1900 William McKinley - Separation between Church and State in the Philippines

When the United States acquired the Islands of the Philippines from Spain, one of the major issues was establishing the principle of religious liberty and the separation between church and state.  Today, we struggle with the definition of what it means to build a wall between church and state with calls to remove prayer from schools and religious symbols from public buildings.  In 1900, President William McKinley had to establish the concept of this separation in the newly acquired Philippines between the well established Catholic friars and Filipinos who wanted religious liberty.  Spanish newspapers reported that President McKinley and Archbishop Chappelle was going to re-establish rule in the towns and parishes by the friars under the authority of the United States Military.  Today, as we argue whether or not baking a cake infringes on religious liberties, this should serve as a good lesson of what it really means to have an absolute separation between Church (capitalized to represent a particular church authority) and the State.

After the conquistadors brought the Filipinos under the rule of Spain in the 16th century, rather than sending large standing armies, Spain sent zealous Catholic missionaries known as Spanish friars.   The missionaries acted as de facto conquerors by gaining the trust and good will of the people and presenting Spanish culture to them in a positive manner.  Because these friars were often the only Spaniard in a town, they were given authority over the administration of the colony.  By time, the Spanish American war ended with the Treaty of Paris in 1898, the Spanish Friars had come to play a major role in the governing of the Philippines.  When the United States gained the entire Philippine Islands by a payment of $20 million to Spain,  the nation inherited many problems left by Spain including anti-friar sentiments, schisms between the Catholic and Anglican churches and what to do with the lands owned by the friars.   In 1900, the continued presence of the friars in the Philippines became a source of trouble for the McKinley administration because they had become synonymous with the Spanish Government and a focus of anti-colonial hatred.

On January 2nd 1900, the Roman Catholic Church sent an American, Archbishop P.L. Chappelle of New Orleans to the Philippines as papal delegate.   Because he was an American, he became the target of suspicion for the anti-colonial revolutionaries in the Philippines.  These suspicions grew as Chappelle allied himself with the friars and the Spanish religious orders and treated those who had anti-friar sentiments as enemies of both the Church and state.  In the minds of many Filipinos, he represented equally both the Papacy at Rome and the Government at Washington.   After only a week in Manila, a Spanish newspaper published an interview with the Archbishop, and quoted him as saying that the friars would be sent back to their parishes sustained by the authority of the American military.  Chappelle repudiated the interview, but never really denied that the Spanish report was false.  Nevertheless, the damage was done.  The Filipinos believed that the Archbishop was sent to be a defender of the friars leading to many questions about the principle of separation of Church and State.   They were concerned about reports by the Spanish newspapers that Archbishop Chappelle had discussions with Archbishop Nozaleda of Spain including "Shall the catechism be taught in the primary schools?" and "Shall taxes be imposed for the maintenance of the Church?"  Despite attempts to pacify the people, by assuring them that the American government would allow Filipinos to enjoy religious liberty and that the friars would not be forced upon them, cries came out from the housetops that the American 'prelate' had come to do the opposite. 

When Lieutenant General Arthur MacArthur (father of Douglas MacArthur) became the military Governor-General of the Philippines in 1900, he published a specific pledge of religious liberty based upon President William McKinley's instructions to the second Philippine Commission.  However, in the current state, the Filipinos wanted more than just some abstract principles.  They wanted concrete evidence that there would be no compact between the friars and the American government.   The road ahead for MacArthur and McKinley was long, quelling rebellions and determining what to do with property that had come under joint control of both Church and State.  It was a test of whether or not America would stand by it's principle of religious freedom and the separation of Church and State.   In President McKinley's 1900 State of the Union, he expressed his belief in the absolute separation of Church and State when he included the words from his instructions sent to the second Philippine Commission on religious liberty.

"That the provision of the Treaty of Paris pledging the United States to the protection of all rights of property in the islands, and as well the principle of our own Government which prohibits the taking of private property without due process of law, shall not be violated; that the welfare of the people of the islands, which should be a paramount consideration, shall be attained consistently with this rule of property right; that if it becomes necessary for the public interest of the people of the islands to dispose of claims to property which the Commission finds to be not lawfully acquired and held disposition shall be made thereof by due legal procedure, in which there shall be full opportunity for fair and impartial hearing and judgment; that if the same public interests require the extinguishment of property rights lawfully acquired and held due compensation shall be made out of the public treasury therefore; that no form of religion and no minister of religion shall be forced upon any community or upon any citizen of the islands; that, upon the other hand, no minister of religion shall be interfered with or molested in following his calling. and that the separation between State and Church shall be real, entire, and absolute."

Note on the phrase 'Separation of Church and State'. 

The phrase is no where to be found in the Constitution, but is believed to come from an 1801 letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in the State of Connecticut. In that year, the Danbury Baptists sent President Jefferson a letter requesting his sentiments on their concerns over what they perceived to be a loss of religious liberty. Jefferson's response became the cornerstone of the wall between the church and state here in America. In the letter, the Danbury Baptist raised their concern "that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinion". The Baptists were concerned about a lack of liberty they enjoyed in the state of Connecticut. Jefferson's response included the phrase, "thus building a wall of separation between church and State", but as I will explain this phrase has been vastly misconstrued to deny the expression of religious faith in the public square. Over the years, we have seen prayer banned from our public schools and the ten commandments removed from the courts and walls of our government buildings. The anti-religious left has used this phrase to redefine the freedom of religion clause into a ban on religious expression in public. They argue for freedom from religion and that it was the founder's intent to relegate religion to the private confines of a church or home. This was never their intent. Yes, it is true that our founders clearly rejected any direct influence of government by the church, wanting neither a Christian monarchy, nor a papal state, nor a Muslim theocracy all of which were prevalent in those days. No amendment was needed for this, after all they were forming a Democratic Republic. Rather, the freedom of religion clause stating that Congress can make no law establishing religion, was added to protect our right to worship as we please without the consequence of any state or federal laws.


When the Danbury baptist felt a loss of this liberty, Thomas Jefferson wrote them this response.

To Messrs. Nehemiah Dodge and Others
A Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association in the State of Connecticut
January 1, 1802
Gentlemen,

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.

Thomas Jefferson
President of the United States 

A full reading of this letter, makes it very clear that President Jefferson is arguing only that the government should make no laws infringing upon the religious liberties of an individual. Jefferson argued that the government can make laws to control actions only and not "opinions". Jefferson implicitly here refers to "his worship" as an opinion. While some may argue that worship is not an opinion, but a belief, there is no denying that Jefferson is stating that Congress has no right to make laws that restrict one's "opinion" or belief. Jefferson , then makes his infamous statement describing the first amendment as a wall separating church and state, and promises that he shall see that this wall would "restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties". It is very important to note that Jefferson distinguishes between natural rights of religion and social duties. In other words, Jefferson believed that the government did have the right to control actions, but not natural rights. For example, the government can outlaw murder, but not the right to defend oneself. The government can outlaw stealing, but not the right to own property. Freedom of religion is NOT a right given to us by the government, but rather a natural right protected by the constitution. Any study of Jefferson's writings would show that he believed the constitution to be a fence that restricted the government from infringing on our natural rights. Jefferson has called the constitution a "paling fence", a "10 foot high fence". He describes it as a wall around the government to keep it penned in. He never described it as a wall that kept the people out of government, nor a restriction on our freedoms.

In 1900, President McKinley understood this when he talked about an absolute separation between Church and state, when he articulated what he meant by an absolute Separation between Church and state. McKinley wrote that "no minister of religion shall be interfered with or molested in following his calling". In other words, the government would allow a minister to freely preach his opinions and beliefs. McKinley, also wrote that "that no form of religion and no minister of religion shall be forced upon any community or upon any citizen". This is clearly a re-statement of the first amendment's religious establishment clause. But we must be very clear here, President McKinley in establishing an absolute and real separation between Church and state did not exclude religion from being freely exercised in public places, rather he clearly defined that the government would neither establish a religion in a country, nor restrict the free worship there of. It is my strong opinion that when both Jefferson and McKinley described a wall separating church and state, they were speaking of the constitution that protects us from the government taking away our religious freedoms. The separation of church and state is a wall established by the constitution that prevents the government from taking away our religious freedoms. It is not, a wall to keep religion out of schools or public buildings, but rather a wall that prevents one authority within a Church from prescribing what that religion must be. Prayer in school does not prescribe religion, but I do understand that we must be ever vigilant that it does not lead to that.

References

Presidency.ucsb.edu. (2018). William McKinley: Fourth Annual Message. [online] Available at: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29541 [Accessed 21 Jul. 2018].

Evangelista, O. (2018). RELIGIOUS PROBLEMS IN THE PHILIPPINES AND THE AMERICAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, 1898-1907. [ebook] Available at: http://www.asj.upd.edu.ph/mediabox/archive/ASJ-06-03-1968/evangelista-religious%20problems%20in%20the%20philippines%20and%20the%20american%20catholic%20church%201898-1907.pdf [Accessed 21 Jul. 2018].

LeRoy, J. (1914). The religious question,Church-State relations in the Philippines during the Spanish colonial period. [ebook] Available at: http://www.philippinehistory.net/1914leroy.htm [Accessed 21 Jul. 2018].