361 lines
14 KiB
HTML
361 lines
14 KiB
HTML
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML EXPERIMENTAL 970324//EN">
|
|
<html>
|
|
<head>
|
|
|
|
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Adobe FrameMaker 5.5/HTML Export Filter">
|
|
|
|
<link rel="STYLESHEET" href="Origin%20of%20Our%20First%20Amendment%20&%20The%20Servetus%20Affair.css">
|
|
|
|
<title>The Origins of Our First Amendment & The Servetus Affair</title>
|
|
</head>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<body style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(250, 255, 155);" alink="#000099" link="#000099" vlink="#990099">
|
|
|
|
<div>
|
|
<h1 class="Heading1">
|
|
<img src="Origin%20of%20Our%20First%20Amendment%20&%20The%20Servetus%20Affair-1.gif">
|
|
|
|
The Origins of Our First Amendment & The Servetus Affair</h1>
|
|
|
|
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
|
|
<a name="pgfId=924045">
|
|
</a>The Servetus Affair helps us understand
|
|
our First Amendment. In fact, that episode with Servetus, was an event
|
|
mentioned many times by the first drafter of the First Amendment,
|
|
Thomas Jefferson. It indubitably explains what he meant by the
|
|
rationale for the First Amendment as creating a separation of church
|
|
and state.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
|
|
<a name="pgfId=924073">
|
|
</a>What a history lesson teaches is that the
|
|
modern practice of distinct boundaries -- the church having domain over
|
|
conscience and the state over true crimes -- was the real objective
|
|
behind the doctrine of <a name="marker=923791">
|
|
</a>
|
|
separation of church and state as reflected in the First Amendment.
|
|
(Reynolds v. U.S. (1879) (that metaphor "may be accepted almost as an
|
|
authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment.")
|
|
Thankfully, the First Amendment has largely succeeded in its original
|
|
purpose. </p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
|
|
<a name="pgfId=931260">
|
|
</a>However, because many modern jurists have
|
|
forgotten the Servetus Affair, they are also slowly losing grip on the
|
|
true meaning of and purpose of the First Amendment. As a result, the
|
|
law is slipping backwards as the explosion of hate-crime legislation
|
|
proves.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
|
|
<a name="pgfId=924059">
|
|
</a>
|
|
Indeed, the concept of `<a name="marker=924056">
|
|
</a>
|
|
separation of <a name="marker=924057">
|
|
</a>
|
|
church and state' by <a name="marker=924058">
|
|
</a>
|
|
Jefferson in his famous letter of 1802 was meant to reflect the lessons learned from the Servetus Affair. <a name="marker=924060">
|
|
</a>Jefferson
|
|
was very familiar with the Servetus case, having written elsewhere that
|
|
modern-day Calvinists were accusing a Dr. Cooper of "Unitarianism...as
|
|
if it were a crime, and one for which, like Servetus, he should be
|
|
burned...."<a href="#pgfId=924079" class="footnote">
|
|
1</a>
|
|
Jefferson also bemoaned modern day Calvinists who rely upon "their oracle Calvin who consumed the poor Servetus."<a href="#pgfId=924153" class="footnote">
|
|
2</a>
|
|
Jefferson spoke again of "the fire and faggots [i.e., burning logs] of Calvin and his victim Servetus."<a href="#pgfId=924191" class="footnote">
|
|
3</a>
|
|
In another allusion to the Servetus' case, Jefferson said "the
|
|
Trinitarian idea triumphed not by reason but by the word of the fanatic
|
|
Athanasius, and grew in the blood of thousands and thousands of
|
|
martyrs."<a href="#pgfId=924097" class="footnote">
|
|
4</a>
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
|
|
<a name="pgfId=924054">
|
|
</a>
|
|
Only with that context can one truly understand Jefferson's famous letter of 1802 in which he explains the rationale to the <a name="marker=924062">
|
|
</a>First
|
|
Amendment. He says it was created to form "a wall of separation between
|
|
church and state." But this did not mean a wall at the public
|
|
courthouse prohibiting entry of an emblem of the Ten Commandments. That
|
|
is a childish application of the literal words about `separation.'
|
|
Rather, the First Amendment had to do with the countours of punishment
|
|
over conscience. Jefferson explained in this same letter to the Danbury
|
|
Baptist Association (Jan. 1, 1802) what he meant. It matches precisely
|
|
the lessons learned from the Servetus Affair: </p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="Quote">
|
|
<a name="pgfId=924116">
|
|
</a>All attempts to influence [the mind] by
|
|
temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only
|
|
to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the
|
|
plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who being both Lord of body
|
|
and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was
|
|
his Almighty power to do.<a href="#pgfId=924123" class="footnote">
|
|
5</a>
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
|
|
<a name="pgfId=924115">
|
|
</a>Thus, Jefferson meant that the state had
|
|
no role any longer in imposing on the liberty of conscience (i.e., our
|
|
First Amendment, transgressed by "meanness" in the Servetus Affair).
|
|
Conscience was the domain of the church or private belief. At the same
|
|
time, the church had no right to inflict in matters of conscience the
|
|
punishments that belonged to the state, such as deportation,
|
|
confinement or death (i.e., transgressed by Calvin's use of the
|
|
criminal courts to punish heresy). Hence, the powers of the state were
|
|
kept apart from the church, and the powers of the state was kept apart
|
|
from issues of conscience which belonged to the kingdom of God. Hence,
|
|
a wall. Luther's theory of <a name="marker=924063">
|
|
</a>
|
|
two kingdoms was a precursor of this view.<a href="#pgfId=924250" class="footnote">
|
|
6</a>
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
|
|
<a name="pgfId=924294">
|
|
</a>This is why Jefferson had no problem
|
|
supporting the federal government giving money to build a Catholic
|
|
church for an Indian tribe, or supporting Congress giving missionary
|
|
money to preach the gospel to the `heathen.'<a href="#pgfId=924310" class="footnote">
|
|
7</a>
|
|
What was on his mind was the same concern when Jefferson wrote the
|
|
religious liberty provision into the Virginia Constitution in 1776. It
|
|
expressly put an end to any punishment for not attending church.<a href="#pgfId=924370" class="footnote">
|
|
8</a>
|
|
Hene, the wall of which Jefferson spoke was not to separate the church
|
|
from the state's support and encouragement. (That may be a wise
|
|
position anyway, but it was not on the mind of Jefferson or the
|
|
founders.) Rather, what was on the mind of the founders was the
|
|
Servetus Affair, and the need to put a wall separating the church from
|
|
any longer using the state's power to punish the conscience. If you
|
|
failed to believe, or failed to attend church, the punishment for that
|
|
no longer belonged to the state.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
|
|
<a name="pgfId=923929">
|
|
</a>Thus, reviewing the Servetus Affair helps
|
|
remind us that separation of church and state did not originate to
|
|
remove symbols of religion on public land or buildings. It did not mean
|
|
to end support of the state for religion, whether a good idea or not as
|
|
we might debate today. To think that was its purpose is to lose sight
|
|
of the far more important message that the state should not impose its
|
|
terrifying penalties for wrong belief. </p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
|
|
<a name="pgfId=924393">
|
|
</a>
|
|
This is why modern <a name="marker=923836">
|
|
</a>
|
|
hate crime legislation,<a href="#pgfId=923810" class="footnote">
|
|
9</a>
|
|
which exacerbates criminal penalties based on hateful beliefs, is so
|
|
inimical to the underlying premise of the separation of church and
|
|
state. The true theory behind that phrase was that matters of private
|
|
belief, whether religious or otherwise, would no longer be punished
|
|
with criminal penalties. Once hate crimes were legitimized in the U.S.,<a href="#pgfId=923863" class="footnote">
|
|
10</a>
|
|
and now exist in 43 states, it was no surprise that expressive gestures
|
|
that do no physical harm but which `intimidate' others can now be
|
|
criminalized, so says the Supreme Court.<a href="#pgfId=923820" class="footnote">
|
|
11</a>
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
|
|
<a name="pgfId=924284">
|
|
</a>The better solution is to use wholesome
|
|
teaching on civic responsibilities, supported by appropriate civil
|
|
damages and/or injunctions to correct the effects of invidious bias and
|
|
socially-unacceptable ideas (e.g., false and misleading defamation,
|
|
civil rights violations, etc.). On the other hand, it should be
|
|
strongly presumed as wrong to use criminal penalties to change the way
|
|
people think. Hate-crime legislation should be subjected to the
|
|
heighest scrutiny, given the original goals of the First Amendment. It
|
|
was originally intended to correct for the abuse of criminal laws over
|
|
conscience, as the Servetus Affair was etched into the minds of those
|
|
who drafted the amendment. </p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
|
|
<a name="pgfId=924397">
|
|
</a>Thus, whenever criminal penalties today
|
|
are heightened purely on the basis of invidious thoughts, that hits at
|
|
the core of what the First Amendment sought to eradicate. Having lost
|
|
the memory of the Servetus Affair has caused the loss of memory of what
|
|
was the core purpose of the First Amendment. This memory loss has
|
|
opened the door to approval of hate-crime legislation.</p>
|
|
|
|
</div>
|
|
|
|
<hr>
|
|
<div class="footnotes">
|
|
<div class="footnote">
|
|
<p class="Footnote">
|
|
<span class="footnoteNumber">
|
|
1.</span>
|
|
<a name="pgfId=924079">
|
|
</a>
|
|
<a name="18701">
|
|
</a>
|
|
May 1820, quoted in The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia (1900) at 207. </p>
|
|
|
|
</div>
|
|
|
|
<div class="footnote">
|
|
<p class="Footnote">
|
|
<span class="footnoteNumber">
|
|
2.</span>
|
|
<a name="pgfId=924153">
|
|
</a>
|
|
Edwin Scott Gaustad, Sworn on the Altar of God: A Religious Biography of Thomas Jefferson (Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1996) at 177.</p>
|
|
|
|
</div>
|
|
|
|
<div class="footnote">
|
|
<p class="Footnote">
|
|
<span class="footnoteNumber">
|
|
3.</span>
|
|
<a name="pgfId=924191">
|
|
</a>Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence,
|
|
and Miscellanies: From the Papers of Thomas Jefferson (F. Carr &
|
|
Co., 1829) at 45-46.</p>
|
|
|
|
</div>
|
|
|
|
<div class="footnote">
|
|
<p class="Footnote">
|
|
<span class="footnoteNumber">
|
|
4.</span>
|
|
<a name="pgfId=924097">
|
|
</a>
|
|
Charles B. Sanford, The religious life of Jefferson (1984) at 90.</p>
|
|
|
|
</div>
|
|
|
|
<div class="footnote">
|
|
<p class="Footnote">
|
|
<span class="footnoteNumber">
|
|
5.</span>
|
|
<a name="pgfId=924123">
|
|
</a>Social and Political Philosophy (John
|
|
Sommerville & Ronald E. Santoni, eds.) (1963) at 247. The
|
|
back-draft negative effect of zealous pursuit of mere heresy was that
|
|
we lost the ability to prosecute the only religious crime which was
|
|
ever legitimately also a public crime: blasphemy. But since we are not
|
|
angels, and do not follow the Bible's requirement of two eye-witnesses,
|
|
it appears we are far from ready to ever re-invigorate such a crime
|
|
into modern codes.</p>
|
|
|
|
</div>
|
|
|
|
<div class="footnote">
|
|
<p class="Footnote">
|
|
<span class="footnoteNumber">
|
|
6.</span>
|
|
<a name="pgfId=924250">
|
|
</a>
|
|
Justo L. González, The Story of Christianity (Harper Collins, 1984) at 36.</p>
|
|
|
|
</div>
|
|
|
|
<div class="footnote">
|
|
<p class="Footnote">
|
|
<span class="footnoteNumber">
|
|
7.</span>
|
|
<a name="pgfId=924310">
|
|
</a>David E. Guinn, Faith on Trial:
|
|
Communities of Faith, the First Amendment, and the Theory of Deep
|
|
Diversity (Lexington Books, 2006) at 31. </p>
|
|
|
|
</div>
|
|
|
|
<div class="footnote">
|
|
<p class="Footnote">
|
|
<span class="footnoteNumber">
|
|
8.</span>
|
|
<a name="pgfId=924370">
|
|
</a>
|
|
Marion Levy, Leonard W. Levy, Seasoned Judgments: The American Constitution, Rights (Transaction Publishers, 1997) at 100.</p>
|
|
|
|
</div>
|
|
|
|
<div class="footnote">
|
|
<p class="Footnote">
|
|
<span class="footnoteNumber">
|
|
9.</span>
|
|
<a name="pgfId=923810">
|
|
</a>
|
|
Once authorized by the Supreme Court in 1993, <a name="marker=924188">
|
|
</a>hate-crimes
|
|
are now used in 43 states. They provide enhanced penalties if a
|
|
defendant in committing the crime acted with a purpose to intimidate an
|
|
individual or group of individuals because of race, color, gender,
|
|
handicap, religion, sexual orientation or ethnicity. A hate crime is
|
|
not a crime where the hateful motive is relevant to proving the
|
|
elements of crime, contrary to how some explain these law. So far, a
|
|
hate crime is something already criminal which is punished more
|
|
severely because the ideology (motive) behind the hate was a
|
|
societally-rejected bias. </p>
|
|
|
|
</div>
|
|
|
|
<div class="footnote">
|
|
<p class="Footnote">
|
|
<span class="footnoteNumber">
|
|
10.</span>
|
|
<a name="pgfId=923863">
|
|
</a>
|
|
In approving <a name="marker=923977">
|
|
</a>hate-crime
|
|
legislation, the Supreme Court engaged in a euphemism to resolve its
|
|
contradiction of sound jurisprudence. It first admitted correctly this
|
|
principle: "But it is equally true that a defendant's abstract beliefs,
|
|
however obnoxious to most people, may not be taken into consideration
|
|
by a sentencing judge." <a name="marker=923979">
|
|
</a>
|
|
Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476, 485 (U.S. 1993). However, then by
|
|
labelling the enhancement as punishing the evil motive of selecting a
|
|
victim due to an ideology (there racism), the Supreme Court said this
|
|
was not punishing thought. Yet, it is indeed punishing thought, albeit
|
|
a more dangerous thought that may lead to crimes. Dr. Phyllis
|
|
Gerstenfeld in The Hate Debate and Policy Problems (Sage Publications:
|
|
2004) mentions this criticism, and says "I admit to still feeling
|
|
ambivalent on this matter myself." "I remain firmly on the fence."
|
|
(Id., at 3, 37.) In other words, she feels queezy about adding
|
|
penalties to an act that is already criminal solely because of the kind
|
|
of thoughts held by the perpetrator. Perhaps the biggest problem is
|
|
that such a statute, in the wrong hands, is an evil weapon, which we
|
|
saw how it worked in <a name="marker=923978">
|
|
</a>
|
|
Calvin's hands in 1553. Today, any prosecution of any crime, if a
|
|
prosecutor wishes to intimidate a defendant, can turn your life upside
|
|
down. The prosecutor simply starts interviewing all your friends and
|
|
family to find out any hateful thoughts you ever expressed about a
|
|
person in the category of your alleged victim. If it is there, the
|
|
prosecution becomes a vendetta.</p>
|
|
|
|
</div>
|
|
|
|
<div class="footnote">
|
|
<p class="Footnote">
|
|
<span class="footnoteNumber">
|
|
11.</span>
|
|
<a name="pgfId=923820">
|
|
</a>"The First Amendment permits Virginia to
|
|
outlaw cross burnings done with the intent to intimidate because
|
|
burning a cross is a particularly virulent form of intimidation." <a name="marker=924189">
|
|
</a>
|
|
Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 363 (U.S. 2003)(held without such limitation, it was unconstitutional).</p>
|
|
|
|
</div>
|
|
|
|
</div>
|
|
|
|
</body>
|
|
</html>
|