Bryan Fischer
Jefferson's Statute for Religious Freedom: a huge problem for liberals
By Bryan Fischer
Virginia this week is celebrating the 220th anniversary of the passage of Thomas Jefferson's Statute for Religious Freedom. This bill was so important to Jefferson that he insisted that his authorship of this bill be memorialized for all time on his epitaph.
Unfortunately for the church of secular liberalism, his statute is problematic for groups who like to cite Jefferson in support of their effort to remove all mention of God, and Christianity in particular, from the public square.
Jefferson could not stop himself from talking explicitly about God and about Christ in this statute, which is still today a part of Virginia's constitution. Here we have Jefferson, far from banishing God and Christ from the public square, making them an official part of the Virginia constitution!
In the first line of the statute he refers to "Almighty God," and then in the third line describes Jesus Christ as "the Holy author of our religion." Even worse for the ACLU, he declares (gasp!) that Jesus is the "Lord both of body and mind." If that were not enough, he then immediately describes Jesus Christ as one who possessed "Almighty power."
Scholars rightly suggest that this statute had a great deal of impact on the shaping of the First Amendment, which protects religious expression in America through both the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses.
Jefferson's statute sheds light on the meaning of the Establishment clause in particular — "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion..." Although an activist judiciary has twisted the meaning of this clause virtually out of all recognition, clearly, according to Jefferson, a violation of religious freedom occurs only when coercion is involved.
He says at one point, "to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical" (emphasis mine), and again at another point says the intent of the statute is that "no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened" in the matter (emphasis mine).
This strongly suggests that in Jefferson's view, religious freedom is only violated when a man is coerced into either financial support or participation in rituals he finds disagreeable to his conscience.
In a similar way, as Justice Clarence Thomas has argued, a violation of the First Amendment's establishment clause must involve some kind of compulsion or coercion. Thus, the public posting of the Ten Commandments cannot violate the First Amendment, simply because such displays are passive in nature — no one is compelled to believe them or practice them, let alone even notice them or read them.
It's ironic, by the way, that the secular left always tells us, if we object to something offensive on network television, to just not watch. But for some reason, when we use the same logic on them with Ten Commandments displays — if it bothers you, just don't look at it — we get hypocritical and self-righteous lectures about the constitutional imperative of removing anything that viewers might find offensive.
Even public prayers before such things as city council meetings or at graduation ceremonies cannot violate the First Amendment, because observers always have the option to refuse respectfully to participate in the prayer.
If our secularist friends are so fond of Jefferson, might I suggest that they bring this bill forward, in its entirety, and propose it to the Idaho legislature? You can rest assured that the Idaho Values Alliance will be first in line to lend a helping hand.
Thomas Jefferson: Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (1786)
© Bryan Fischer
Virginia this week is celebrating the 220th anniversary of the passage of Thomas Jefferson's Statute for Religious Freedom. This bill was so important to Jefferson that he insisted that his authorship of this bill be memorialized for all time on his epitaph.
Unfortunately for the church of secular liberalism, his statute is problematic for groups who like to cite Jefferson in support of their effort to remove all mention of God, and Christianity in particular, from the public square.
Jefferson could not stop himself from talking explicitly about God and about Christ in this statute, which is still today a part of Virginia's constitution. Here we have Jefferson, far from banishing God and Christ from the public square, making them an official part of the Virginia constitution!
In the first line of the statute he refers to "Almighty God," and then in the third line describes Jesus Christ as "the Holy author of our religion." Even worse for the ACLU, he declares (gasp!) that Jesus is the "Lord both of body and mind." If that were not enough, he then immediately describes Jesus Christ as one who possessed "Almighty power."
Scholars rightly suggest that this statute had a great deal of impact on the shaping of the First Amendment, which protects religious expression in America through both the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses.
Jefferson's statute sheds light on the meaning of the Establishment clause in particular — "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion..." Although an activist judiciary has twisted the meaning of this clause virtually out of all recognition, clearly, according to Jefferson, a violation of religious freedom occurs only when coercion is involved.
He says at one point, "to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical" (emphasis mine), and again at another point says the intent of the statute is that "no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened" in the matter (emphasis mine).
This strongly suggests that in Jefferson's view, religious freedom is only violated when a man is coerced into either financial support or participation in rituals he finds disagreeable to his conscience.
In a similar way, as Justice Clarence Thomas has argued, a violation of the First Amendment's establishment clause must involve some kind of compulsion or coercion. Thus, the public posting of the Ten Commandments cannot violate the First Amendment, simply because such displays are passive in nature — no one is compelled to believe them or practice them, let alone even notice them or read them.
It's ironic, by the way, that the secular left always tells us, if we object to something offensive on network television, to just not watch. But for some reason, when we use the same logic on them with Ten Commandments displays — if it bothers you, just don't look at it — we get hypocritical and self-righteous lectures about the constitutional imperative of removing anything that viewers might find offensive.
Even public prayers before such things as city council meetings or at graduation ceremonies cannot violate the First Amendment, because observers always have the option to refuse respectfully to participate in the prayer.
If our secularist friends are so fond of Jefferson, might I suggest that they bring this bill forward, in its entirety, and propose it to the Idaho legislature? You can rest assured that the Idaho Values Alliance will be first in line to lend a helping hand.
Thomas Jefferson: Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (1786)
© Bryan Fischer
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
