following the example set by


SUBMITTED BY: shopnuvem

DATE: Aug. 18, 2017, 7:01 p.m.

UPDATED: Aug. 18, 2017, 7:20 p.m.

FORMAT: Text only

SIZE: 2.3 kB

HITS: 11096

  1. nion in Tennessee! That is to say, that public opinion in
  2. Tennessee upon the question of religious belief stands just where it
  3. stood in New England two hundred and fifty years ago. We are free
  4. to say, however, that we do not believe that such is public opinion in
  5. Tennessee. We are not ready, just yet, to confess that in Tennessee
  6. there has been no progress in this respect within the last two
  7. hundred and fifty years. That on the part of certain individuals
  8. there has been no such progress we freely admit; but that such is
  9. the state of public opinion in that State to-day, we do decidedly
  10. doubt. It is in order, however, for the press of Tennessee to speak
  11. much more plainly than it has yet done, as to whether Judge
  12. Hammond has correctly gauged public opinion, or whether he has
  13. mistaken his own views for public opinion, in that State, on the
  14. question of the constitutional freedom of religious belief.
  15. The reader may for himself form an estimate of the correctness
  16. of Judge Hammond's views, so far as the Constitution of Tennessee
  17. itself is concerned, by reading again the extract from that
  18. document, quoted near the beginning of this review (page 4).
  19. 23
  20. We might here inquire also, whether Judge Hammond, or
  21. anybody else, really believes that the doctrine thus set forth by the
  22. judge is in accord with the "belief of Mr. Madison and other
  23. founders of our Government that they had practically established
  24. absolute religious freedom and exemption from persecution for opinion's sake
  25. in matters of religion"? and whether in this, either he or the State
  26. of Tennessee is indeed thoroughly following the example set by
  27. those founders of our Government?
  28. The Individual Right of Religious Belief
  29. From the foregoing extracts, which are a correct outline of the
  30. theory of the whole dictum, it is seen that there is no recognition of
  31. any such thing as the individual freedom of religious belief, the
  32. individual right of conscience, but of "sectarian freedom" only. In the
  33. whole discussion there is not the slightest appearance of any such
  34. thing as the individual right of conscience or of religious belief. Yet
  35. the individual right is the American idea, and is the one that is
  36. contemplated in the United States Constitution and in the
  37. Constitutions of the States, so far as they have follo

comments powered by Disqus