[Peace-discuss] Tea Party Wingnuts Attack 1st Amendment Separation of Church and State

[E.Wayne Johnson]

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.

I just stumbled across this because I was looking for something else he wrote several years ago.

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.


The Mythical "Separation of Church and State"
The Provision in the Constitution That Was Never There

Background
     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 . 

     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.  And every bit of that success has been built upon a lie!   

     The simple fact is that the phrase "separation of church and state" appears nowhere 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 words "separation," "church" or "state."   The historical fact is that, in 1892, in The Church of the Holy Trinity vs the United States, 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." 

>From Where, Then, Did "Separation of Church and State" Come?

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! 

The Actual Letters

The following are, verbatim: (1) the actual letter from the Danbury Baptists Association; and (2) Jefferson's letter in response.

1. The Danbury Baptists Association Letter

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 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 .  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.

   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.

Signed in behalf of the association,    Nehemiah Dodge
                                                        Ephraim Robbins
                                                        Stephen S. Nelson



2. Thomas Jefferson's Reply 

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

Washington, January 1, 1802

Gentlemen,
   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.  [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.]  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.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.

Conclusion 
     And so three extremely important things become very clear:
1. The expression "separation of church and state" appears nowhere 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.
2. The expression originates in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802; and,
3. Jefferson was writing of the necessity, not to keep the Church out of government, but to protect the 

Church from interference by the government.  

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.

NOTE: 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. 

Tom C. McKenney
September 2010


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. 
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. 

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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20101021/f43e3b06/attachment-0001.html>