Replies

"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every from of tyranny over the mind of man."

This language is very clear to me. ANY form of tyranny designed to control the minds of the people were an anathema to Jefferson...and very likely to most of the other men who participated in drafting the Constitution. Lest anyone forget their early American history, many who came to these shores did so to escape religious persecution. Having escaped tyranny themselves, I seriously doubt that the Founding Fathers desired to create a government which would or could participate in religious debate or favor one religion over another.

A CONTRARIAN VIEWPOINT TO THOSE WHO ARE ELITISTS,SOCIALISTS,COMMUNISTS AND LIBERALS

By Dr. D. James Kennedy

Note: the following was a sermon delivered by Dr. D. James Kennedy at Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

This, as you know, is President's Week, when we generally remember George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and others. I have in years gone by spoken about the faith of Washington, discovering that he was a devoted Christian since his youth, that his prayer book written in his own hand contains prayers that were as evangelical and Gospel-centered as any that have ever been uttered from this pulpit.

Abraham Lincoln, on the other hand, was not a Christian, for most of his life, at least. When he went to Springfield, he fell among skeptics and his faith was badly shaken. However, when he came to Washington, someone shared with him the Gospel in simple terms, and Lincoln, in a letter written after Gettysburg, said to a pastor in Illinois:

When I left Springfield I asked the people to pray for me. I was not a Christian. When I buried my son, the severest trial of my life, I was not a Christian. But when I went to Gettysburg and saw the graves of thousands of our soldiers, I then and there consecrated myself to Christ. Yes, I do love Jesus.

Yes, Washington and Lincoln were Christians. Ah, but alas, when we come to Thomas Jefferson, it is quite a different story, as we all know. A deist, a skeptic. He has been called an atheist, an infidel, hostile to religion, rarely ever attended church, expunged the miracles from the Bible and made the Jefferson's Bible which had no miracles in it. He originated the "separation of church and state" doctrine to keep religion out of government, out of the schools, out of the public life of America. He is the guru of separation, the darling of the liberal left, the leader of the effort to expunge Christianity from American life. Yes, we all know Thomas Jefferson, don't we. Or do we?

No, I don't think we do. What I have just described to you is a fictional character that has never lived on this planet. He is about as real as Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. He is the creation of the secular elite. He is the creation of our secular educational system. He is the creation of the media. He is the creation of liberal judges. He never really, as described, actually lived.

Lest, perchance, some cynic in your midst decides I am inventing a character of my own, let me just say that what I bring to you today comes from the writings of people like

* Dr. James H. Hudson, curator and chief of the Manuscript Division of American History in the Library of Congress, the largest collection of human wisdom found anywhere in the world-22 million volumes. He has at his hand and at his disposal and under his care more authentic manuscripts from the founding of this country than any other person on the planet. Yes, he is quite an authority.

* Paul Johnson, eminent historian who has written much on the history of Western culture in the United States.

* William Federer, author of the Encyclopedia of American History.

* David Barton, one of the most knowledgeable men in the country today on the Christian history of America,

* and dozens of others of similar stripe.

Yes, Thomas Jefferson has been created by secularists for the purpose of getting rid of the Christian faith in the public square of America.

Several years ago, on the National Day of Prayer, the mayor of Fort Lauderdale opened a community room to allow citizens of Fort Lauderdale who wished to, to gather there and pray. One president of the Florida ACLU wrote a letter to the newspaper, a whole article, in which he expressed his horror that such a thing as that could be done. "Doesn't our mayor know anything about Thomas Jefferson? Has he never heard of the separation of church and state? Does he not know that Jefferson would be appalled by the unconscionable deeds that he is performing by letting Christians come into a public building and pray?"

I'm afraid that perhaps our ACLU officer doesn't know Thomas Jefferson either. What he has been created to be was portrayed for you in our recent motion picture made here, Scrooge and Marley. Scrooge, in this film, was an attorney, and he was suing the city to get rid of a manger placed, as it had been for a half-century or more, outside the city hall. He said to the mayor, "Don't you know that Thomas Jefferson introduced into the Constitution the separation of church and state?"

Well, he wasn't too sure about that. The facts are: Jefferson didn't. The separation of church and state has never been in the Constitution-nor is it now a part of the Constitution of the United States. It is, indeed, a myth that has been imported into that Constitution by others. "Don't you know," said Scrooge, "what Jefferson would say if he were alive today to see this terrible thing? Why he would say, 'Mayor, tear it down. Rip it apart board for board, and throw the whole thing in the fire. That's what Tom Jefferson would say.'" Or would he?

MEET THOMAS JEFFERSON

Today, I would like to introduce to you someone that I am quite confident ninety-nine and a half percent of you don't know. I would like to introduce President Thomas Jefferson. Ladies and gentlemen, the third President of the United States: Thomas Jefferson.

Thomas Jefferson was born in Virginia into an Episcopal family, or Anglican, as they were known then. He attended church regularly all of his life and was an active member of the Anglican Church. He also attended Presbyterian, Methodist, and Baptist churches and was particularly thrilled when all four of those denominations held services in the courthouse! Alas and alack!

Maybe when he grew up, he knew better. The truth of the matter is that though he had followed the Anglican faith in its orthodoxy all of his life, though he went to a Christian school and was taught by Christian pastors, he actually, as a grown man, served on the vestry of the Anglican Church, which means he was the equivalent of an elder in the Presbyterian Church.

Not only that, he supported the church, according to his own financial books. In fact, when he was President of the United States, the record shows that he contributed to ten different churches during those eight years. I wonder how many of us have done that?

Then, of course, as we all know, Thomas Jefferson, as Secretary of State, went to France. Now France was the heartland of infidelity in that day. The French Revolution had just taken place, and Christianity had been devastated. A river of blood flowed as the French people in their folly decided to get rid of even b.c. and a.d. They started all over again, and found that in just a couple of years they had to abandon that because there was anarchy in France. But unbelief and skepticism reigned.

Abraham Lincoln went to Springfield and fell among the skeptics there and his faith was demolished. It took years before it was restored. Alas, with Jefferson something else happened while he was in France. His wife, whom he adored, died, leaving him with his two-year-old daughter, and she died, and his mother died, and his best friend died. Ordinarily, he would have gone to the congregation of the church where he served and found
solace and consolation from them, and his pastor would have been there to help him. But there were no such in Paris for him.

So his faith received a tremendous blow. From that point on he began to question, though it wasn't until 1813 that he ever came out and stated his disbelief in the Trinity. He had adopted a Unitarian view, rejecting the deity of Christ. Though the Unitarians at that time were vastly different from what they are now, they were biblical in their orientation (that is no longer the case).

In fact, Jefferson was a Bible scholar. He read the Bible daily. As Washington read it an hour every morning and an hour every night, with prayer, so Jefferson read the Bible in English and in Greek and in Latin and in French. He faithfully studied it, but apparently there was no one there to guide him, and he came to a rejection of the deity of Christ.

By the way, the Jefferson Bible is another myth. There never was a Jefferson Bible. No, years before this, he cut the miraculous out of the New Testament (out of the Gospels), and from the Gospels he produced a book on the ethics and morals of Jesus Christ for the purpose of evangelizing and educating the American Indians. They were a great concern of his. He approved money for building a church for the Indians while he was President. He approved money for the support of a missionary to the Indians out of the Federal Treasury. He also gave of his own money to help try to reach the Indians. He believed that this simplified statement of the ethics of Jesus Christ would help to civilize and educate these people.

He never ever called it a Bible. He called it a system of ethics. It was, he felt, the most marvelous system of ethics the world has ever known. He said later in one of his statements that the religion of Jesus Christ is the best religion the world has ever been given, and that the ethics and teachings of Christ are incomparable, and therefore, as Chief Magistrate of the United States, he would lend all of the power of his example to supporting that system. That is what he did with that system of ethics of Christ-he simply took out the teachings of Christ about ethics and morals to present it to the Indians.

By the way, let me also mention that the phrase of the so-called "separation of church and state" has been again totally twisted, turned upside down, and made to be the very opposite of what Jefferson intended it to be. When he was President, he received in late 1801 a letter from the Association of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut. They were concerned about the newly formed federal government. This leviathan that had been created could, they feared, become a great danger to their Christian faith and to their churches.

Jefferson was out of the country when the Constitution was written and when the Bill of Rights was proposed and passed, and he had nothing to do with it. He said that he was greatly impressed that the American people, through their representatives and through the First Amendment, had, in effect, erected a "wall of separation" between the church and the state, so they need have no fear that the federal government was going to intrude upon their religion or in any way disturb their faith.

PURPOSE OF LETTER TO DANBURY BAPTISTS

Keep in mind that it was 1813, before the
effects of the French experience impacted his faith, at which time all of his work on the Declaration had been done for over a quarter of a century. His work as Secretary of State and President of the United States were now long past, so none of those statements had anything to do with any of his public utterances as an official of this country. His purpose was to assuage the fears of the Danbury Connecticut Baptists; He told them that by the First Amendment this wall had been erected to protect them. He took the language, actually, from Roger Williams, the founder of the Baptist church in America, who talked about a wall being erected around the garden of the Church to protect it.

So Jefferson took that same phrase and said that this wall protected the Church not against hostile Indians or worldly things, but against the Federal government that had been appointed. However, liberals have taken that phrase and turned it around completely.

It is an unfortunate metaphor, because it can be used two different ways. The First Amendment completely controls the government only and not the churches. It states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." A wall can work against people on both sides. People on either side of the wall are inhibited.

The phrase "separation of church and state" has now been turned around 360 degrees. The only time you ever hear it used today is not talking about what Congress can do; it's talking about what you can't do, what I can't do, what the Church can't do, what any religious people cannot do. So it has been turned completely around.

That is not what Jefferson meant. It is not what his friend James Madison meant, who, by the way introduced the Bill of Rights into the Congress, which stated very explicitly that the purpose of this was to interdict the federal government from interfering with the religion of the people.

But it was Jefferson's view during his whole public life that the government should not interfere with religion. In fact, as you may know, the Constitution ends with the phrase, "In the year of our Lord, 1787." And so it was throughout the presidency of Washington. For eight years, all of his presidential papers ended "In the year of our Lord 18..." whatever. When Adams came to the presidency, for the next four years he again followed suit: "In the year of our Lord . . ."

However, when Jefferson came to the presidency, he changed that. I have a photocopy of the conclusion of one of many of the documents he signed while President, and it says, "In the year of our Lord Christ 1804." He was the first one, and to my knowledge the only one that did that. Here is Jefferson, the "anti-Christian, irreligious infidel," saying that it is Christ who is our Lord and no one else, lest anyone have any false ideas about that.

So, the letter to the Danbury Baptists has been greatly perverted and distorted. The ACLU today says that phrase means there should be no religion of any sort in any public building. Is that what Jefferson meant? That is what the liberal left has indeed pushed upon the minds of the American people.

On Friday, January 1, 1802, Jefferson's letter was sent to the Danbury Baptists. On that Sunday, two days later, Thomas Jefferson went to church. He said that he was going to throw the influence of his position as chief magistrate, President of the United States, in favor of the public display and support of the Christian religion. How did he do that? He went to church.

Where did he go? He went to the largest church in America. Do you know what that was? Do you know where that was? It was held at first in the chambers of the House of Representatives in Washington. Then later, when the complete building was finished, it was held in the Capitol Rotunda, the most visible public building in America, bar none. There, every week for seven years, during the rest of his presidency, Thomas Jefferson was there. He sat in the front row. He wasn't pleased with the music, and so he ordered that the Marine Band, under his control, come to church on Sunday and play to support the singing of hymns and psalms in the church. (By the way, they were paid out of the Federal Treasury.)

I guess Thomas Jefferson didn't know what he had written when he talked about the separation of church and state. Some say, "But that was in the Congress, and he didn't directly control the Congress." Well, that's about as feeble an argument I guess you could have. But let's take a look at it. He did control the War Office. That is part of the Executive Department. He did control the Treasury Department, and another church was holding services in the War Department and yet another in the Treasury building. Who was in the Treasury Department? Well, you see these Scotsmen that came over here and started the Presbyterian Church knew a good place to start a church . . . right in the Treasury building.

That may be allowed by the Congress and the Executive Office, but what about the Supreme Court? They would never allow anything like that. Well, as a matter of fact, the Chief Justice then of the Supreme Court, one of the most famous of them all, Chief Justice John Marshall, ordered that the facilities of the Supreme Court be turned over every Sabbath Day to another church to hold Christian worship, which included not only prayers and songs and hymns, but also the preaching of the Word of God. No religious activities in public buildings? Jefferson never even dreamt of such a thing.

This is a total distortion that has been used by the ACLU and their ilk to try to suppress and demolish Christianity and remove it altogether from the public square. In fact, one of the justices in recent times, taking the separation of church and state metaphor, said, "The wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach." Well, I guess you could say that Thomas Jefferson had a few slight breaches in his wall-you could drive a truck through it. In fact, you could drive a whole company of tanks through the walls. That is not what he intended at all.

In fact, Madison, who introduced the Bill of Rights, said that the government was forbidden from establishing a national religion. The First Amendment was given, as all of the testimony
indicates, to do two things: to prevent the Congress from establishing a state church (like the
Anglican Church in England, from which they had mostly fled), and second, from interfering with the free exercise of religion. That has been grossly distorted in our day. I hope that as this message goes out to millions and millions of people across America, that we will begin to understand that we have been deceived, that this whole separation thing of Thomas Jefferson has been turned into a total distortion and perversion, and it is a lie.

Thus saith the preacher, but what saith an authority on the matter. How about this:

There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the framers intended to build a wall of separation [between church and State] . . . the "wall of separation between church and State" is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned. -William Rehnquist.

In case you do not know who Rehnquist is, let me say that he is the current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

I hope that maybe America will wake up to the realization that they have been deceived, that the Thomas Jefferson presented to them is a myth and a lie, and that he never intentioned anything like what the ACLU and others today say he intended. No, my friends, he was a definite friend to the Christian faith. It was the finest religion that God had given to man.

Now someone may point out to you that there are several ministers who wrote highly critical letters of Jefferson. Yes, there are five of them. But on the other hand, Jefferson had 110 personal friends who were clergymen. Nine of them he encouraged to run for public office. As I said, while he was in the presidency, he supported ten different churches, and beyond that numerous other ones all of his life. He was not the anti-Christian bigot that some would like to make him out to be.

What did he lack? Was he really a Christian? That depends on what you mean. He was most emphatically a nominal Christian who attended church regularly virtually all of his life. He did come to question and doubt one of its major tenets later in his life, but that was long after his entire public career was over. He was certainly a nominal Christian, in which sense about half of the people in America today who claim to be Christians are nominal. That means "in name only."

I don't think we could say he was a genuine Christian, in the sense of one who had been transformed by the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit, to one who trusts in the death of Jesus Christ for his salvation. Like millions of church members today, like some of you here, he had never gotten beyond seeing in Christianity anything other than a code of ethics, a system of laws-howbeit the most elevated and wondrous system known to man.

But, my friends, that is not real Christianity. Real Christianity involves a supernatural transformation of the heart. Jesus said that it is a "rebirth." He declared to Nicodemus, who was an extraordinarily religious man and one of the religious leaders of Israel, "except a man be born again, he can in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven." That is what it means to be a real Christian.

There are people sitting all around this sanctuary who are no more real than was Jefferson. You have never experienced that rebirth. You have never invited the living, risen Christ into your heart to transform you and to make you anew. Ah, dear friend, I would urge you to do that now. The day of grace could end for you at any moment, and then it would be everlastingly too late.

No, that is what Jefferson lacked, but even as a nominal Christian, what he did is totally antithetical from everything the ACLU and others have told the American people. For example, what he did as President included, among other things, supporting government involvement in

* Legislative and Military Chaplains,

* Establishing a national seal using a religious symbol,

* Including the word "God" in our national motto,

* Official Days of Fasting and Prayer-at least on the state level,

* Punishing Sabbath breakers (is that real enough for you?),

* Punishing marriages contrary to biblical law,

* Punishing irreverent soldiers,

* Protecting the property of churches,

* Requiring oaths saying "So Help Me God," taken on the Bible

* Granting land to Christian churches to reach the Indians

* Granting land to Christian schools

* Allowing Government property and facilities to be used for worship

* Using the Bible and non-denominational religious instruction in the public schools. (He was involved in three different school districts and the plan in each one of these REQUIRED that the Bible be taught in our public schools).

* Allowing clergymen to hold public office, and encouraging them to do so,

* Purchasing and stocking religious books for public libraries,

* Funding of salaries of clergymen in Indian mission schools.

* Funding for construction of church buildings for Indians,

* Exempting churches from taxation,

* Establishing professional schools of theology. [He wanted to bring over from Geneva, Switzerland, the entire faculty of Calvin's theological seminary and establish it at the University of Virginia.]

* Treaties requiring other nations to guarantee religious freedom,

* Including religious speeches and prayers in official ceremonies.

No, my friends, the real Thomas Jefferson is the ACLU's worst nightmare.

I am dead set against many "Christian Churches" and many disagree with some of the details of Christianity, thus we have denominations. I speak as tough on today's Christians as Jefferson spoke of his fellow Christians. That does not make me or them an Agnostic. Bottom line is Jesus was very clear as to what saved a man and God is the only judge.

Jefferson seemed more like a man angry at the establishment (mostly of certain denominations), read his comments on the clergy of the day. I do not think he ever disparaged "true" Christians or Christ (unlike some here)

Jefferson did take issue with certain things outside the establishment including miracles (his scientific mind could not grasp the concept), and today many real Christians take issue with the Fruits of the Spirit (which would be a form of miracle). This does not lesson their Faith or effect their stature in the Lamb's book of Life.

I do not know if Jefferson was truly "Saved", nor does it matter. Jefferson understood that without a Moral Standard all is permissible and that no mere man could set those standards, they must be set by a Moral Authority outside man. He understood that to be the Author of Creation; God. And he believed that Un-Alienable rights granted by the Creator who holds that true Moral Authority over all mankind. He believed those were the only true rights a man had and that those rights must be protected by a moral and just society that held those truths to be self evident. He knew that without God all Rights and Morals were only reasoning's of man and that what man reasons can change.

"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just..."
--Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XVIII, 1782. ME 2:227

Organized religion often has nothing to do with Christianity. Christianity at its core is a one on one relationship between God and the individual who accepts the atoning work of Christ through His death, burial, and ressurection, and then walks by His Spirit, using the Bible as his primary instruction book. The individual is supreme, not a group. Almost all theologies in this world are based on group think, not the individual, except Christianity. Thats why life is so cheap in many countries. Its also why I don't like big churches with large congregations. It often leads to group think.

"I hold the precepts of Jesus, as delivered by Himself, to be the most pure, benevolent, and sublime which have ever been preached to man."

--Thomas Jefferson to Jared Sparks, November 4, 1820.

America's Fifth Column ... watch PBS documentary JIHAD! In America
New Link: Download 8 Mb zip file here (60 minute video)

Here's a quote by Jefferson that I like:

"For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security." -- Thomas Jefferson

Okay. So TJ wasn't a Christian. His loss.

The Constitution still doesn't say anything about a wall of separation between church and state.

Bump for later read.

Many thanks for an excellent thread. It's been bookmarked.

I don't know what kind of religion Jefferson followed. The fact that he made mention of the Deity three times in his Declaration of INdependence means he believed in God in some form. I don't believe his use of those terms was mere rhetoric for effect.

However, the overwhelming number of the founders of this country and the inhabitants thereof were God-fearing Christians and the early history of this country reflects that.

The recent efforts to purge God and religion from all aspects of public life are the product of a neo-fascist, crypto-communist left, allowed to raise its vile and ugly head after the crucifixion of the late, great Senator Joe McCarthy, the commie-killer.

Outside view: Liberty of conscience

By Jerry Bowyer
A UPI Outside view commentary
From the Washington Politics & Policy Desk
Published 8/24/2002 6:38 AM
View printer-friendly version

PITTSBURGH, Aug. 24 (UPI) -- On President George Washington's Aug. 18, 1790 letter to the Hebrew Congregation:

Prayer has been banished from school; manger scenes and menorahs have been banished from courtyards and recently the phrase "under God" has been temporarily excised by a lower court from the Pledge of Allegiance.

This has all been done on the basis of the most separationist interpretation of the most separationist sentence, which appeared in the most separationist document written by the most separationist member of the founding generation.

Since the middle of the 20th century the Supreme Court and assorted inferior courts have been building a scaffold of legal precedent regarding the relationship between God and the State. Almost all of this is based on a metaphor employed by Thomas Jefferson in his famous Letter to the Danbury Baptists.

This is unfortunate for two reasons: first, no set of legal doctrines as pervasive and revolutionary as these should be erected on such a narrow foundation; second, the way it has been used distorts the view of the founding generation towards Church/State relations.

What a shame that the courts have chosen to derive their interpretation of the Constitution almost entirely from a man who had no hand in its drafting --Jefferson was in France at the time -- and whose views on religion were so unusual for his time that he felt the need to conceal them in order to be politically viable.

Perhaps they should have consulted "the indispensable man," George Washington, and his correspondence with the "Hebrew congregation" of Newport, Rhode Island, which was exchanged 211 years ago this week.

Washington had been traveling in Rhode Island in August of 1790 and had the opportunity to meet with some of the members of the town's synagogue. Shortly thereafter the Warden of the congregation, Moses Seixas, sent a letter of appreciation for the President on their behalf. What strikes modern ears about the letter is the richness, vibrancy and boldness of religious expression:

"With pleasure we reflect on those days and -- those days of difficulty, & danger when the God of Israel, who delivered David from the peril of the sword, shielded your head in the day of battle: and we rejoice to think, that the same Spirit who rested in the Bosom of the greatly beloved Daniel enabling him to preside over the Provinces of the Babylonish Empire, rests and ever will rest upon you, enabling you to discharge the arduous duties of Chief Magistrate in these States.

"Deprived as we heretofore have been of the invaluable rights of free Citizens, we now (with a deep sense of gratitude to the Almighty disposer of all events) behold a Government, erected by the Majesty of the People -- a Government, which to bigotry gives no sanction, to persecution no assistance--but generously affording to All liberty of conscience, and immunities of Citizenship: deeming every one, of whatever Nation, tongue, or language, equal parts of the great governmental Machine: This so ample and extensive Federal Union whose basis is Philanthropy, Mutual Confidence and Publick Virtue, we cannot but acknowledge to be the work of the Great God, who ruleth in the Armies Of Heaven and among the Inhabitants of the Earth, doing whatever seemeth him good.

"For all the Blessings of civil and religious liberty which we enjoy under an equal and benign administration, we desire to send up our thanks to the Antient of Days, the great preserver of Men -- beseeching him, that the Angel who conducted our forefathers through the wilderness into the promised land, may graciously conduct you through all the difficulties and dangers of this mortal life: and, when like Joshua full of days and full of honour, you are gathered to your Fathers, may you be admitted into the Heavenly Paradise to partake of the water of life, and the tree of immortality."

A few things strike the eyes of the modern reader.

The Jews of Newport were proudly particularist; they didn't speak in general terms about a broad monotheism or about the place of "religion" or "spirituality" in American life.

Instead they cited the books of Joshua and Daniel specifying that the God that they were talking about was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Further, they did this, not inside the walls of the congregation, but in an official communication with the President of the United States and in his capacity as President, not his capacity as a private citizen.

Finally, rather than treating religious expressions in public life as threats to religious liberty, the Jews of Rhode Island in 1790 saw their liberty as derived from "the Antient of Days."

George Washington's reply below makes one wonder how American life would be different if her courts had turned to this letter -- written by a man without whose support the Constitution would have had no chance of being ratified -- rather than to Jefferson's letter as a source to understand the United States Constitution.

The substance of Washington's reply is as follows:

"The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.

"It would be inconsistent with the frankness of my character not to avow that I am pleased with your favorable opinion of my administration, and fervent wishes for my felicity. May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid. May the father of all mercies scatter light and not darkness in our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in his own due time and way everlastingly happy."

Again, we find an explicitness of religious expression that would be rebuked by the editorial staff of many newspapers if it appeared on presidential letterhead today.

More importantly we find the idea of Liberty of Conscience which is a more elegant and clear formulation of the religious question then Jefferson's metaphorical wall.

This principle puts Washington in the mainstream of his generation.

On the right you had the advocates of toleration like Patrick Henry who believed that America should have been explicitly subordinated to Christianity in its Constitution. In this view non-Christians were to be "tolerated" although they were at variance from the American establishment.

On the left you had the separationists like Jefferson who believed that the institution of the Church would shortly decline from its position of cultural leadership and should be separated from government at all levels.

Of course, even Jefferson didn't go as far as his modern interpreters, as he still left room for discourse about God in the public sphere -- for instance in his own Declaration of Independence -- and required only that such expressions be non-sectarian.

Jefferson's metaphor brings confusion: do our days of Thanksgiving violations of the separation? Are all religious expressions, even those not associative with the institution of the church, violations of the separation between Church and State? What about institutions that involve areas of overlap between Church and State, for instance, church-run soup kitchens, drug and alcohol programs, and schools which receive public support?

Washington's framework, while still leaving some gray areas, is much simpler.

Every human being possesses an inherent right to liberty of conscience; government may not compel them to accept or reject any beliefs, religious or otherwise. And citizens shall be permitted to act on their beliefs "so long as they demean themselves as good citizens" and do not attempt to coerce the beliefs of others. Quick, somebody please fax a copy of The Letter to the Hebrew Congregation over to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

-- Jerry Bowyer is host of a radio program on WPTT radio in Pittsburgh.

-- "Outside View" commentaries are written for UPI by outside writers who specialize in a variety of important global issues.

Source: http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20020821-032236-7769r

Bookmarked. I have hours of reading to do. Thanks for the link--I think. :)

That was a great read. Of course, don't expect to win anyone over. Most people don't really believe in "freedom".