|
The present Maryland Constitution cov-
ers the freedom of religion in four sec-
tions, 3(5, 37, 38 and 39. However, the
effect of these sections has been seriously
affected by several recent decisions of the
Supreme Court of the Maryland Court of
Appeals so that there is little or no mean-
ing to sections 3(5 and 37 when it comes to
the matters involving holding of office and
questions of qualification as jurors.
Now, I will not £0 into those provisions
of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, but
the only effect left in the law with respect
to these four sections that is important to
us is the language "nor ought any person
be compelled to frequent, maintain or
contribute, unless on contract, to maintain
any place of worship or ministry."
Ladies and gentlemen, there are two
aspects to this freedom. One is that there
shall be no law prohibiting the free exer-
cise of religion, and this has been clearly
and carefully stated in many of these
cases. But the second part, the one that I
think may trouble many people, is the
phrase "no law shall be made respecting
an establishment of religion." This is the
clause that relates to the separation of
church and state. This is an area that can
evoke strong emotional debate.
The Committee was unanimously in
favor of the complete separation of church
and state, and thought that it should be
stated as clearly and unequivocally as pos-
sible.
We considered the language of the com-
mission draft and found that it was ade-
quate, but we felt that the language of the
First Amendment decidedly stated this
concept of separation of church and state
as effectively as it could be stated.
What does the First Amendment mean?
I should like to read to you a very famous
and brief excerpt from a Supreme Court
case called Evcrson r. Hoard of County
Commissioners. This is the Court's state-
ment with respect to what the First
Amendment means:
"The establishment of religion clause of
the First Amendment means at least this:
Neither a state nor the federal government
can set up a church. Neither can pass laws
which aid one religion, aid all religions, or
prefer one religion over another. Neither
can force nor influence a person to go to or
remain away from church against his will
or force him to profess a belief or disbelief
in any religion. No person can be punished
for entertaining or professing religious
|
beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance
or nonattendance. No tax in any amount,
large or small, can be levied to support
any religious activities or institutions,
whatever they may be called, or whatever
form they may adopt to teach or practice
religion. Neither a state nor the federal
government can openly or secretly partici-
pate in the affairs of any religious or-
ganizations or groups and vice versa. In
the words of Jefferson, the clause against
establishment of religion by law was in-
tended to erect a wall of separation be-
tween church and state." This establishes
what the First Amendment means.
Now, what does it mean in Maryland?
It means exactly that. We have a very fa-
mous case which I am sure you have heard
of, the Horace Mann case decided in June
of 1006, respecting this very matter. That
case involved four separate statutes of the
Maryland legislature granting a total of
two and a half million dollars to four col-
leges, $500,000 to Hood College to build a
dormitory and classroom building, $500,000
to Western Maryland College for a science
wing and a dining hall, $750,000 to Notre
Dame College for a science building, and
$750,000 to St. Joseph College in Emmits-
burg for a science building.
Action was brought to have these grants
invalidated on the basis that they violated
both the Maryland Constitution and the
First Amendment. The Court held that they
violated the First Amendment and were
therefore unconstitutional.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Kiefer, do
you have any idea how much longer your
principal presentation would take?
DELEGATE KIEFER: If you will give
me about five or ten minutes at the most.
THE CHAIRMAN: Very well.
DELEGATE KIEFER: The Court held
that the First Amendment was applicable,
and that these grants were unconstitu-
tional. It went on to hold that they would
not have been unconstitutional under the
Maryland Declaration of Rights. In so stat-
ing the Court expressed what I have al-
ready read to you from the Everson case,
only even stronger:
"A state cannot contribute tax-raised
funds to the support of an institution
which teaches the tenets or faith of any
church."
Now, we have heard, ladies and gentle-
men, testimony here on this subject. As a
matter of fact, we had to hold it in this
|
