Blogging Against Theocracy Conspiracists
In "honor" of "Blogging Against Theocracy," a.k.a. "Marginalizing Christianity on its Most Sacred Holiday", a post on "The Infamous Wall."
The hinge pin of secularists in their efforts to secularize America and purge it of any public expression of Christian faith is the infamous "wall of separation between church and state" quote from Thomas Jefferson. It is the source from which all their secularist blessings flow. But does it say what they claim it does, and does it mean what they say it means?
This phrase comes from an exchange of letters between Thomas Jefferson, after he was elected president, and some Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut.
Baptists had been persecuted back in the Old World, and had even had some problems in the New World. Looking at this new Constitution and the First Amendment, they were concerned that the inclusion of religious freedom might be misinterpreted as coming from government, rather than being one of those inalienable rights from God.
Here is part of what the Danbury Baptists asked Jefferson:
It is not to be wondered at therefore, if those who seek after power and gain, under the pretense of government and Religion, should reproach their fellow men, [or] should reproach their Chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dares not, assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.
Jefferson sought to reassure the Danbury Baptists that the state had nothing to do with the granting of the right of religious freedom. The student of history will recall that in the Old World, the state granting rights and dictating the religious beliefs of its citizens was the natural order (the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of England, etc.). This was a fairly new concept for many people, even some that had enjoyed the relative freedom of colonial America.
Here is part of Jefferson's reply to the Danbury Baptists:
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 government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature would "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 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 and esteem.
The "wall of separation between church and state" to which Jefferson referred is intended to keep the state from subjugating religion, not to keep faith from having any influence or dialogue in public policy.
Note also that the language of the First Amendment only constrains Congress, not the states or any other political entity. In fact, a number of the states continued to have "state churches" long after ratification of the U.S. Constitution.
Here is what the First Amendment says with regard to religion: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." And that all-so-important second part about prohibiting the free exercise of religion (i.e. students praying in school, etc.) is often completely ignored these days.
In subsequent posts, I'll address how faith should guide politics and public policy, and provide examples of how this has been fostered in the past.
2 comments:
First, the Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut, were concerned that the Connecticut Congregationalists would impinge on their worship. They were not worried about the federal government -- they worried about their neighbors. With good cause: In 1801, Connecticut was one of four states that still had vestiges of religious establishment in the U.S. (those vestiges were wiped out of Connecticut law in 1819). Baptists were persecuted in the U.S., too. Rhode Island was founded by a man sentenced to death in Massachusetts for being Baptist. Several Baptists and Presbyterians were jailed in Virginia; a few Baptists were hanged in Massachusetts. There was plenty of cause for concern in the New World, too.
Second, it's not just an "exchange of letters." The Danbury Baptist Association was asking for federal help. Jefferson, in close consultation with his Attorney General, Levi Lincoln, determined that a presidential proclamation of just what the law was might do the trick. They determined that a written response would be fine. They carefully crafted the language of the missive to state clearly, accurately, and finally, what was the law for religious freedom in the U.S. The letter is not catalogued as a simple friendly exchange, but is instead collected in the official papers of the presidency. It's a proclamation of the President of the United States as to what is the law with regard to religious freedom.
Third, the wall of separation works both ways. Not only is the government kept out of any formal role in religion, so also are all churches kept out of any formal role in any government, including state and local (see Article VI of the Constitution). It is, indeed, a wall of separation between church and state. One might regard it as a bit over the top in antipapistry, but one may not argue that the door was left open for religion to be proclaimed, ex cathedra either from or to the White House, nor any other branch of any other government.
Fourth, the First Amendment cements and reinforces the wall of separation. While it references Congress directly, what it means is that not even Congress can devise any legal way to breach this fundamental right. In the Constitution, in Articles I through IV, the government is given no duties or privileges in any religion, for the legislative, executive and judicial branches, and for the states; and reflexively, no religious authority is delegated any role in any government. The states had each disestablished their churches by 1778, with only four keeping any vestiges of establishment (which were all gone except Massachusetts by 1819; the Bay State came around by 1833). No state had an established church after 1778.
The First Amendment says that this separation of church and state is so important that Congress may not even entertain a law mucking with it. It constrains Congress, sure -- but it constrains Congress from allowing others to breach the wall in any form. So it is binding on all branches of government, since there is no way to legally tear down the wall.
Most of what you say is true, Ed, except for the fact that the Danbury Baptists were indeed worried about the federal government; that was their whole reason for contacting Jefferson.
One additional error you wrote was about the constraint on all branches of government. If the Frames had meant all government, they would have said "Government" but they said "Congress." States were not in any way constrained by the First Amendment:
Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in any religious discipline has been delegated to the General [federal] Government. It must then rest with the States. – Thomas Jefferson
The case might be made that they should be constrained not to establish a "South Dakota Church," but that case doesn't fall within the scope of the First Amendment.
Finally and most importantly, the thing most egregious about the "church and state" issue today is not any of this, but the fact that the prohibition upon Congress not to establish a state church is being perverted to prohibit any public expression of Christian faith ( e.g. the numerous examples of students being prohibited from praying in school, removal of public monuments to the Christian heritage of America, et al.). None of these constitute "Congress [making a ] law respecting an establishment of religion."
Post a Comment