Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen,

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you 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 legitimate powers of 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 establishmnet of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building [b]a wall of separation between Church and State[/b]. 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 rights in opposition to his social duties.

I appreciate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and for your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.

Thomas Jefferson
January 1, 1802

Me: Jefferson quoted the First Amendment in his letter - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishmnet of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof" - but also included his famous phrase "a wall of separaton between church and state."

I wonder if the way this phrase is interpreted today by many secularists and those who advocate a rigid separation of church and state is interpreted and viewed in the same way Jefferson meant for it to be. If a government official leads a prayer in public or a chaplain opens a session of Congress with a prayer, is it a violation of the First Amendment? Many of these groups seem to concentrate on the "Congress shall make no law" clause and disregard the "nor prohibit the free exercise thereof" clause of the First Amendment. If someone leads a prayer in public are they trying to favor one Christian group over another or trying to establish a national religion that dictates modes of worship and doctrine for all? I don't think so. This letter was written some 14 years after the ratification of the First Amendment and the phrase - "a wall of separation between Church and State" - is not a part of the Constitution or Bill of Rights. It seems to me if all monuments with religious references, crosses and the like are taken down and banned then this would be denying the indelible and lasting influence that religion and in particular Christianity played in the founding and early history of this country. No national religion has been established. Church services were held on the floor of the House of Represenatives for almost 100 years up until the time of the Civil War. While President, Jefferson attended these services almost every Sunday of his Presidency. I'm not fond of Jefferson's particular brand of Deism and some of his quirky beliefs but if he saw a violation of the First Amendment why would he have attended these services and sanctioned their location in the House of Represenatives? And one day after the First Amendment was ratified, a represenative proposed a national day of thanksgiving to God for His blessings to the new nation and George Washington saw to it that it got passed. It seems these men above all would have been smart enough to reliaze that by these activities they would have been violating what they had just ratified. Maybe they weren't trying to establsh a national religion but were just participating in the "free exercise thereof" of religion. I think the secularits and strict separation of church and state people today are trying to pass off a ruse on the American people so as to be able to get their goal which is a religous free society not encumbered by antiquated religious beliefs.

Happy Thanksgiving. Thank the Lord above. Just like many of the Founding Fathers did without apologizing.

"Doc"

I am in agreement with you.

Hi docs...

It seems to me if all monuments with religious references, crosses and the like are taken down and banned then this would be denying the indelible and lasting influence that religion and in particular Christianity played in the founding and early history of this country.

....

Church services were held on the floor of the House of Represenatives for almost 100 years up until the time of the Civil War. While President, Jefferson attended these services almost every Sunday of his Presidency.

I'm not fond of Jefferson's particular brand of Deism and some of his quirky beliefs but if he saw a violation of the First Amendment why would he have attended these services and sanctioned their location in the House of Represenatives?

And one day after the First Amendment was ratified, a represenative proposed a national day of thanksgiving to God for His blessings to the new nation and George Washington saw to it that it got passed. It seems these men above all would have been smart enough to reliaze that by these activities they would have been violating what they had just ratified.

Maybe they weren't trying to establsh a national religion but were just participating in the "free exercise thereof" of religion.

I think the secularits and strict separation of church and state people today are trying to pass off a ruse on the American people so as to be able to get their goal which is a religous free society not encumbered by antiquated religious beliefs.

:-)

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Judge Joseph Story was a member of the Supreme Court form 1811 to 1845. He also taught at Harvard Law School and later published [i]Commentaries on the Unites States Constitution[/i]. It was the most comprehensive set of commentaries to appear on the United States Constitution up to that time.

Judge Story wrote when discussing the meaning of the First Amendment:

"Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the amendment to it now under consideration [First Amendment]. the general if not the universal sentiment in America was that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the State so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobration, if not universal indignation."

"The real object of the [First] Amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance Mohometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, [b]by prostrating Christianity[/b] (emphasis mine), but to exclude all rivalry between Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishmnet which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government. It thus cut off the means of religious persecution (the vice and pest of former ages), and of the subversion of the rights of conscience in matters of religion, which had been trampled upon almost from the days of the Apostles to the present age...."

Me: This judge was an actual member of the Supreme Court. Church services were held on the floor of the House of Represenatives during his term on the Supreme Court. He seems to not have been concerned because these services were not trying to establish one national church and religion that all had to adhere to regardless. He also states the intent of the First Amendment was not that government should hold all religions in utter indifference (that sounds awful modern doesn't it) and it was not intended to "prostrate Christianity" in its efforts to be fair to all religions. The modern secularists, many becoming increasingly strident toward religion and Christianity in particular, have sold the public a large hoax and ruse in my opinion. The further we move away from the original intent of the early Founding Fathers it seems the less attention is paid to their founding intent. New and novel secularist views of this intent abound. Some call that progress and some don't.