Architect3j

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:

[T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly. {8}

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 ever be interfered with by the federal government. As he explained:

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. . . . 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. {9}

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:

And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? {11}

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:

Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it [Jefferson’s letter] may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the Amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere [religious] opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order. (emphasis added) {12}

That Court then succinctly summarized Jefferson’s intent for “separation of church and state”:

[T]he rightful purposes of civil government are for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order. In th[is] . . . is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State. {13}

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.

The truth is still the truth, no matter what you want to believe.

Advertising

dnamertz

Whatever Jefferson's intentions were, its still not a good idea to have a government pushing any specific religion. It should all be left up to individuals to pursue their spiritual or non-spiritual beliefs. Just because there is not a "Federal establishment of a national denomination" does not mean the government doesn't get too involved or influenced by religion.

melchizedek22

Pope for President in '08

Fishmint

I think keeping religoun out of politics is a very good idea. Just because your bible says it does not mean its the law for everyone else in the country.

splansing

The original intentions of the founding fathers appears perfectly intact as far as I am concerned. There is nothing preventing you from doing whatever it is you want to do to worship your god. Have a good time.

The government has ordered that all children are required to go to school. Governments administer those schools. Tax dollars pay for those schools. The government cannot force children to go to school where it will then use public money to indoctrinate those children into some sicko religion. I don't see how it is that you could fail to see the conflict there. My kids have to go to school, and most of my property taxes go towards paying for those schools. And now you tell me you don't see the problem if they get there and their teacher is peddling some cult?!

Trust me: if you don't see it then just trust me on this one. Those of us who aren't part of the masses of brainwashed cult members absolutely feel threatened and discriminated against by religion in schools. If you want to teach that crap to your kids, nobody is stopping you. I don't even understand why this is an argument. We all are forced to pay for the schools. Any religion included in those schools is therefore state-sanctioned religion, and unconstitutional. And in any case, why do you care? What difference does it make to you that your kid doesn't say the Lord's Prayer every morning in class? Make him say it at home if you want that to be a part of his day. Teach him whatever you want any time you feel like it. And god fucking dammit-- LEAVE MY KID ALONE ALREADY! Stop shoving that shit down our throats. I am getting so fucking sick and tired of hearing this bullshit from fucking self-righteous, arrogant, evangelist assholes that thinking about it is just causing my brain to boil over.... in case you couldn't tell.

Religion is a private business and if public dollars are paying for something, then you can't stick little religious additions on all over the place and then act surprised and not understand when people get pissed off about it. Or, worse yet, start telling me that our founding fathers actually advocated state-sanctioned Christianity (just not a particular branch of it...oh, that's rich) and that it is somehow my American duty to worship Jesus and to leave a trail of my devotion everywhere I go-- public schools, government offices, everywhere --in the hopes of passing the Good Word on to as many people as possible. You know where you can put your Good Word, buddy.

You and your kids can put on a Christmas play at church, where that insanity belongs. For my money, I'll raise my kids on pagan images of Santa Claus (which they'll ultimately grow out of) and leave the guilt and shame and the rest of that mind control out of it, thank you very much. You act like that play is some innocent, harmless little thing. It's a bunch of kids acting out one of your favorite religious fantasies! How is that innocent or pure? It's the worst sort of poisonous indoctrination of young, impressionable minds into that cult of spiritual death you keep citing as if it were some sort of reliable authority, some sort of wonderful good thing. I wish you could see for one moment how incredibly pathetic a group of lemmings packed into a church is to somebody who isn't afraid to let his God-given perception show him the world, instead of just believing what some clown in a robe told you to believe...or else... God it's so transparent and stupid that your average 6-year-old wouldn't fall for it!


I JUST DO NOT UNDERSTAND!!

davideyoung

What I don't understand is why people make a big deal out of a piece of religious art or history on the people's public property. I don't mind crosses, ankhs, stars of david, bhudas, or any other religious symbol being anywhere on public property. It belongs to the public - we all have a right to be there.

WHat I do have a problem with is people who try to take the right to freely express religion on public grounds away from the people. As long as no laws are violated and no people are in danger - I say allow prayer, allow symbols, allow the ten commandments, allow the sayings of tao. No one is forced to believe in them.

belledumonde

whoah splansing, i almost kinda feel sorry for you if your post truly reflects your views.

Pook

The topic was whatever about the separation of church and state. Good! Let's uphold it! Is it that hard?
Pookie

http://www.politicalhotwire.com/sign...sigpic73_1.gif

Inkslinger

Was it the word "pagan" that bothered ya? ~Inky

getgoin

There is a speration of "the church" and state, not religion. Meaning the organization itself, not the belief or the intent to share, spread or disregard one belief. My kid has as much right to the Lord Prayer in school, or any type of prayer in school, as your kid has the right not to pray. I shouldn't have to have my kid put our beliefs behind closed doors because it offends you, tough crap. If we are so wrong, teach your kids what you believe and I'll do the same. If it such mindless nonscence your kids won't believe in it, and if you have such a clear and enlightened path your kids will know and follow. But not under any circumstances will I or my children put our beliefs behind closed doors because your too sensitive. Deal with it.