Michael Gaynor
Jefferson's "wall" was not a prison wall
By Michael Gaynor
Just as Cindy Sheehan has misused her son Casey's noble death to promote her own extremist views, secular extremist spinners have used Jefferson's "wall" to promote their own anti-religious purposes and to disassociate America from its Judeo-Christian heritage.
In Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947), the United States Supreme Court declared: "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."
Because: "In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State.'"
The words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the records of the deliberations that resulted in the First Amendment. The secular extremists extracted them out of context from Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury Anabaptists and then simplistically interpreted them to mandate governmental neutrality between religion and irreligion (as though doing what the atheists want is "neutral").
On New Year's Day 1802, then President Thomas Jefferson wrote his much misunderstood letter to Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
The body of the letter read:
"The affectionate sentiments of esteem and 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 and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and 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, & 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 & 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 & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem."
Jefferson repeatedly edited the now controversial second paragraph of the letter.
Originally, Jefferson put the word "eternal" before "separation" in the first sentence of the second paragraph.
Jefferson apparently did not view even the kind of separation that he envisioned as necessarily eternal, or else he would not have deleted that word.
Perhaps the Everson Court neglected to study the drafting of the letter they used to bar government from supporting all religions.
Originally, the second sentence of the second paragraph read:
"Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorized only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect, confining myself therefore to the duties of my station, which are merely temporal, be assured that your religious rights shall never be infringed by any act of mine and that."
(Jefferson was speaking only for himself. His predecessors, George Washington and John Adams, had issued proclamations of thanks to God, of course.)
Jefferson struck the "confining myself" clause and substituted "concurring with." Then he struck those words and wrote: "Adhering to this great act of national legislation in behalf of the rights of conscience." The he struck that and replaced it with "Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience I shall see with friendly dispositions the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced that he has no natural rights in opposition to his social duties."
Curiously, the "Congress thus inhibited" language was bracketed for deletion, but appeared in the final letter.
Jefferson was responding to this letter from a religious minority in the State of Connecticut:
"The address of the Danbury Baptists Association in the state of Connecticut, assembled October 7, 1801. To Thomas Jefferson, Esq., President of the United States of America.
"Sir,
"Among the many million in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration, to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief magistracy in the United States: And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe that none are more sincere.
"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 neighbors; But, sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the law made coincident therewith, were adopted as the basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our laws and usages, and such still are; that religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. 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 — should reproach their order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ.
"Sir, we are sensible that the president of the United States is not the national legislator, and 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 and prevail through all these states and all the world, till hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more than thirty years we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the chair of state out of that goodwill which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for your arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you to sustain and support you enjoy administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to raise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.
"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.
"Signed in behalf of the association, Nehemiah Dodge Ephraim Robbins Stephen S. Nelson"
In 1878, in Reynolds v. United States, the United States Supreme Court, in ascertaining the scope of protected religious activity in the Constitution, stated: "The word 'religion' is not defined in the Constitution. We must go elsewhere, therefore, to ascertain its meaning, and nowhere more appropriately, we think, than to the history of the times in the midst of which the provision was adopted."
What did Jefferson mean by "a wall of separation"?
NOT what the United States Supreme Court contemplated in 1947.
When Jefferson was alive, walls were built to protect people inside the walls. NOT to imprison them.
When Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Anabaptists, he was assuring them that they could worship in their church free from any interference from the national government.
Jefferson, who personally attended religious services in the Capitol, envisioned a wall with a door through which churchgoers could pass to go to church, where they would be safe from governmental interference with their religious opinions (but not necessarily every act prompted by religious opinion), or from church to the public square, where they could freely exercise their religion as well as their freedoms of speech and press.
Jefferson never said that religious people could not proceed to the public square and there acknowledge God and advocate public policy consistent with their religious beliefs.
And the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution and the First Amendment overwhelmingly expected government to acknowledge God with humble gratitude instead of ungratefully refrain out of greater respect for atheist attitude.
© Michael Gaynor
Just as Cindy Sheehan has misused her son Casey's noble death to promote her own extremist views, secular extremist spinners have used Jefferson's "wall" to promote their own anti-religious purposes and to disassociate America from its Judeo-Christian heritage.
In Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947), the United States Supreme Court declared: "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."
Because: "In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State.'"
The words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the records of the deliberations that resulted in the First Amendment. The secular extremists extracted them out of context from Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury Anabaptists and then simplistically interpreted them to mandate governmental neutrality between religion and irreligion (as though doing what the atheists want is "neutral").
On New Year's Day 1802, then President Thomas Jefferson wrote his much misunderstood letter to Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
The body of the letter read:
"The affectionate sentiments of esteem and 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 and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and 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, & 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 & 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 & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem."
Jefferson repeatedly edited the now controversial second paragraph of the letter.
Originally, Jefferson put the word "eternal" before "separation" in the first sentence of the second paragraph.
Jefferson apparently did not view even the kind of separation that he envisioned as necessarily eternal, or else he would not have deleted that word.
Perhaps the Everson Court neglected to study the drafting of the letter they used to bar government from supporting all religions.
Originally, the second sentence of the second paragraph read:
"Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorized only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect, confining myself therefore to the duties of my station, which are merely temporal, be assured that your religious rights shall never be infringed by any act of mine and that."
(Jefferson was speaking only for himself. His predecessors, George Washington and John Adams, had issued proclamations of thanks to God, of course.)
Jefferson struck the "confining myself" clause and substituted "concurring with." Then he struck those words and wrote: "Adhering to this great act of national legislation in behalf of the rights of conscience." The he struck that and replaced it with "Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience I shall see with friendly dispositions the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced that he has no natural rights in opposition to his social duties."
Curiously, the "Congress thus inhibited" language was bracketed for deletion, but appeared in the final letter.
Jefferson was responding to this letter from a religious minority in the State of Connecticut:
"The address of the Danbury Baptists Association in the state of Connecticut, assembled October 7, 1801. To Thomas Jefferson, Esq., President of the United States of America.
"Sir,
"Among the many million in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration, to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief magistracy in the United States: And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe that none are more sincere.
"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 neighbors; But, sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the law made coincident therewith, were adopted as the basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our laws and usages, and such still are; that religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. 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 — should reproach their order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ.
"Sir, we are sensible that the president of the United States is not the national legislator, and 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 and prevail through all these states and all the world, till hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more than thirty years we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the chair of state out of that goodwill which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for your arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you to sustain and support you enjoy administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to raise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.
"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.
"Signed in behalf of the association, Nehemiah Dodge Ephraim Robbins Stephen S. Nelson"
In 1878, in Reynolds v. United States, the United States Supreme Court, in ascertaining the scope of protected religious activity in the Constitution, stated: "The word 'religion' is not defined in the Constitution. We must go elsewhere, therefore, to ascertain its meaning, and nowhere more appropriately, we think, than to the history of the times in the midst of which the provision was adopted."
What did Jefferson mean by "a wall of separation"?
NOT what the United States Supreme Court contemplated in 1947.
When Jefferson was alive, walls were built to protect people inside the walls. NOT to imprison them.
When Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Anabaptists, he was assuring them that they could worship in their church free from any interference from the national government.
Jefferson, who personally attended religious services in the Capitol, envisioned a wall with a door through which churchgoers could pass to go to church, where they would be safe from governmental interference with their religious opinions (but not necessarily every act prompted by religious opinion), or from church to the public square, where they could freely exercise their religion as well as their freedoms of speech and press.
Jefferson never said that religious people could not proceed to the public square and there acknowledge God and advocate public policy consistent with their religious beliefs.
And the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution and the First Amendment overwhelmingly expected government to acknowledge God with humble gratitude instead of ungratefully refrain out of greater respect for atheist attitude.
© Michael Gaynor
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.)
