Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/15-577_khlp.pdf
Page Number: 38.0

12 

TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH OF COLUMBIA, INC. v.
COMER 
SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting
 

Those  who  fought  to  end  the  public  funding  of  religion
based their opposition on a powerful set of arguments, all
stemming from the basic premise that the practice harmed 
both civil government and religion.  The civil government,
they  maintained,  could  claim  no  authority  over  religious
belief.  For  them,  support  for  religion  compelled  by  the 
State  marked  an  overstep  of  authority  that  would  only 
lead to more.  Equally troubling, it risked divisiveness by
giving  religions  reason  to  compete  for  the  State’s  benefi-
cence.  Faith, they believed, was a personal matter, entirely 
between  an  individual  and  his  god.  Religion  was  best
served when sects reached out on the basis of their tenets 
alone,  unsullied  by  outside  forces,  allowing  adherents  to
come  to  their  faith  voluntarily.    Over  and  over,  these 
arguments  gained  acceptance  and  led  to  the  end  of  state 
laws exacting payment for the support of religion. 

Take  Virginia.    After  the  Revolution,  Virginia  debated
and rejected a general religious assessment.  The proposed 
bill would have allowed taxpayers to direct payments to a 
Christian  church  of  their  choice  to  support  a  minister,
exempted  “Quakers  and  Menonists,”  and  sent  undirected 
assessments  to  the  public  treasury  for  “seminaries  of 
learning.”  A Bill Establishing a Provision for Teachers of 
the Christian Religion, reprinted in Everson, 330 U. S., at 
74 (supplemental appendix to dissent of Rutledge, J.).

In opposing this proposal, James Madison authored his
famous  Memorial  and  Remonstrance,  in  which  he  con-
demned the bill as hostile to religious freedom.  Memorial 
and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments (1785),
in  5  The  Founders’  Constitution  82–84  (P.  Kurland  &  R. 
Lerner  eds.  1987).  Believing  it  “proper  to  take  alarm,” 
despite  the  bill’s  limits,  he  protested  “that  the  same  au-
thority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence 
only  of  his  property  for  the  support  of  any  one  establish-
ment,  may  force  him  to  conform  to  any  other  establish-
ment.”  Id., at 82.  Religion had “flourished, not only with-