Church, state 'wall' not idea of Jefferson

THE WASHINGTON TIMES ^ | August 5, 2002 | Larry Witham

[nickcarraway]

New research on Thomas Jefferson's "wall of separation" between church and state shows that Jefferson never intended it to be the iron curtain of today, which instead was built on anti-Catholic legal views in the 1940s.

Though the new scholarship has received good reviews for exploding a "Jeffersonian myth" about a wall against religion, others say it is too late to tear down a barrier that Americans feel comfortable with.

[VOA]

great list of links in your post #20, rwfromkansas!

[Looking for Diogenes]

Here is an excerpt from a key Supreme Court opinion on the Establishment Clause, which considers the history and purpose of that part of the First Amendment. It is a little long and dry but for those familiar with the issues it shouldn't be difficult. Some of the principles enunciated here have been 'refined' more recently.

Reynolds v. United States

The word "religion" is not defined in the Constitution. We must go elsewhere, therefore, to ascertain its meaning, and nowhere more appropriately, we think, than to the history of the times in the midst of which the provision was adopted. The precise point of the inquiry is, what is the religious freedom which has been guaranteed.

Before the adoption of the Constitution, attempts were made in some of the colonies and States to legislate not only in respect to the establishment of religion, but in respect to its doctrines and precepts as well. The people were taxed, against their will, for the support of religion, and sometimes for the support of particular sects to whose tenets they could not and did not subscribe. Punishments were prescribed for a failure to attend upon public worship, and sometimes for entertaining heretical opinions. The controversy upon this general subject was animated in many of the States, but seemed at last to culminate in Virginia.In 1784, the House of Delegates of that State having under consideration "a bill establishing provision for teachers of the Christian religion," postponed it until the next session, and directed that the bill should be published and distributed, and that the people be requested "to signify their opinion respecting the adoption of such a bill at the next session of assembly."

This brought out a determined opposition. Amongst others, Mr. Madison prepared a "Memorial and Remonstrance," which was widely circulated and signed, and in which he demonstrated "that religion, or the duty we owe the Creator," was not within the cognizance of civil government. Semple's Virginia Baptists, Appendix. At the next session the proposed bill was not only defeated, but another, "for establishing religious freedom," drafted by Mr. Jefferson, was passed. In the preamble of this act religious freedom is defined; and after a recital "that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty," it is declared "that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order." In these two sentences is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State.

In a little more than a year after the passage of this statute the convention met which prepared the Constitution of the United States." Of this convention Mr. Jefferson was not a member, he being then absent as minister to France. As soon as he saw the draft of the Constitution proposed for adoption, he, in a letter to a friend, expressed his disappointment at the absence of an express declaration insuring the freedom of religion, but was willing to accept it as it was, trusting that the good sense and honest intentions of the people would bring about the necessary alterations. Five of the States, while adopting the Constitution, proposed amendments. Three -- New Hampshire, New York, and Virginia -- included in one form or another a declaration of religious freedom in the changes they desired to have made, as did also North Carolina, where the convention at first declined to ratify the Constitution until the proposed amendments were acted upon.

Accordingly, at the first session of the first Congress the amendment now under consideration was proposed with others by Mr. Madison. It met the views of the advocates of religious freedom, and was adopted. Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, took occasion to say:

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 the 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 man to all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it 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 opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.
Reynolds v. United States

[Zionist Conspirator]

1) I'm sorry that many people feel the only legitimate excuse to attack the ACLU-worldview is by the liberal/enlightenment tactic of crying "bigotry."

2) The First Amendment applies only to Congress. It has no authority over state governments, school boards, football game pre-game activities, or whether or not your Mama may wash your mouth out with soap for saying the "f"-word.

2) The "Bill of Rights" was a mistake anyway. It began in hypocrisy (to restrict the federal government with interfering with slavery) and has transmogrified into a positive guarantee of rights that supposedly gives the Federal Government the authority to outlaw all the above activities.

3) Regarless of what Jefferson meant, he was an enlightenment deist, as were most of the Founders. Ultimately G-d is a greater authority than any human document and it is unnecessary to appeal to human authority for the "right" to obey G-d.

[NeoCaveman]

bttt for reading tomorrow

[rwfromkansas]

The case was not dealing with the establishment clause at the core; it was dealing with the free exercise clause and whether a Mormon could use religion to practice polygamy.

This is what the court ruled as to the amount of religious freedom that was granted (religious freedom *the free exercise clause*) is what your post was discussing.

"This being so, the only question which remains is, whether those who make polygamy a part of their religion are excepted from the operation of the statute. If they are, then those who do not make polygamy a part of their religious belief may be found guilty and punished, while those who do, must be acquitted and go free. This would be introducing a new element into criminal law. Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?"

[rwfromkansas]

While I agree with your point of view on this issue (read my post 20 I think it is), I want to bring up something about this point:

"2) The First Amendment applies only to Congress. It has no authority over state governments, school boards, football game pre-game activities, or whether or not your Mama may wash your mouth out with soap for saying the "f"-word."

You are correct that the First Amendment was intended to apply to the federal govt. However, some would argue the 14th Amendment expaned this to the states. You need to be able to refute these people because they are the majority today. I know of one case that was decided after the 14th Amendment that didn't torture its intent (I have it in my post number 20). But, it is difficult to find enough stuff to overturn such people's arguments since everyone....even many conservatives, unfortunately agree that the 14th Amendment made the bill of rights apply to the states.

[AD from SpringBay]

Info on said letter:

Thomas Jefferson on Separation of Church and State

The Danbury Baptist Association, concerned about religious liberty in the new nation wrote to President Thomas Jefferson, Oct. 7, 1801.

Sir, Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your Election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyd in our collective capacity, since your Inauguration, to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief Majestracy in the United States; And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompious than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, Sir to believe, that none are more sincere.

Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty -- That Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals -- That no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious Opinions - That the legitimate Power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor: But Sir our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the Laws made coincident therewith, were adopted on the Basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our Laws & usages, and such still are; that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights: and these favors we receive at the expense of such degradingacknowledgements, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those, who seek after power & gain under the pretense of government & Religion should reproach their fellow men -- should reproach their chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion Law & good order because he will not, dare not assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.

Sir, we are sensible that the President of the United States, is not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the Laws of each State; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved President, which have had such genial affect already, like the radiant beams of the Sun, will shine and prevail through all these States and all the world till Hierarchy and Tyranny be destroyed from the Earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more than thirty years we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the chair of State out of that good will which he bears to the Millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence & the voice of the people have cald you to sustain and support you in your Administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to rise to wealth & importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.

And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.

Signed in behalf of the Association.

Nehh Dodge
Ephram Robbins
The Committee
Stephen S. Nelson


Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut were persecuted because they were not part of the Congretationalist establishment in that state.

On January 1, 1802, in response to the letter from the Danbury Baptist Association, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

Gentlemen:

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which are so good 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 the 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 man to all of his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessings of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.

Thomas Jefferson

Sources: Robert S. Alley, Professor of Humanites, Emeritus, University of Richmond, from his article, "Public Education and the Public Good," published in William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, Vol. 4, Issue 1, Summer 1995. And Lipscomb, Andrew and Bergh, Albert, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. 16, pp. 281-282.

[rwfromkansas]

thanks. I might make it a new thread in itself. I initially made it for a bunch of atheist Newdow supporters (hence why I have stuff from infidels.org etc...trying to use info from their own sites if I can manage to do so and keep away from right wing sites....lol). The thing is, I also feel like the Newdow supporters I am talking with online are actually rather intelligent. Some have brought up their own info and some is interesting. I still disagree, but I have enjoyed stumbling upon them because it is the only place where I have seen people actually defend the separationist position with any kind of logical support.

It is one of my pet issues, so I get a bit intense about it.

[300winmag]

In all honesty, I bet Jefferson is probably up there somewhere thinking, "geez, when will these people get over that silly analogy I made to the Danbury Baptists? That was just a brief comment about denominational establishments, and those atheist zealots have totally twisted it and made it their cause celèbre..."

Amazing. Liberals I know insist the sole purpose of the First Ammendment is "separation of church and state". Yet those words came from a Jefferson letter, and was intended in a very narrow sense. And the reality is, those words were raised to "sacred" status by an anti-Catholic ex-KKK judge.

Those same liberals have never heard of The Federalist Papers, much less use them as a source of information on the intent of the Constitution. But they're perfectly happy parroting a kluxer for their First Ammendment views. They must think those words are written into the First Ammendment in invisible ink that only they can see.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Hello!

While I agree with your point of view on this issue (read my post 20 I think it is), I want to bring up something about this point:

"2) The First Amendment applies only to Congress. It has no authority over state governments, school boards, football game pre-game activities, or whether or not your Mama may wash your mouth out with soap for saying the "f"-word."

You are correct that the First Amendment was intended to apply to the federal govt. However, some would argue the 14th Amendment expaned this to the states. You need to be able to refute these people because they are the majority today. I know of one case that was decided after the 14th Amendment that didn't torture its intent (I have it in my post number 20). But, it is difficult to find enough stuff to overturn such people's arguments since everyone....even many conservatives, unfortunately agree that the 14th Amendment made the bill of rights apply to the states.

Even if the Fourteenth Amendment did apply the federal "Bill of Rights" to the States (which is debatable), does that necessarily mean it applies to the local high school principal who forbids the publication of a dirty picture in the school paper? I suppose it does if you believe in a "living Constitution" that (strangely) always seems to grow in ways you agree with as the liberals do. Equally strange is that it's apparently supposed to be growing teleologically, which doesn't make a lot of sense when you consider that most liberals believe the world is one gigantic meaningless coincidence. I guess the only way to convince themselves of their Fake Reasons For Living is to force them on everyone else.

I feel that, unless we repeal everything in the Constitution except the original seven articles and the Twelfth and Thirteenth amendments (and maybe the Twelfth wasn't such a good idea) that the best strategy at present is a single constitutional amendment clarifying the original intent of the Fourteenth Amendment. Of course, liberals will scream that we're trying to bring back slavery, but I guess when you're trying to create social justice in a random, meaningless, self-existent universe that all is fair. Er . . . unless their precious randomness has warned liberals that it will punish them for failure or something.

Still, I think an attempt to do that would be better than the current strategy of trying to reverse each and every single bad court decision by passing a separate constitutional amendment. I love The American Legion, but I believe their "flag protection" amendment is wrong-headed; not because I believe flag burning is "constitutionally protected speech," but because it confirms the idea that the Constitution does indeed mean what any federal court says it means at any particular time, and it sets the precedent for an unlimited number of amendments to redress each and every outrage. Of course, if it weren't for the "Bill of Rights" the Constitution would be nothing but the rules of the federal government and there'd be no appeals to "constitutionally protected" anything.

I appreciate your comment about conservatives sometimes conceding the liberal position on the Fourteenth Amendment. There is also the problem of conservatives who want the First Amendment to apply only to Congress but want the Second and Fourth to apply to the states as well--an internal inconsistency which undermines our position.

[tpaine]

The 'wall' idea has taken on a life of its own and is part of our custom and law," Mr. Wolfe said. "Americans love God and hate politics, so they ask, 'Why mix the two?'"

---

After over four years of observing some of our more zealous freepers, I can say:

"Some Americans love their version of Gods rules overmuch, -- and also love politics, -- so they ask, 'Why NOT mix the two?'"

[tpaine]

There is also the problem of conservatives who want the First Amendment to apply only to Congress but want the Second and Fourth to apply to the states as well--an internal inconsistency which undermines our position.

---

Do I understand that you agree with the state of california that they can violate the 2nd, and prohibit socalled assault weapons?

Who is the 'our' in your position?

[VOA]

The thing is, I also feel like the Newdow supporters I am talking with online
are actually rather intelligent.

I don't find that too suprising. I heard Newdow being interviewed on The Michael
Medved Show. The brainpower of a guy who is an emergency room M.D. and
a lawyer from a ranked law school (Michigan?) was fully evident. (Medved was pretty much
his equal, if not better...but then I'm biased.)

Myself, I'm glad I live in a country that had the courage to experiment with the
radical concept of not tying the state to one established religion.
And although the blood pressure may rise a bit when hearing Newdow or the ACLU's
arguments, I'm glad we're dueling with words and not bullets like in other balkanized countries.

If you're interested, you can pick up The Michael Medved Show over the net from
the station he's on here in Los Angeles at www.newstalk870.com.
The show is on weekday Noon-3PM Pac Time (2-5 Central).
Since I moved here from Oklahoma, I must say that listening to the line-up of
Dennis Prager, Michael Medved and Hugh Hewitt on that station has been just about
the equivalent of a bachelors in Philosophy, without the PC found on most campi today.

[Looking for Diogenes]

The case was not dealing with the establishment clause at the core; it was dealing with the free exercise clause and whether a Mormon could use religion to practice polygamy.

True. I posted it because the Reynolds opinion shows that even in 1878 they were using Jefferson's Danbury letter as a guide to interpreting the First Amendment. The author of the current article, Larry Witham, seems to think that it originated with Hugo Black 69 years later.

[rwfromkansas]

true. I believe Reynolds was the first time it was used.

[Richard Kimball]

There's something weird going on with this article. Hugo Black was less active in the Klan by 1940, and was put on the court by FDR because he believed in the New Deal and INCREASED FEDERAL POWERS, which btw, were the exact opposite of the KKK beliefs. Black was a consistent liberal vote.

The revisionism is starting to creep in on this, and I believe we're being set up for a "new" interpretation of the first amendment. The concept that Black's KKK background was responsible for this is ridiculous. However, the fact that the decision is no longer being credited to Jefferson, but to the KKK, means that the political elite no longer find it useful.

[AZRepublican]

I will never understand the BIG DEAL is over Jefferson's Danbury letter. It doesn't take a Einstein to figure out that it was only a limitation imposed upon Congress to have any established relations with religion. Why would the man who wrote and argued for the passage of the 14th amendment argue after its adoption that it is the duty of local government to promote the "teachings and blessings of god"????

[LowCountryJoe]

Jefferson was very big on personal faith but had disdain for much of the clergy from the various churches. He thought that the clergy was enriching itself off of the backs of their congregates. You can see, though, that nothing like that happens today ::cough:: ::throat clearing::