Roger Williams & the REAL origin of "Wall of Separation" between Church & State

American Minute ^ | Rodger Williams

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

"Notorious disagreements" with Puritan leader John Cotton over the Massachusetts General Court censoring his religious speech led Roger Williams to publish The Bloody Tenet of Persecution for Conscience Sake and Mr. Cotton's Letter Lately Printed, Examined and Answered in 1644.

In it, Roger Williams first mentioned his now famous phrase, "WALL OF SEPARATION":

"Mr. Cotton ... hath not duly considered these following particulars.

First, the faithful labors of many witnesses of Jesus Christ, existing in the world, abundantly proving,

that the Church of the Jews under the Old Testament in the type and the Church of the Christians under the New Testament in the anti-type, were both SEPARATE from the world;

and that when they have opened a gap in the HEDGE, or WALL OF SEPARATION, between the garden of the Church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broken down the WALL itself, removed the candlestick, &c. and made his garden a wilderness, as at this day.

And that therefore if He will ever please to restore His garden and paradise again, it must of necessity be WALLED in peculiarly unto Himself from the world

. . .

When Baptists moved into Connecticut, the Danbury Baptist Association complained to President Jefferson, October 7, 1801, of their second-class status:

"Sir ... 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 ancient charter (in Connecticut), together with the Laws made coincident therewith ... are; that ... what religious privileges we enjoy (as Baptists) ... we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights ..."

The Danbury Baptists continued:

"Sir, we are sensible that the President of the united States is not the national Legislator & 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 Effect already, like the radiant beams of the Sun, will shine & prevail through all these States and all the world till Hierarchy and Tyranny be destroyed from the Earth.

Sir ... we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the chair of State ... May God strengthen you for the arduous task which Providence & the voice of the people have called you ...

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."

. . .

On January 1, 1802, Jefferson wrote back agreeing with the Baptists:

"Gentlemen ... Believing with you

-that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God,

-that he owes account to none other for faith or his worship,

-that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions,

I contemplate with solemn 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 ...

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man."

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

I excerpted without adhering to a word limit but just to make the posting more legible/attractive.

I commend the whole link to your attention.

[Bob434]

bump

[PGR88]

Politics and government corrupt everything they touch. Best to leave religion out of the clutches of politicians.

[gattaca]

bmp

[nonsporting]

In the early 90's I heard a radio interview with David Barton, founder of Wallbuilders. He was speaking at length on the "Myth of Separation" as fashioned by the Court in the early 60s. It's not what we've been led to believe.

In his book MoS he discusses the history of 1st amendment. The States sued for the 1st Amendment to protect their pre-existing religious establishments from Federal interference. (9 of the States had some sort of religious establishment at the adoption of the COTUS). But SCOTUS turned the 1st amendment on its head, doing what the Congress could not do -- make a law respecting a religious establishment -- by banning the Bible (and prayer et al.) from the public square.

Check it out.

[The Public Eye]

Greetings from Rhode Island. Roger Williams was our first Governor. (My ancestor was the first President of Rhode Island.). Roger Williams was also a Baptist Minister at the same time. Nobody had a problem with that. They were all Christian. So much for separation of church and state.

[Sparky1776]

Roger is my 10th great-grandfather. I would love to see a movie about him made someday, quite an interesting person imo.

[itsahoot]

If we would replace “religion” with “denomination” in these arguments we would have better understanding of the problem. Show me one argument, among the Founders, that discussed the freedom of Islam or Buddhism or even some discussion of preserving, what I am sure they considered as pagan, religion of the Native Americans.

[Political Junkie Too]

"Sir, we are sensible that the President of the united States is not the national Legislator & also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the Laws of each State;

My, how things have changed since 1801.

-PJ

[Retain Mike]

FIRST AMMENDMENT: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If you simply allow the words to speak for themselves, I can read no wall of separation. Instead I read a prohibition on the federal government, but none on exercise of religion. I can imagine a one way screen allowing religion into government but excluding government from intruding into religion. That literal interpretation would bring forth a whole different set of issues.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

a prohibition on the federal government, but none on exercise of religion. I can imagine a one way screen allowing religion into government but excluding government from intruding into religion.

Washington’s Farewell Address

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

[itsahoot]

That literal interpretation would bring forth a whole different set of issues.

Yes it would but it posed no problem for the Founders since they could never have foreseen that as a problem for a Christian nation, in the future.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the governance of any other." October 11, 1798 John Adams

Clearly Adams saw us as a Christian nation consisting of many denominations, but religious for sure and without mention of any religion other than Christianity, a grave mistake I fear.

The first Bible printed by the government was made available to schools touted as the best way to teach school students to read.