Image by Joseph Sohm, found here.

I think we can all agree that our political discourse has become a bull shop, a public bazaar at which all manner of bull is available for purchase, that last word to be understood in at least two of its dictionary definitions.

I think, also, we tend, in trying times like these, to forget that there is a lot of fine china in that shop, and even if much of seems in pieces, broken, aside from our ability to repair it, we still possess those same impulses, and the minds, hearts, and skills to revive the political arts that created that fine china.

That reminder is my birthday wish for my country.

My birthday present, on this, its 233rd birthday, defined broadly and generously, is James Madison.
*****************************************************

I had expected to rummage through my well-worn, excessively underlined copy of The Federalist Papers to post some personal favorites that stand in stark contrast to what many on the right claim is the true meaning of our founding documents.

Finding that I hadn’t yet learned how to use the scanner function on my new multi-function printer, I went to look online for Madison “Federalist” quotes, and found something quite other than I thought I was looking for, which actually suited my purpose better.

James Madison was only 5’4”, and weighed only about 100 pounds, which means he had a physique, with some obvious exceptions, roughly equivalent to that of Natalie Woods. A small, almost dainty, human being, then, even by the standards of the time.

Imagine what fun our present-day wingers would have had with him, once they’d become convinced he wasn’t really one of them. They might argue, of course, that he is, but let’s examine Madison’s position on a very specific event in Virginia, from the year 1785, which Madison saw as an early test of the constitutional concept of freedom of religion.

This episode took place before the passage of the Bill of Rights, four years before Madison’s speech to the House of Representative, proposing the reasons why, reluctantly, (Madison felt those rights were already contained in the constitution) there was a need for such amendments.

In 1785, Madison was serving in Congress, but his residence, and his heart, were in Virginia.

In that year, after the Virginia legislature had abolished the pre-war Anglican “hierarchy,” as an official church of the commonwealth, a bill was introduced in under the auspices of Mr. Henry, (Patrick Henry, I believe ),that would have imposed ” a general tax for the support of ’Teachers of the Christian Religion,’” as Madison explains in a letter to General LaFayette written in 1826.

Concerned by the progress of the legislation and the gathering majority ready to support it, Madison proposed to his allies in the Virginia legislature that they seek to postpone passage to the next session, thus giving them and Madison time to appeal to the public to take a closer look at the issues therein.

The means of educating the public was what Madison calls a Memorial, to be written by him, a sort of pamphlet-petition, that would remonstrate against the arguments of those in favor of the passage of such a tax.

As Madison points out in his letter:

The experiment succeeded. The memorial was so extensively signed by the various religious sects, including a considerable portion of the old hierarchy, that the projected innovation was crushed, and under the influence of the popular sentiment thus called forth, the well-known Bill prepared by Mr. Jefferson, for “Establishing Religious freedom,” passed into a law, as it now stands in our code of statutes.

The document Madison wrote is as fascinating as it is long. Here is how it begins:

June 20, 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.

What follows that declaration is a series of 15 remonstrances each of which begins with the word, “Because.”

1. 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.

edit

2. Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body

edit

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.

Could a twenty-first century secular liberal have said it any better?

3. 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 entangled 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?

Imagine Madison on The Factor; does anyone doubt that James Madison’s views would engrage O’Reilly, and that Madison, despite his rather extraordinary credentials as a framer of our constitution, would receive the full force of O’Reilly’s patented no-spin all-spin treatment?

The fifth remonstrance, which complains of the bill’s violation of “the equality which ought to be the basis of every law,” because it denies the fundamental truth that all men are to “be considered as retaining an ’equal title to the free exercise of Religion according to the dictates of Conscience,’ contains this amazing passage:

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.

Good God. Can you imagine the outraged abuse anyone of us would endure were we to insist that toleration of non-belief is a religious as well as a civil duty?

I’m tempted to go on quoting, there is such a wealth of material in this “Memorial.” Okay, just one more.

5. 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.

Savour that for a moment, and then imagine some of the religious blow-hards who have become such a vexing influence on our political discourse being assigned by the God of your choice to write, and then write again, that particular remonstrance, through-out all eternity.

Or, better yet, to #5, let us add the task of copying #6:

6. 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:

As that colon implies, there is more to this remonstrance, and like the entire document, it needs to be read in full in order to appreciate the clarity of Madison’s crystalline logic, the supple strength of his wisdom, and the humanism of his powerful intelligence.

You can find the document here.