PRESIDENT THOMAS JEFFERSON'S LETTER
A misunderstanding that prevails in the secular media and amongst leftists at large, regards the origin of the concept of "separation of Church and State" and its intended meaning.
This phrase or concept does NOT appear anywhere in the Constitution of the United States, which is the supreme law of the land.
This concept was birthed by Thomas Jefferson in a letter he wrote to Danbury Baptist Association in the State of Connecticut, dated January 1, 1802, while he was President of the United States. That letter was meticulously worded to protect our religious institutions against government encroachment, on the one hand, and on the other hand, to oppose the British model where there is a Church of England, or, otherwise a "government church," whereby the king or queen is the primary "head" or "minister."
Jefferson may have chosen a peculiar way to institute such a protection by using himself as an example-- as "head of state,"-- but to him, it was the proper thing to do, in the most befitting way, since he, himself, was the President of the United States.
Thus, as he thought, what greater affirmation or validation could the church obtain than to receive support and agreement for freedom of religion and liberty of conscience from the highest office in the land!
Leftist liberals would be hard pressed in their attempts to turn Jefferson's remark on its head by submitting the opposite view--for the fact is, Thomas Jefferson was a friend and helper of the church and not its enemy.
Here is an excerpt from that letter, "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."
So, as you see, Jefferson was writing from the standpoint of PROTECTING churches from local, state and federal government intrusion in their affairs of faith and practice, in that government cannot make any law regarding religion at all, for that it is a matter of private conscience and right to freely worship. The "wall" was to keep government out in the sense of, no government interference, but it was not to keep faith out of government.
"The wall of separation"--a "wall" so to speak, erected between religion and government by the Constitution--was to keep government out of church affairs as the pillar of freedom of worship, and not to prevent citizens from knowing and learning, praying and practicing their faith in America.
Nor was "the wall of separation" intended to abrogate the faith of public servants and to inhibit religious practice by individual public officials working in government. Public officials work in government and serve in government, but they, themselves, in person, are NOT the government. This misunderstanding must be cleared up--public servants, civil servants and government employees are still private citizens with full enjoyment of their Bill of Rights, but working in government as they "protect, defend and preserve the Constitution of the United States."
For how can government service take away rights when government itself has been instituted "to secure these rights?" Would not these government employees working for the people of the United States be compelled to destroy their very own rights, as well as the rights of their neighbors, as citizen-employees?
To the contrary, Jefferson encouraged religious faith and practice as President, for he had participated in writing the Declaration of Independence wherein he credits our Creator as the sole Author of our inalienable rights. And in addition, the Constitution was ratified "in the year of our Lord," 1787.
Again, an excerpt from the letter to Danbury Baptist Association in Jefferson's own words, "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 & esteem." He is saying, "I am praying with you for God's protection and blessing."
So, you see, even Jefferson, as President offered prayers in his correspondence with the Danbury Baptist Association.
In addition, see the context here, which is important, for, Jefferson wanted to distinguish religion as practiced in America from religion as practiced in Britain-- whereby the Church of England or the Anglican Church of which the British king or queen is the head of state, was the "official State religion."
Here is where Jefferson expressed his sentiment of caution, "I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally WHERE AN EXECUTIVE IS THE LEGAL HEAD OF A NATIONAL CHURCH."
Again, you see, Jefferson stated that even when he practices his faith publicly, it is indeed legal, but not as the "legal head of a national church." He would not attend service at the Church of England when it is well known that the queen or king is the legal head of that national church, even though his attendance there to worship would be legal.
Thus, Jefferson wanted to emphasize that there is NO "United States of America Church" with the President as head-pontificate, as compared to the British system where the king or queen is the head-pontificate, even when he legally opts to engage in "occasional performances of devotion."
And that was the context of the "wall of separation" between church and state.
Therefore, the context of "thus building a wall of separation between church and state," per the original meaning intended by Thomas Jefferson in his letter to Danbury Baptist Association, in Connecticut, was that:
1) government must have a "hands off" policy regarding religion; it cannot make any law respecting its establishment or practice;
2) there is no "official government church" in the United States of America; in England there is the Church of England, but here there can never be "the Church of federal government" in America, with government dictating matters of faith and religious practice
3) all Americans in every capacity, have the inalienable rights to practice their faith and religion in accordance with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, regardless of their profession or employment;
4) given that government is instituted to protect citizens' inalienable rights, public officials, civil servants and government employees do not lose their civil and religious rights just because they enter a building designated as "public building" or "government building, or just because their employer happens to be "government."
In short, just because you go to public school or are employed by government, you don't leave your rights, at the door; just because you are in a government building, you don't stop being an American.
Otherwise, there would have been an insoluble contradiction--for the Constitution says you have freedom of religion; but when you are employed by government or when you enter a public building, your rights would evaporate? That would not make sense at all. Then, whose rights is government instituted to protect--if not yours, the public employee, also?
Consequently, the main point is that, for example, the governor of a State cannot declare that the State has opened a "government church" with the governor as "head-minister." In the same manner, the federal government cannot proclaim the opening of a "government church of the United States" with the president or the speaker of the house as "ministers." This, is the context Jefferson wanted to convey. And that is the context of Jefferson's letter in coining the phrase, concept or statement: "building a wall of separation between church and state."
Remember, Jefferson's intention was to sustain the security and protections for religious freedom that are already guaranteed for ALL Americans and persons within the jurisdiction of the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, in all places and for all time, and not to destroy the very foundation for the existence of government itself, which is, "to secure these rights."
If you'd bother to read more about history instead of religious BS, especially the era when the Constitution was written and those of its authors, you'd realize many on the problems in Europe at that time were directly related to governments running the religion(England) and religion running the governments(The Vatican). Both of these were the religious persecutions so many immigrated to America to get away from them. And there are many other variations too besides these mentioned.
Once one understands the religious and political turmoils of the age in question, it would be really fucking stupid for Jefferson to bar the government from intruding into the religious arena, but granting those in the religious arena full access to the government. That would have made immigrating to America a pointless effort - you escape religious persecution by a government only to find yourself under the yoke another, or you immigrate to get away religious sect persecution only to discover you're still under religious persecution but by another religious sect.
Your argument is bu11$hit. Faith has always been the cause of both religious and government turmoil throughout all history. Their exclusion in government was necessary at that time and still is today.
September 29, 2009 6:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Beetlejuice,
May God's Spirit enlighten your own spirit for self-discovery and liberating truth.
Religious faith is the fulfilment of all human yearnings for all the good they desire in living life as mortal beings.
Were it not for faith, belief and religious practice, there would not have been a United States of America. People are not perfect; as the Holy Bible says, our frame is dust. However, every human being possesses a sense of the transcendent, a need for the good to happen in life, a desire for beneficence, a search for good will. Who in their right minds would want evil for themselves- to be afflicted all their lives with pains, injustices, enslavements, tortures, torments etc...all their lives?
Well,nobody. That's exactly what God understands and why He sent Christ to fulfil these needs once and for all, for all time, and for all peoples. So that by living your life as a real believing Christian, your searches have happily ended - for God in Christ provides all the answers. No more dead-ended human philosophies that revolve in a circle without ever being able to result in the perfection of human flesh - which is not possible because flesh is sinful, weak, error-prone and proud.
But God in His benevolent wisdom and loving merci, provided a way for us to live, though in the flesh, but with akin-to-divine characteristics that make living on the earth a real enjoyable journey from conception, to birth, to growth, to maturity and to old age.
Without these needs fulfilled in the right way, Man is just a wandering soul, never finding a place of rest, never a peaceful contemplation, never a tranquil moment of blessed repose.
Yes, God is good. Seek to know Him. When God is present - you know you are not your circumstances, but that they are external to you, and that you were created to be greater than them, and that you can overcome them with God's help in Christ Jesus.
God bless you and God bless America.
September 29, 2009 6:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Complete non-answer.
Beetlejuice's point is about human logic -- if you are leaving Europe to get away from government enforced religion, why would you construct a government that was enabled to enforce religion?
As to your point 2) "there is no "official government church" in the United States of America; in England there is the Church of England, but here there can never be "the Church of federal government" in America, with government dictating matters of faith and religious practice" I presume you mean that the government cannot tell you when and how to pray -- whether or not individual employees of the government retain their own religious freedoms they are not entitled to inflict their views on those entrusted to their care -- that is, no government organized prayer in schools. That goes for both Christian and Hindu rituals.
Jefferson was so tender on this point of separation that he believed that the University of Virginia should not offer religious books. Instead, he and Madison acting as private individuals set up a private library on that topic.
September 29, 2009 9:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
You certainly have a unique way of reading things to support your thesis. While Jefferson certainly said the state shall not interfere in the church no where in his letter does he state the wall does not block movement in the other direction, as well. Religion cannot interfere in the state.
You cannot build a wall that has a one way door in it. So while the Federal government cannot interfere in how you happen to practice your religion or what church, temple or mosque you chose to attend. It likewise prohibits the state from declaring in favor of one religion over another or establishing a state religion. We are a nation made up up of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Whickens, Buddhist , followers of Shinto and just about every other religion that men and women choose to practice and none has precedent over the other in the eyes of the Constitution.
And it just for this very reason that the state forbids the practice of one religion over another in state supported institutions. Let's take no prayer in public schools. The Separation Clause does not say you cannot pray in school, but the school cannot force one form of prayer, say a Christian prayer, on it's students. Now if a group of students want to get together and form a prayer group they are free to do so, just as a group of Muslim children may do so. However in the neither case may the schools lend it's financial support (tax dollars) nor may either group interfere in the normal daily operation of the school.
Now, I know you, along with other fundamentalist Christians, truly believe this is a Christian nation, but it is not. For us to declare ourselves a Christian nation we would have to admit we are a theocracy and we are not. If we were we would prohibit non Christians from holding office we would not have Jewish or Muslim members of Congress.
The founders were very clear on their belief that there should be a strong separation of Church and State.
Then we have the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli, signed by Adams and ratified by the Congress in 1797. Article 11 of the Treaty States:
And a bit more background:
Source for both quotes: Link
September 29, 2009 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Leo, this is not, nor has it ever been a Christian Nation. The United States was founded by Christians (Deists, so Christians in the loosest sense allowed at the time) as an Agnostic nation. An agnostic nation does not deny the existence of any god, nor does it proscribe to any particular god (although, of course, God, Jehovah, Yahweh, Allah, and Ahura Mazda are the same entity, as well as firm arguments can be made that the 'head gods' in polytheistic religions are equivalent to the holy trinity, with lesser gods angel and saint equivalents).
This is not a Christian Nation, it is an Agnostic Nation inhabited by Christians. Thus, policy should not cater to Christians any more than it should repel them. Just as every member of every faith (or lack thereof) in this country.
September 29, 2009 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
The important point regarding the Constitution is that authority, the right to rule, is defined as arising from the consent of the governed. It is codified in the rules establishing Congress and the executive, but it nowhere acknowledges any source for moral authority beyond the People. Precisely because the People have to be free to choose, their religion (or lack of) is to be protected.
It is difficult to achieve in practice, and that is why there are court cases and such. The most common dispute, where a school or other other state facility aids a religious group by allowing or subsidizing activity on its grounds, seems innocuous, but not to Jews and Muslims, or even Catholics in earlier times. And check what happens when a Muslim group wants to have activities in a school.
Churches already are subsidized by tax exemptions. There are more churches per capita in the US than in pretty much all other western nations. This is not a problem worth much discussion.
September 29, 2009 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
If a school opens it's facilities to non instructional groups/activities of any type, all groups should have equal standing to benefit from the opportunities. To exclude a use based on the religious beliefs of the group that wishes to take advantage seems to me the very definition of religious discrimination.
September 29, 2009 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am going to recommend this anyway. Thank you for discussing this letter. Perspective is important.
I would just point out from a purely lay person's perspective that when you build a wall, it keeps things and people in besides keeping other things and other people out. The Berlin Wall is an example of this.
If a two thousand mile double wall were built on our southern border, it would keep the people from southern portion of the North American Continent from coming north, but it would keep US from going south.
Jefferson was not even a Christian for chrissakes. He was as afraid of the Italian Pope as he was of the Archbishop of Canterbury. He certainly would not flock to some TV Evangelical bullshit.
THE END
September 29, 2009 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Leo, it is obvious to me that your true gift is for selective misinterpretation.
Your curse is your bias.
Oh, and unless and until you can conclusively prove to me the existence of your "god" (and your "god" alone) I will not accept anything you presume to say in his name. Why you and your "think-alikes" and none other?
September 29, 2009 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Leo - First, I wish to commend you (and this is not meant sarcastically) for your ability to relinquish, if only for one post, your obsession with homosexuality. This post contains not a single homophobic remark, and that is all to the good.
Second, I agree with other commenters that the First Amendment clearly sees a "wall" as something that impedes either side from crossing - i.e., the government must not forbid religion but cannot coerce or promote it. Anyone today can pray anywhere, including in school, home, or Congress, but the First Amendment tells us that we can't (or at least should not) exercise our religious rights in ways that imply government endorsement of the practice. One must presume that God hears silent prayers, and so anything recited in a way to heard by other humans is intended not for God but to promote a religious agenda, and is therefore an imposition on others. It also doesn't work. When individuals are subjected to implied efforts to tell them they should be religiously observant, the overwhelming reaction is an increased disdain for religion, rather than respect for it.
You made the following comment: "However, every human being possesses a sense of the transcendent, a need for the good to happen in life, a desire for beneficence, a search for good will." Indeed, I could not agree more. Where people of good will disagree, however, is with the contention that the kind of spirituality you mention requires the believe in a supernatural Divine Being with the human attributes of perception, judgement, decision-making, and intervention. I can guarantee you that it is possible to be equally spiritual without depending on that belief.
To extend this concept, it is a form of intolerance to describe one's own belief in a particular form of observance - e.g., Christianity - as a prescription for others. The sad history of human oppression, murder, and even genocide is strewn with examples of attempts to impose religius beliefs on the infidels. We see it today with some of the Muslim extremists, but the Crusades, the Inquisition, and other historical examples of Christian malevolence tell us that it is the intolerant conviction that one's own belief system is better than someone else's that is truly the evil element in the mix.
Even within the U.S., some of the intolerance persists, although not at the level of violence that may occur elsewhere. You cite Jefferson, but our other leaders were also tolerant of diverse views.
Of some interest was Abraham Lincoln, who stated on several occasions that he was not a Christian - an announcement that caused some embarassment to a number of his supporters. Fortunately, his failure to embrace Christianity did not preclude his election to the presidency, and we can all be thankful. It's interesting, however, that some of his Christian supporters found it necessary to claim that despite his public statements, he had secretly been baptized by one or another Christian ministers and so had ultimately accepted Christianity. Lincoln, his wife, and his close friends all rejected these claims, and so his enormous spirituality clearly did not depend on the belief in the Trinity. Whether his references to God, which were plentiful, reflected a literal belief in a personal God, or something more metaphorical, will probably remain unknown forever.
September 29, 2009 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
One other small point - quoting another's words without giving credit to the author is plagiarism, a form of intellectual dishonesty in that it robs the originator of credit while claiming credit for oneself that is not deserved. It is sometimes used by writers to imply that their wisdom and talent is greater than it is in reality. You may have intended no harm, but plagiarism is something to avoid in the future.
September 29, 2009 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I missed the plagiarism, where was it?
September 29, 2009 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
The "sense of the transcendent" statement, which I requoted, was one of many from Thomas Jefferson that was not credited to Jefferson.
These days, it is not hard to identify plagiarism if the plagiarized source in on the web, and one looks for it. All you have to do is choose a suspicious passage and insert it into Google, which will quickly find the original (even if there are minor changes from the original). I sometimes do this whenever someone's writing seems beyond my impression of their level of native ability. I don't really think Leo was trying to pass himself off here as a writer of great eloquence - he was probably just careless - but it is still unfair to the eloquence of Jefferson to deny him proper credit.
September 29, 2009 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
thanks for clearing that up.
September 29, 2009 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The above posters have all made excellent comments. I simply want to add there there is a certain poignancy that you have two comments on your profile by someone who was, I think the true architect of the "wall of separation" that has been aptly discussed here: James Madison. He writes in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, from late 1787:
"Without such a check in the whole over the parts, our system involves the evil of 'imperia in imperio.' (ie, a state within a state.) If a compleat supremacy some where is not necessary, a controuling power at least is so, by which the general authority may be defended against encroachments of the subordinate authorities, and by which the latter may be restrained from encroachments on each other. if the supremacy of the British Parliament is not necessary as has been contended, for the harmony of that Empire, it is evident I think that without the royal NEGATIVE or some equivalent controul, the UNITY of the system would be destroyed."
Obviously, the caps are my own intervention. But Madison is talking about a 'negative,' that is, impermeable and not very active in itself, power that provides unity. Madison goes on to explain that this negative is what destroyed political systems from the Greeks to his own day.
And this 'negative' keeps 'interests' from 'encroaching' on each other. Without this 'negative,' this impermeable wall, distinctions erode. One of which is...
"...No distinction seems to be more obvious than that between spiritual and temporal matters. Yet whenever they have been made objects of Legislation, they have clashed and contended with each other, till one or the other has gained the supremacy."
This is precisely what Madison knew would DESTROY his system.
The letter which i cite was written Oct. 24 to Nov. 1, 1787. He labored on this one, because the topic was of such paramount importance to the Constitution's structure and success.
September 29, 2009 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I write abominably. The sentence in the post's third paragraph should have read instead, "Madison goes to explain that LACK OF this negative is what destroyed political systems..."
September 29, 2009 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you are imagining a wall exists that is only solid in one direction? If an official or government employee uses their position to amplify or advance their faith, it's wrong.
For instance, starting a city council meeting with a prayer is an abomination to the American ideal; offering a prayer of blessing over a meal or arranging one's break for afternoon prayers is a free exercise of religion no matter where it occurs.
Religion has no place in government and America is a free nation, not a Christian nation.
September 29, 2009 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is right. That is correct.But I must have a plate at the table before I will bow my head.
I mean, what's fair is fair.
September 29, 2009 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your distinction between an express vow to pursue the secular and what the Constitution does clearly support may be one without a difference. Consider Article Six, section three:
As you were emphasizing, this requirement rules out the establishment of a state religion. But it goes further. The only way to maintain a condition that truly removes this sort of testing is a secular commons, where the differences of belief systems are not allowed to subvert the process of a democratic republic.
The letter of the law requires a shared value. Let us call this shared value the importance of a secular governance.
September 29, 2009 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Moat,
That means no test of candidates for non-religiosity. "Secular governance" implies the rejection of God, the prohibition of faith, and the abrogation of freedom of worship.
Because during the Founders' times, the king would require that appointed subjects believe in the "divine right of kings," for example; or that they believed as the king did, regarding treatment of the colonies, etc... in order to obtain favor from the crown.
To the contrary, Moat, when the Constitution says, "but no religious test shall ever be required," that is exactly what it means. Your "secular test" is a religious test for godlessness. That's unconstitutional.
September 29, 2009 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
The phrase “separation of church and state” is but a metaphor to describe the underlying principle of the First Amendment and the no-religious-test clause of the Constitution. The absence of the phrase in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, only to those who may have once labored under the misimpression the words appeared there and later learned of their mistake. To those familiar with the Constitution, the absence of the metaphor commonly used to describe one of its principles is no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, fair trial, religious liberty) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles.
While some try to pass off the Supreme Court's decisions, particularly Everson v. Board of Education, as simply a misreading of Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, that letter has played a relatively small part in the Court's decisions. Perhaps even more than Jefferson, James Madison influenced the Court's view. Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to "[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government." Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that old habits die hard and that tendencies of citizens and politicians could and sometimes did lead them to entangle government and religion (e.g., "the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress" and "for the army and navy" and "[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts"), he considered the question whether these were "consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom" and responded: "In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion."
Leo is right to distinguish “individual” and “government” speech. The First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views–publicly (i.e., in the public square) as well as privately. The “establishment” clause constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion. It is important, as well, to distinguish between individuals acting in their capacity as individuals or in their capacity as agents of the government. As government can only act through the individuals comprising its ranks, when those individuals are performing their official duties (e.g., public school teachers instructing students in their classrooms), they should conduct themselves in accordance with the establishment clause constraints on government. When performing those duties, they effectively are the government. When acting in their individual capacities, however, they are free to exercise their religion as they please–publicly as well as privately. If their right to free exercise of religion extended even to their discharge of their official responsibilities, though, the First Amendment constraints on government establishment of religion would be eviscerated. While figuring out whether someone is acting in an official or private capacity in any given circumstance can be complex, recognizing the distinction is critical.
September 30, 2009 9:48 PM | Reply | Permalink