the immortality of the soul. All believe in
the responsibility, in another world, for our conduct in this. All believe in
the divine authority of the New Testament...And cannot all these great truths
be taught to children without their minds being perplexed with clashing
doctrines and sectarian controversies? Most certainly they can.[5]
Binney's rebuttal was to
predictably point out that the differences between denominations were there for
a reason. It would be utter foolishness to assume that representatives of
these different sects would not favor their own beliefs:
If any clergyman was to be
admitted, he would of course teach the doctrines of his own church. No two
sects would agree. Some would adopt one part of the Bible, some another. If
they agreed as to what was to be left out as apocryphal, they would differ about
the translation of the rest. The Protestant would not receive the Douay Bible.
See the difficulties that exist in New York about the introduction of the Bible
as a school-book.[6]
In the end, the court ruled in
favor of Girard (or better put, the City of Philadelphia). The Supreme
Court stated that a corporation could in fact receive real property willed to
its trust and effectively execute the terms of a will as easily as a private
individual. On the issue of Girard's will violating Pennsylvania and common
law, Justice Joseph Story, writing for the court, stated:
It is also
said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of the common
law of Pennsylvania. But this proposition is to be received with its
appropriate qualifications, and in connection with the bill of rights of that
state…Language more comprehensive for the complete protection of every variety
of religious opinion could scarcely be used; and it must have been
intended to extend equally to all sects, whether they believed in Christianity
or not, and whether they were Jews or infidels.
[...]
Is an
omission to provide for instruction in Christianity in any scheme of school or
college education a fatal defect, which avoids it according to the law of
Pennsylvania? If the instruction provided for is incomplete and imperfect, is
it equally fatal? These questions are propounded, because we are not aware that
any thing exists in the constitution or laws of Pennsylvania, or the judicial
decisions of its tribunals, which would justify us in pronouncing that such
defects would be so fatal. Let us take the case of a charitable donation to
teach poor orphans reading, writing, arithmetic, geography, and navigation, and
excluding all other studies and instruction; would the donation be void, as a
charity in Pennsylvania, as being deemed derogatory to Christianity?...It
has hitherto been thought sufficient, if he does not require any thing to be
taught inconsistent with Christianity.
Looking to
the objection therefore in a mere juridical view, which is the only one in
which we are at liberty to consider it, we are satisfied that there is
nothing in the devise establishing the college, or in the regulations and
restrictions contained therein, which are inconsistent with the Christian
religion, or are opposed to any known policy of the state of
Pennsylvania. (my emphasis).[7]
In short, the court ruled that
though Girard's will specifically forbade ministers of all denominations from
teaching or even visiting the orphanage/college, it did not attack or persecute
the Christian religion. In other words, the court recognized that the
wall of separation between church and state was not some absolute, impenetrable
barrier but instead resembled a semi-permeable membrane, like that of a human
cell.
The court was quick to point out
that Christianity was not only a part of American heritage but was also a part
of the common law of Pennsylvania. At the same time, the court was just
as quick to defend Girard's will on the grounds that no Christian
discrimination had been made by his ban on Christian ministers.
It should come as no surprise to
those familiar with the arguments of both the Christian Nation apologists and
their secularist opponents why this case would resonate with their respective
opinions. Christian Nation advocates are quick to site Joseph Story’s
reference to a “Christian Country” while skeptics love to remind everyone that
the court ultimately sided with Girard. But in their quest to out-quote
the opposition both sides reveal the fundamental flaws of their respective
positions.
The truth of the matter is Supreme Court decisions don't happen in a vacuum. There are many influences that determine the outcome of a case. Even though the court ultiamtely upheld Girard, they did not establish a precedent that outlawed religion entirely. Instead the court discriminate on what it would allow to cross the semi-permeable church/state wall. As one scholar put it, "Vidal was the Supreme Court's very first case dealing with the role of religion in pubic schools, and it laid the foundation for an accommodationist view of the religion clause."[8]
[1]
Stephen Girard, The Will of the Late Stephen Girard. (1831).
Taken from Binney, Horace, Philadelphia, and United States. Supreme
Court. Arguments of the defendants' counsel and the judgment of the Supreme
Court, U.S.: in the case of Vidal and another, complainants and appellants,
versus the Mayor, &c., of Philadelphia,
the executors of S. Girard, and others, defendants & appellees : January
Term, 1844 : to which is added the will of Stephen Girard. Philadelphia: J.
Crissy, printer, 1844. Sabin Americana: History of the Americas, 1500-1926.
https://link-gale-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/apps/doc/CY0107721925/SABN?u=vic_liberty&sid=SABN&xid=034ae4db.
Pp. 283.
[2]
Ibid, 298.
[3] Lannie,
Vincent P., and Bernard C. Diethorn. “For the Honor and Glory of God: The
Philadelphia Bible Riots of 1840.” History of Education Quarterly 8,
no. 1 (1968): 44–106. https://doi.org/10.2307/366986.
[4] Girard,
299.
[5]
Daniel Webster, Mr. Webster's speech in defense of the Christian ministry,
and in favor of the religious instruction of the young. Feb. 10, 1844. Pp. 10-11.
https://archive.org/stream/mrwebstersspeech00web#page/10/mode/2up
[6] Binney,
Horace, Françoise Fénelon Vidal, John Sergeant, Philadelphia, and United
States. Supreme Court. Arguments of the defendants' counsel and the judgment
of the Supreme Court, U.S. : in the case of Vidal and another, complainants and
appellants, versus the Mayor, &c., of Philadelphia, the executors of S.
Girard, and others, defendants & appellees : January Term, 1844 : to which
is added the will of Stephen Girard. Philadelphia: J. Crissy, printer,
1844. Sabin Americana: History of the Americas, 1500-1926 (accessed
April 14, 2020). https://link-gale-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/apps/doc/CY0107721925/SABN?u=vic_liberty&sid=SABN&xid=034ae4db.
[7] Joseph
Story. Vidal v. Girard's
Executors, 43 U.S. 127. Supreme
Court of the United States (Feb. 27, 1844). Taken from Court Listener, https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/86272/vidal-v-girards-executors/
[8] Jay
Allen Sekulow and Jeremy Tedesco. “The
Story Behind Vidal v. Girard's Executors: Joseph Story, The Philadelphia Bible
Riots, and Religious Liberty.” Pepperdine Law Review, vol. 32, num.
3. (April 20, 2005). https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1248&context=plr
No comments:
Post a Comment