Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Suburban · 07-24-2003, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dirkduck
Well the actual phrase isn't in the constitution, I believe it was from a letter by Thomas Jefferson. But the Establishment Clause (pretty much "The government wont promote a religion, or restrict the exercise of any") is right in there.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Church, when read in the context in which it was written, says no such thing.

I give you the letter FROM Danbury which prompted TJ's response, which I've included also:

Source

Quote:

On the Separation of Church and State

by Thomas Jefferson

The Danbury Baptist Association, concerned about religious liberty in the new nation wrote to President Thomas Jefferson, Oct. 7, 1801.
Sir, Among the many millions 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 neighbor: But Sir our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the Laws made coincident therewith, were adopted on the Basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our Laws & 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 & gain under the pretense of government & Religion should reproach their fellow men -- should reproach their chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion Law & 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 affect 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 good will which he bears to the Millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence & the voice of the people have called you to sustain and support you in your Administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to rise to wealth & 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.

Nehh Dodge
Ephram Robbins The Committee
Stephen S. Nelson

Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut were persecuted because they were not part of the Congregationalist establishment in that state.
On January 1, 1802, in response to the letter from the Danbury Baptist Association, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

Gentlemen:

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which are so good 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, and 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 and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and 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 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 man to all of his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessings of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.

Thomas Jefferson

He was only guaranteeing the Danbury Baptists that there would be no "marriage" between the government and any specific denomination. He, and the other Founders, called upon God all the time! They had no desire to remove God from society, only to insure that a society akin to England (Anglican Church run by/running the English government) did not come to fruition.

Toto · 07-24-2003, 02:32 PM

What's your problem, Sub? It says right in Jefferson's letter:

Quote:

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 the government reach actions only, and 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 and State.

What "context" changes the plain meaning of those words?

Religion is between a man and his God, and the government has no role. There's nothing in there that says the government can legislate prayers or Pledges to God as long as it treats all denominations equally.

Quote:

In Reynolds v. United States (1878), the Supreme Court stated, "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.'" This was further emphasized in Everson v. Board of Education (1947), as expressed in the opinion for the majority written by Associate Justice Hugo Black. He wrote, "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."

From here

Suburban · 07-25-2003, 07:01 AM

Ah yes, the ever present "legislating from the bench"...the courts cannot MAKE law.

Jefferson was only saying that the LEADERS any denomination would never dictate to the government and vice versa. So, the Pope of the Catholic church wouldn't be dictating policy, the Grand Wizard of some Wiccan group wouldn't either.

It says absolutely NOTHING about the Founders desire to keep Almighty God (their words, not mine) out of their day to day administrations while serving the people.

Tony · 07-25-2003, 10:03 AM

I know that it's very important who said what. But what do you think about common sense? I know that any person with logic and education will come to only one conclusion - there is no god or gods.

It will take time though...

StrictSeparationist · 07-27-2003, 08:38 PM

Saw this trash in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's comics section today:

http://www.gilchriststudios.com/nlpf/main.asp

It got me thinking. Why do these people feel compelled to carry their arguments to a forum that seems to be slanted towards children? It dawned on me that accommodationists have a natural advantage over separationists when it comes to formulating arguments that will make sense to children. While we separationists have lots of logical, well-supported legal and practical reasons for why strict church-state separation is both mandated by law and a good idea in any, those who favor plastering every government-owned building with crosses, pictures of Jesus, and of course, mistranslated versions of the Decalogue have arguments that are readily accessible to the average 10-year-old. These arguments run along the lines of "God is good!" and "Atheists want to steal your toys."

Sorry for the ranting, but I just get so tired of people who crank out the same tired and incredibly flawed arguments for these public displays of their own faith. What's even worse is that there really are some federal judges out there (who presumably attended law school) who actually use these arguments as the bases for similarly constitutionally bankrupt opinions. :banghead:

Stephen Maturin · 07-28-2003, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by StrictSeparationist
It dawned on me that accommodationists have a natural advantage over separationists when it comes to formulating arguments that will make sense to children. While we separationists have lots of logical, well-supported legal and practical reasons for why strict church-state separation is both mandated by law and a good idea in any, those who favor plastering every government-owned building with crosses, pictures of Jesus, and of course, mistranslated versions of the Decalogue have arguments that are readily accessible to the average 10-year-old. These arguments run along the lines of "God is good!" and "Atheists want to steal your toys."

lmao. A better three-sentence description of accomodationism you'll never see. :notworthy

07-25-2003, 07:01 AM	#23
Suburban Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Minnesota Posts: 11	Yup. Ah yes, the ever present "legislating from the bench"...the courts cannot MAKE law. Jefferson was only saying that the LEADERS any denomination would never dictate to the government and vice versa. So, the Pope of the Catholic church wouldn't be dictating policy, the Grand Wizard of some Wiccan group wouldn't either. It says absolutely NOTHING about the Founders desire to keep Almighty God (their words, not mine) out of their day to day administrations while serving the people.

07-25-2003, 10:03 AM	#24
Tony Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 197	He said, she said... I know that it's very important who said what. But what do you think about common sense? I know that any person with logic and education will come to only one conclusion - there is no god or gods. It will take time though...

07-27-2003, 08:38 PM	#25
StrictSeparationist Veteran Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Oberlin, OH Posts: 2,846	More blather Saw this trash in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's comics section today: http://www.gilchriststudios.com/nlpf/main.asp It got me thinking. Why do these people feel compelled to carry their arguments to a forum that seems to be slanted towards children? It dawned on me that accommodationists have a natural advantage over separationists when it comes to formulating arguments that will make sense to children. While we separationists have lots of logical, well-supported legal and practical reasons for why strict church-state separation is both mandated by law and a good idea in any, those who favor plastering every government-owned building with crosses, pictures of Jesus, and of course, mistranslated versions of the Decalogue have arguments that are readily accessible to the average 10-year-old. These arguments run along the lines of "God is good!" and "Atheists want to steal your toys." Sorry for the ranting, but I just get so tired of people who crank out the same tired and incredibly flawed arguments for these public displays of their own faith. What's even worse is that there really are some federal judges out there (who presumably attended law school) who actually use these arguments as the bases for similarly constitutionally bankrupt opinions. :banghead:

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.