[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.First Par-ish in Falmouth, in 1810.Barnes involved the issue of whether a Universalist minister was entitled tothe ministerial taxes assessed against two of his members but given to the localCongregational church.Barnes s church was not incorporated by the legisla-ture, something neither the constitution nor the 1800 law required and a ques-tion the court in Murray had appeared to resolve in favor of dissenting churches.N EW E NGLAND DISESTABLISHMENT 137But Chief Justice Parsons, the prosecuting attorney in Murray some twenty-fiveyears earlier, took the opportunity in Barnes to clarify the law and, at the sametime, to defend the establishment against its critics.Barnes stands as the strong-53est apologia for religious establishments of any American legal decision.The specific issue in Barnes was whether the constitution required incor-poration in order for churches to participate under the assessment system andreceive the benefits of Articles II and III.For Parsons, this issue led to the fun-damental question about the official role of religion in civil society.The objectof civil government, Parsons began, was for the promotion and security of thehappiness of its citizens.But that goal could not be achieved without an under-standing of our moral duties, which enabled humankind to comprehend allthe social and civil obligations of man to man. Even wise laws could notinstill or oblige the performance of the necessary duties:Civil government, therefore, availing itself of its own powers, isextremely defective; and unless it could derive assistance from somesuperior power, whose laws extend to the temper and disposition ofthe human heart,.wretched indeed would be the state of manunder a civil constitution of any form.54Fortunately, Parsons continued, the people of Massachusetts were not exposedto the threat of choosing a false and defective religious system. Instead, Prot-estant Christianity had long been recognized as the superior system, its divineauthority admitted, resting on immortal truth and containing a system ofmorals adapted to man. The people collectively had adopted and patronizedthis religion by setting up an establishment, but one liberal and consistentwith the rights of conscience on religious subjects. This establishment, accord-ing to Parsons, necessitated the public s instruction in religion and morals,which could only be accomplished by public religious societies known in thelaw, [and] formed by the public authority of the state. Only legally recognizedsocieties could accomplish this important task, and only they could receivepublic support.55Parsons s opinion provided a legal and philosophical justification for theestablishment, but he still had to reconcile the freedom of conscience, equalprotection, and antisubordination provisions of Articles II and III.Parsons wasup to the task, noting that no one was compelled to attend any religious instruc-tion to which he conscientiously disapproved; as a result, the first objectionseems to mistake a man s conscience for his money, and to deny the state aright of levying and of appropriating the money of the citizens, at the will of thelegislature, in which they all are represented. Directing his argument towardthe Baptists and other conscientious objectors, Parsons insisted:138 T HE A NTEBELLUM S ETTLEMENTThe great error [in their argument] lies in not distinguishing betweenliberty of conscience in religious opinions and worship, and the rightof appropriating money by the state.The former is an unalienableright [protected by the constitution]; the latter is surrendered to thestate, as the price of protection.56Moreover, the dissenters could not claim that the system had the goal of advanc-ing any one religion nor that they did not benefit from its operation. The objectof public religious instruction is to teach.a system of correct morals amongthe people, and to form and cultivate reasonable and just habits and manners.Thus, the establishment advanced civil society, not religion, and all members ofsociety benefited from its operation.With respect to the clause requiring thatall moneys paid for the support of public worship be uniformly applied to thesupport of the public teacher or teachers of [one s] own religious sect or denom-ination, Parsons maintained that it applied only to Protestant ministers ofincorporated churches.In so holding, he gutted much of the meaning out ofArticle III s equal protection and antisubordination clauses, which he claimedwere only for the purpose of preventing an ecclesiastical hierarchy.57Finally, Parsons responded to the claim that establishments usurped reli-gion for the benefit of the state, violating Christian teachings against erecting a temporal domination of religion.Parsons denied that the state s foundersintended to create a Christian state authorized to enforce Christian doctrine.But the faith and precepts of the Christian religion are so interwoven that theymust be taught together. Our constitution certainly provides for the punish-ment of many breaches of the laws of Christianity, Parsons wrote, but not forthe purpose of propping up the Christian religion, but because those breachesare offenses against the laws of the state. The state was not usurping anyauthority it did not already possess as a civil government, and the operation ofthe establishment was solely for the benefit of all members of society.58Parsons had hoped that his Barnes opinion would settle the question overeligibility to participate in the assessment system and provide a philosophicalbasis that would perpetuate the establishment for years to come.But his argu-ment of why the tax system respected rights of conscience went against thegrowing consensus that had led to disestablishment in eleven of the states, andit convinced few people in Massachusetts.Parsons s narrow reading of theguarantees of religious equality and nonsubordination also highlighted the ten-sion in a system that professed an agnosticism toward, but kept a keen interestin, the theological content of public religious instruction.Despite the constitu-tion s declaration of religious equality in Massachusetts, the Standing Orderwas not prepared to risk the existence of civil society on such an experiment.N EW E NGLAND DISESTABLISHMENT 139More immediately, the holding threw the status of unincorporated dissentingchurches into limbo, as it tied the ability to receive incorporation to how closelythe legislature would examine whether each church conformed to the greaterpurposes behind Article III.In the end, though, Barnes turned out not to be thelegal life preserver of the establishment that Parsons had hoped but the lastsignificant victory for the supporters of the status quo.In 1810, the same year as the Barnes decision, the Republicans regainedpower in Boston with Elbridge Gerry being elected governor.The followingyear, the legislature passed the Religious Freedoms Act, partially in responseto the Barnes decision.The act effectively reversed much of Parsons s sweep-ing opinion
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]