Posted on 11/10/2004 3:00:51 PM PST by Conservative Coulter Fan
In 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared, "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach." The "separation of church and state" phrase which they invoked, and which has today become so familiar, was taken from an exchange of letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, shortly after Jefferson became President. The election of Jefferson-America's first Anti-Federalist President-elated many Baptists since that denomination, by-and-large, was also strongly Anti-Federalist. This political disposition of the Baptists was understandable, for from the early settlement of Rhode Island in the 1630s to the time of the federal Constitution in the 1780s, the Baptists had often found themselves suffering from the centralization of power. Consequently, now having a President who not only had championed the rights of Baptists in Virginia but who also had advocated clear limits on the centralization of government powers, the Danbury Baptists wrote Jefferson a letter of praise on October 7, 1801, telling him:
However, in that same letter of congratulations, the Baptists also expressed to Jefferson their grave concern over the entire concept of the First Amendment, including of its guarantee for "the free exercise of religion":
In short, the inclusion of protection for the "free exercise of religion" in the constitution suggested to the Danbury Baptists that the right of religious expression was government-given (thus alienable) rather than God-given (hence inalienable), and that therefore the government might someday attempt to regulate religious expression. This was a possibility to which they strenuously objected-unless, as they had explained, someones religious practice caused him to "work ill to his neighbor." Jefferson understood their concern; it was also his own. In fact, he made numerous declarations about the constitutional inability of the federal government to regulate, restrict, or interfere with religious expression. For example:
Jefferson believed that the government was to be powerless to interfere with religious expressions for a very simple reason: he had long witnessed the unhealthy tendency of government to encroach upon the free exercise of religion. As he explained to Noah Webster:
Thomas Jefferson had no intention of allowing the government to limit, restrict, regulate, or interfere with public religious practices. He believed, along with the other Founders, that the First Amendment had been enacted only to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination-a fact he made clear in a letter to fellow-signer of the Declaration of Independence Benjamin Rush:
Jefferson had committed himself as President to pursuing the purpose of the First Amendment: preventing the "establishment of a particular form of Christianity" by the Episcopalians, Congregationalists, or any other denomination. Since this was Jefferson's view concerning religious expression, in his short and polite reply to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802, he assured them that they need not fear; that the free exercise of religion would never be interfered with by the federal government. As he explained:
Jefferson's reference to "natural rights" invoked an important legal phrase which was part of the rhetoric of that day and which reaffirmed his belief that religious liberties were inalienable rights. While the phrase "natural rights" communicated much to people then, to most citizens today those words mean little. By definition, "natural rights" included "that which the Books of the Law and the Gospel do contain." 10 That is, "natural rights" incorporated what God Himself had guaranteed to man in the Scriptures. Thus, when Jefferson assured the Baptists that by following their "natural rights" they would violate no social duty, he was affirming to them that the free exercise of religion was their inalienable God-given right and therefore was protected from federal regulation or interference. So clearly did Jefferson understand the Source of America's inalienable rights that he even doubted whether America could survive if we ever lost that knowledge. He queried:
Jefferson believed that God, not government, was the Author and Source of our rights and that the government, therefore, was to be prevented from interference with those rights. Very simply, the "fence" of the Webster letter and the "wall" of the Danbury letter were not to limit religious activities in public; rather they were to limit the power of the government to prohibit or interfere with those expressions. Earlier courts long understood Jefferson's intent. In fact, when Jefferson's letter was invoked by the Supreme Court (only once prior to the 1947 Everson case-the Reynolds v. United States case in 1878), unlike today's Courts which publish only his eight-word separation phrase, that earlier Court published Jefferson's entire letter and then concluded:
That Court then succinctly summarized Jefferson's intent for "separation of church and state":
With this even the Baptists had agreed; for while wanting to see the government prohibited from interfering with or limiting religious activities, they also had declared it a legitimate function of government "to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor." That Court, therefore, and others (for example, Commonwealth v. Nesbit and Lindenmuller v. The People ), identified actions into which-if perpetrated in the name of religion-the government did have legitimate reason to intrude. Those activities included human sacrifice, polygamy, bigamy, concubinage, incest, infanticide, parricide, advocation and promotion of immorality, etc. Such acts, even if perpetrated in the name of religion, would be stopped by the government since, as the Court had explained, they were "subversive of good order" and were "overt acts against peace." However, the government was never to interfere with traditional religious practices outlined in "the Books of the Law and the Gospel"-whether public prayer, the use of the Scriptures, public acknowledgements of God, etc. Therefore, if Jefferson's letter is to be used today, let its context be clearly given-as in previous years. Furthermore, earlier Courts had always viewed Jefferson's Danbury letter for just what it was: a personal, private letter to a specific group. There is probably no other instance in America's history where words spoken by a single individual in a private letter-words clearly divorced from their context-have become the sole authorization for a national policy. Finally, Jefferson's Danbury letter should never be invoked as a stand-alone document. A proper analysis of Jefferson's views must include his numerous other statements on the First Amendment. For example, in addition to his other statements previously noted, Jefferson also declared that the "power to prescribe any religious exercise. . . . must rest with the States" (emphasis added). Nevertheless, the federal courts ignore this succinct declaration and choose rather to misuse his separation phrase to strike down scores of State laws which encourage or facilitate public religious expressions. Such rulings against State laws are a direct violation of the words and intent of the very one from whom the courts claim to derive their policy. One further note should be made about the now infamous "separation" dogma. The Congressional Records from June 7 to September 25, 1789, record the months of discussions and debates of the ninety Founding Fathers who framed the First Amendment. Significantly, not only was Thomas Jefferson not one of those ninety who framed the First Amendment, but also, during those debates not one of those ninety Framers ever mentioned the phrase "separation of church and state." It seems logical that if this had been the intent for the First Amendment-as is so frequently asserted-then at least one of those ninety who framed the Amendment would have mentioned that phrase; none did. In summary, the "separation" phrase so frequently invoked today was rarely mentioned by any of the Founders; and even Jefferson's explanation of his phrase is diametrically opposed to the manner in which courts apply it today. "Separation of church and state" currently means almost exactly the opposite of what it originally meant. Endnotes: 1. Letter of October 7, 1801, from Danbury (CT) Baptist Association to Thomas Jefferson, from the Thomas Jefferson Papers Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D. C. 2. Id. 3. The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, John P. Foley, editor (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1900), p. 977; see also Documents of American History, Henry S. Cummager, editor (NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1948), p. 179. 4. Annals of the Congress of the United States (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1852, Eighth Congress, Second Session, p. 78, March 4, 1805; see also James D. Richardson, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897 (Published by Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. I, p. 379, March 4, 1805. 5. Thomas Jefferson, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. I, p. 379, March 4, 1805. 6. Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, From the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, editor (Boston: Gray and Bowen, 1830), Vol. IV, pp. 103-104, to the Rev. Samuel Millar on January 23, 1808. 7. Jefferson, Writings, Vol. VIII, p. 112-113, to Noah Webster on December 4, 1790. 8. Jefferson, Writings, Vol. III, p. 441, to Benjamin Rush on September 23, 1800. 9. Jefferson, Writings, Vol. XVI, pp. 281-282, to the Danbury Baptist Association on January 1, 1802. 10. Richard Hooker, The Works of Richard Hooker (Oxford: University Press, 1845), Vol. I, p. 207. 11. Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (Philadelphia: Matthew Carey, 1794), Query XVIII, p. 237. 12. Reynolds v. U. S., 98 U. S. 145, 164 (1878). 13. Reynolds at 163.
Copyright © 2003 WallBuilders | Web Hosting by WESTHOST |
Congress is the Legislative Branch of the Federal Government. The establishment of religion is a reference to national religion and clearly free exercise includes public expression, which the founding fathers themselves expressed.
The Founding Fathers and Deism
The Myth Behind "Separation of Church and State"
America: Our Christian Heritage, Our History and Faith in God
Easy come, easy go.
Bump!
"[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.)
Thanks for the historically accurate, if somewhat esoteric, post on the widely misunderstood notions about "separation of church and state". The current problem with respect to the establishment clause is that the radical secularists, nihilists really, seek to "establish" their belief in "no God", a nullity, as the state religion. For them, it is not enough to prevent collusion or preference by any one denomination and the government. They insist on elevating their own belief, their deity if you will, in the form of a big zero, a nothing. By this ruse, a logical fallacy, they establish a nullity as the preferred entity. Belief in nothing must reign supreme. The only acceptable spiritual position then becomes a self-absorbed, navel gazing paen to the temporal and secular.
I agree with absolutely everything you said, but more to the point it should be emphasized that the public is inundated time and again with this erroneous phrase, separation of church and state and often it goes relatively unchallenged.
This is an awesome Post! I love that "they" quote the "wall of separation," phrase that is NO WHERE in our legal founding documents...
As Christians we are perfectly free in this country to express our faith. When storm troopers star busting into churches, draging congregants away and burning bibles, then there will be something to complain about.
Prayer in Congress, prayer and Bible studies in schools were accepted and were a normal part of American culture. Totalitarian secular humanism is a misinterpretation of what the establishment clause was about. And a pretty stupid misinterpretation. Jefferson's "wall of separation" metaphor reflects his own opinion and is not in the U.S. Constitution. It has no legal status or force of law.
I think it is better to take a stand now before it comes to that.
I think it is better to take a stand now before it comes to that.
I would say it will never come to that, but given the times we live in, who knows. I don't think it's likely, still it pays to be viligent.
He wasn't talking about Buddhism or Islam. And the "Providence" in question certainly had nothing in common with the meaninglessness, materialism, moral relativism, and hedonism of liberal secular humanism as promoted today by the wacky Dems.
George Washington's Farewell Address contained a similar statement: "With slight shades of difference, you have the same Religeon, Manners, Habits & political Principles."
We need to replace "Separation of Church and State" with a more accurate phrase. I suggest "Non-establishment of Religion."
In case you haven't noticed, attacks upon 'expression of faith' in this nation are real, current, on-going and determined! As in:
Official on leave over Ten Commandments
Kentucky's Senator Bunning Deflects Commandments Charge
The Ten Commandments: New Legal Battle
Judge requests religion-neutral oaths
'In God We Trust' Posters Finding Way Into Schools-ACLU: Posters Violate Separation Of Church&State
Thanks CCF for an infomative, thought provoking post. The PC Culture of anti-Christian bias is spreading. We now have school boards that fight against having manger displays for Christmas. We have court houses that are having the 10 Commandments removed from their walls by the ACLU. This is not how our founding fathers envisioned our "fredom of religion".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.