Thomas Jefferson's "Wall of Separation"

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jul 6 2006, 09:53 AM) [snapback]282073[/snapback]</div>

That the government shall not endorse one religion over another.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jul 6 2006, 09:59 AM) [snapback]282079[/snapback]</div>

I think he was thinking in the larger sense; having witnessed and studied the abuses visited upon society by historic religious-state alliances (Inquisitions, Anglicans, etc.). For what it is worth, I am not convinced that our forefathers were as pious as some wish them portrayed; there is some evidence that Jefferson himself may have been what we would now consider to be agnostic. This is all my opinion, of course. B)

Here is a link that attempts to discuss religion in Colonial America; while it does not address Jefferson and his "Wall of Separation", it does delve in to the various belief structures:

http://www.uncp.edu/home/canada/work/allam...83/religion.htm

 

Eventually there will be no wall. Church wants this and Church wants that, and if State doesn't give then have the faithful replace them.

A few more years, and Separation will only apply to a minor Church or two, the ones with fewer votes...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Jul 6 2006, 10:34 AM) [snapback]282103[/snapback]</div>

Good points; reminds me of the case of several years ago concerning meatpacking and the interstate commerce act(s).

The State of Michigan was sued by some meatpackers for restraint of trade and other issues. the facts were that Michigan had a higher standard of quality and proof than was required by Federal FDA standards. Michigan restricted meat sales to those companies that met Michigan's standards, arguing that they had a right to establish safety standards and that so long as the standards exceeded the minimums of the FDA, they (State of Michigan) was within its authority. The companies, of course, claimed that Michigan was in violation of ICC and FDA lawas and rules and sued in Federal court. As I recall, the court handed down a decision upholding the states's rights to establish higher standards and require compliance.

Now, the difference between the ICC/FDA and the US Constitution is that the Constitution is 'the law of the land' and the rules and laws developed by agencies like the FDA and ICC are merely statutory regulation.

But we do develop those regulatory laws based upon the interpretations of the articles of The Constitution and the amendments therein. The founders had no way of knowing how far 'International Law' considerations would creep in to court decisions.

BTW: here is the excerpted text of the letter that was delivered to a group of Baptists, not an 'official government' gathering or function, so it serves more as a measure of Jefferson's mindset than a governing statement.

(Note: The bracketed section in the second paragraph had been blocked off for deletion, though it was not actually deleted in his draft of the letter. It is included here for completeness. Reflecting upon Jefferson's knowledge that his letter was far from a mere personal correspondence, he deleted the block, he says in the margin, to avoid offending members of his party in the eastern states.)

***********************

Mr. President

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & 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 & more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

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

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.

 

I don't think it is possible or good to try to make a "wall" between that which is church and that which is state. The main problem is that a church is its people, and so is our government. A person, in general, will act acording to his of her religious beliefs in daily life, including anything that has to do with the state. It is simply not posible to expect people to completely set aside their beliefs in order to act in a govermental position.

What is nessicary, though, is that no group be able to overide the convictions of another in a governmental sense. An example here might be the animosity between groups of Christians and groups of Islamics. Chistians must not be allowed to enact laws that require Islamics to act according to Christian beliefs, nor vice verca.

For a religious group to be active in government is healthy and expectable with our democratic methods. It isn't really any different then any other like-minded group attempting to accomplish something through the government. A problem only occurs when a group attempts to enforce a concept that other groups find unacceptable. This is NOT LIMITED to religious groups.

My biggest pet peeve lately has been the barring of religious symbols from government workplaces, mainly those used in personal workspaces. The idea that a worker displaying a symbol of his or her faith is somehow the same as the government edorsing a religion is rediculous. It is far better to embrace oneanothers faiths then to hide them from the world. I want to see crosses, stars of David, cresent moons, Buddas, and every other symbol that is special to an individual displayed in their cube whenever they want.

 

Of course, after having said all of this, we all realize that the way the Federal guvmint keeps all of the sovereign states 'in line' is through that opiate of government, tax revenues.

Do as the Feds dictate and you will get your cup of taxpayer gruel...

Do as you will in opposition and the suckling teat dries up

( I am certain that Thomas Jefferson would have understood that, and Ben Franklin may have written something similar...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jul 6 2006, 02:49 PM) [snapback]282135[/snapback]</div>

I expect the people making those restrictions to be replaced by people who will rubber-stamp whatever their minister wants done.

Another really good hurricane will probably start the ball rolling, when bad weather is played up as God's Big Stick again...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jul 6 2006, 09:53 AM) [snapback]282073[/snapback]</div>

I've studied the colonial and revolutionary periods for the last 20 years, reading quite a few source documents as well as analysis by authors living today and in the past. I'm strictly an amature historian, but I found this issue to be an extremely complex one. And almost no one arguing about it has it right.

The single best book out there on this, in my opinion, is a new one by Jon Meacham. Meacham is the Managing Editor of Newsweek, and like a true journalist, he approaches his topic from a dispassionate and rational perspective. "American Gospel", ISBN 1-4000-6555-0, is a great treatment of religion in American life, and explains how the rhetoric of the founders and later politicians really reflects a cultural or "public religion", and not a specific faith. That's why a man like Jefferson, rumored to be an atheist, used religious language without a hint of hypocrasy.

In my independent study, I found again and again the compromises that formed this nation are the ones that have made us strong (with one exception: the compromise over slavery). The religious compromise was that the colonies had different state religions ... in MA, it was the Congregational Church. Virginia, like a few others, had the English mother country's Anglican Church as its official state church. The citizens of "these United States" identified themselves more as residents of their states than of America; it was as if the 13 colonies were truly "free and independent states."

The argument I used to accept as fact, and the most persuasive one out there for the "Reconstructionists" view, is that the existance of these state churches proves that the founders were not hostile to religion; they just didn't want to continue to pay taxes to support an overbearing federal church that would repress their own churches, which they wanted to be the official government churches of their states.

But the answer is more complex than that. Because these very religious men and a few not so religious ones went home after the Constitutional Convention and dismantled the official state church ties as well. Within about 30 years, none of the individual states had an official state church.

Even in drafting the First Amendment, the founders were careful. As Meacham explains:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("American Gospel" page 100)</div>

I have a more complete review of the book at my blog, http://frankhagan.com/blog/2006/05/22/chri...n-nation-redux/

State by state, this concept spread. Jefferson's phrase "wall of separation" encapsulated this movement toward disestablishment of state religion in a catchy phrase. He did that a lot (thank God!)

But the anti-faith crowd also has it wrong. The majority of the founders were Christians in orthodox Christian denominations. You can count on one hand the ones that were not. The confusion comes in when they declare so many of them to be "Deists, not Christians", but the two are not mutually exclusive. It was prefectly acceptable for a Christian to be a Deist theologically. Benjamin Franklin, oft quoted as a Deist, was also a life long tithing member of Christ's Church in Philadelphia, where his family sponsored the front pew, and where he was buried with full church honors. Franklin used the Socratic Method of debate, and often his questions have been mistaken for a statement of belief.

I don't believe Thomas Jefferson was a Christian; although some historians believe he may have become a Unitarian or Universalist prior to his death. But no matter, because he approved of the public religion of America, as practiced for nearly 200 years, even by men such as FDR, JFK and GW Bush (who's comments are so close in tenor and tone to FDR's that the worry about us "becoming a theocracy" is ludicrous).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jul 6 2006, 03:29 PM) [snapback]282154[/snapback]</div>

I'm not sure here. Perhaps I misunderstood the ideas folk like Jerry Falwell have been expressing: "good Christians" need to prevent other people from sinning. Period. No 'free will' allowed, if the will is to sin. You need to drag people into Heaven with you to enter. Seems rather sterile-oriented to me.

Give people enough of a push, they WILL elect people who will rewrite the Constitution to suit. Already, with no discernable non-religious aspect to banning gay marriage of the civil variety, it's being banned and seconded in court. "Thou shalt not..." is the way all things are going, so if you disagree fine, but I'm expecting the First Amendment to lose more ground each year. The old slippery-slope metaphore, as it were...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jul 7 2006, 10:00 AM) [snapback]282502[/snapback]</div>

Amendments.

Amendment XXVIII:

Section 1. No citizen of or visitor to the United States will be allowed to perform any act proscribed by The Bible while inside the borders of the United States or any of its territories. Any previous Right that allowed such acts or prevented the banning of them is hereby revoked.

Section 1a. Capital punishment, declarations of war, and all related war activities are necessary to maintain order and shall not be proscribed.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Simple enough. And as I said, instill enough artificial fear of reprisal from God and people WILL sign on...

I guess it depends on if you are in agreement with totalitarian religious control or not. Since I see no reason why 75% of the people (anywhere) had any right at all to do anything like tell folks they need to be heterosexual to marry, I guess I'm not in agreement.

That's why we disagree...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mikepaul @ Jul 7 2006, 06:06 AM) [snapback]282492[/snapback]</div>

Gay marriage is not banned by the court. The gay activists are upset that the courts won't declare marriage a civil right for same-sex couples in the same way abortion was declared a right, and nearly all state laws regulating abortion were declared invalid. But states are not granting marriage rights to same sex couples right now (except for MA, where the legislature has passed a law, I believe).

Its hard to say something that has never been legal in the history of western society is being "banned" by religious extremists. Its hyperbole.

The movement to add a constitutional amendment defining marriage is to prevent two things; one, to prevent the court from declaring same-sex marraige a civil right and therefore invalidating individual state laws regulating it (a la abortion), and two, to prevent a single state such as MA legislating a same-sex marraige right and then forcing all other states to recognize it under the Constitution's "full faith and credit" clause.

I think gay marriage will eventually win, but the right way to do that is through the state legislatures. The courts are not the place to change law; instead, the political process should be invoked, with state legislatures passing the laws and other states recognizing them. There is no urgent, over-riding need to have a court order gay marriage rights by judicial fiat. Same sex marriage will become law in the future through the regular process.

 

When the Constitution was written, I believe it was not anticipated that the Supreme Court would be enabled to declare state and local laws "unconstitutional". That was established by---what?---Marbury vs Madison? So it's unlikely that Jefferson was espressing feeling toward what anyone could or should do except the Feds.

At the same time, I imagine the Fathers expected the Constitution to "set the tone" as the Law of the Land, eeven if it wasn't expected that every state would duplicate the Constitution in their state constitutions. So even if Jefferson PERSONALLY was speaking of his feelings about ALL levels of government, he's more likely in that instance to have been talking solely about the Feds.

Wrong?