<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18904">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff text=#000000>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Tom McKinney is an Ex-Marine living in Marion,
Kentucky who has been involved with practical relief work in Haiti for a
long time. Tom is certainly not a redneck but is a well-educated
logical honestly caring person. He and his wife were particularly virulent
in their opposition to John McCain in the past presidential election. Of
course he doesnt like Obama either.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>I just stumbled across this because I was looking
for something else he wrote several years ago.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>You might find it interesting because it does
present clearly a view of the "church and state" issue that is prevalent among
many rather committed Christians.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>
<P align=center><STRONG><FONT size=5>The Mythical "Separation of Church and
State"<BR></FONT></STRONG><FONT size=5><STRONG>The Provision in the Constitution
That Was Never There</STRONG></FONT><STRONG></STRONG></P>
<H1><FONT size=4>Background</FONT></H1>
<P align=left> Humanist and atheist zealots in our
embattled republic, who are basically hostile to the Church and the validity of
the Bible have, for several generations, worked tirelessly to remove God, and
his essential role in the founding of the nation, from our recorded past--to
rewrite our history. And they are today vigorously working to remove
any reference to God from our public life. Groups of secular
radicals such as the American Civil Liberties Union, and false religious groups
such as Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, work tirelessly
to remove any vestige of honoring, or even acknowledging, God in our public
life. They file endless lawsuits, to such ends as the removal of Ten
Commandments displays in court houses, and the forbidding of traditional prayers
at board and committee meetings in local, state and government offices, as well
as in public school board meetings, athletic events and graduations<A title=""
href="http://wordsforlivingmin.org/Our%20Heritage.htm#_ftn1" name=_ftnref1>
</A>. <BR><BR> These anti-God revisionists have had
great success, citing a non-existent constitutional provision for "separation of
church and state." They have not had to file lawsuits in every case
of meddling in the affairs of autonomous public schools and other governmental
bodies; in many cases they have had only to send a letter, threatening a
lawsuit. <STRONG>And every bit of that success has been built upon a
lie! </STRONG><BR><BR><STRONG> </STRONG>The
simple fact is that the phrase "separation of church and state" appears
<STRONG>nowhere</STRONG> in the Constitution, nor in the Declaration of
Independence, nor in any other of the founding documents. In fact,
the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment does not even contain the
<STRONG>words</STRONG> "separation," "church" or "state." The
historical <STRONG>fact</STRONG> is that, in 1892, in <EM>The Church of the Holy
Trinity vs the United States</EM>, our federal Supreme Court ruled that, "we are
a Christian people" and "this is a Christian nation." In recent
times, one Justice of the Supreme Court is said to have remarked to a friend
that "If these people [ACLU, activist judges, etc] keep talking about the
‘separation of church and state’ the public will begin to believe that it is in
the Constitution." </P>
<P><STRONG>From Where, Then, Did "Separation of Church and State"
Come?</STRONG></P>
<P align=left>The phrase that is being used as a weapon to drive God from our
public life appears only once in the literature of the Founding Fathers, and
that is in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury
(Connecticut) Baptist Association, in response to a letter from the
Association. The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in
Connecticut and they feared that the Connecticut Legislature would restrict
their religious freedom. In his response, assuring them of their
rights to practice their religion without interference from the state, Jefferson
quoted the Establishment Clause, saying that Congress shall “make no law
respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof.” Jefferson then continued, adding, "thus building a wall of
separation between Church and State." In this way he was
assuring them that their legislature "[likewise] shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof." Jefferson's metaphorical "wall of separation" was not to
protect the State from the Church--not in any way! Instead, he was
speaking of a wall to protect the Church from interference by the State! </P>
<P><STRONG>The Actual Letters</STRONG></P>
<P align=left>The following are, verbatim: (1) the actual letter from the
Danbury Baptists Association; and (2) Jefferson's letter in response.</P>
<P><STRONG>1. The Danbury Baptists Association Letter</STRONG></P>
<P align=left>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.</P>
<P align=left>Sir,</P>
<P align=left> 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.</P>
<P align=left> 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 adapted 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<A title=""
href="http://wordsforlivingmin.org/Our%20Heritage.htm#_ftn2" name=_ftnref2>
</A>. 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 (sic) 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.</P>
<P align=left> 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 and your
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.</P>
<P align=left>Signed in behalf of the association, Nehemiah
Dodge<BR>
Ephraim
Robbins<BR>
Stephen S. Nelson</P>
<P><STRONG></STRONG> </P>
<P><STRONG>2. Thomas Jefferson's Reply</STRONG> </P>
<P align=left>Messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson,
a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.</P>
<P align=left>Washington, January 1, 1802</P>
<P align=left>Gentlemen,<BR> 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.</P>
<P align=left> 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 <U>their</U> 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.
[<EM>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</EM><A title=""
href="http://wordsforlivingmin.org/Our%20Heritage.htm#_ftn3"
name=_ftnref3></A><EM>.</EM>] 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.</P>
<P align=left> 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.</P>
<P align=left>(signed) Thomas Jefferson<BR>Jan.1.1802.</P>
<H3>Conclusion </H3>
<P align=left><STRONG> </STRONG>And so three extremely
important things become very clear:<BR>1. The expression "separation of church
and state" appears <STRONG>nowhere</STRONG> in the U.S. Constitution, nor in any
of the other founding documents. In fact, not even the words,
“separation,” “church,” or “state” appear in the First Amendment.<BR>2. The
expression originates in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802;
and,<BR>3. Jefferson was writing of the necessity, not to keep the Church out of
government, but <STRONG>to protect the </STRONG></P>
<P align=center><STRONG>Church from interference by the
government</STRONG>. </P>
<P align=left>It is important to remember that this was a radical new concept in
the 18th and early 19th Centuries. In the rest of Christendom, it
was common for a nation to have a national religion. The King
controlled the state church, and people were allowed to practice no other form
of religion. In some European countries today this is still true, in
that the state church (usually Lutheran or Roman Catholic) is funded by the
government, the clergy are paid by the government and, in some cases, bishops
are selected by the secular government. Freedom of religion, as
clearly stated in the few words of the Establishment Clause, with no control or
interference by the state, was a radical departure from European tradition and
practice. Thus it was not bizarre that a state legislature might
favor the dominant religious system and discriminate against all
others. This was the setting for the famous exchange of letters
between the Danbury Baptists and Jefferson.</P>
<P align=left><STRONG>NOTE: </STRONG>Beneath and surrounding all of these facts
it is vital to remember that the purpose and theme of the 1st Amendment (where
this non-existent phrase is supposed to be), as in all of the first ten
amendments (the Bill of Rights), is not to protect the Federal Government from
the states and the people, but to protect the states and the people from the
Federal Government. </P>
<P align=left>Tom C. McKenney<BR>September 2010</P>
<DIV>
<DIV id=ftn1>
<DIV align=left><BR><A title=""
href="http://wordsforlivingmin.org/Our%20Heritage.htm#_ftnref1"
name=_ftn1></A>Of course they never mention the facts that images of Moses and
the Ten Commandments are prominently displayed in the Supreme Court Building and
Court Room and that, since the nation's founding, and continuing to today, every
session of the Supreme Court, the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate
is opened with prayer. </DIV></DIV>
<DIV id=ftn2>
<P align=left><A title=""
href="http://wordsforlivingmin.org/Our%20Heritage.htm#_ftnref2"
name=_ftn2></A>The archaic wording of the first part of this very long sentence
makes it sound as if the Danbury Baptists are saying that religious liberty is a
thing granted by the government of Connecticut, and not an inalienable right
endowed by our Creator, as is made plain in the Declaration of
Independence. However, the latter part of the sentence (after the
semicolon) makes it very clear that the writers intended just the
opposite. The theme of the entire letter is a complaint about the
government of Connecticut’s imposing restrictions on their God-given religious
freedom, and a plea for Jefferson’s support in gaining relief from those
restrictions. </P></DIV>
<DIV id=ftn3>
<P align=left><A title=""
href="http://wordsforlivingmin.org/Our%20Heritage.htm#_ftnref3"
name=_ftn3></A>This italicized portion was in Jefferson’s original draft of his
letter, but was later removed upon the advice of his advisors. It is
included here to make clear Jefferson’s thinking and position in the
matter.</P></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>