• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why Jefferson wrote "separation of Church and State"

pinqy

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2012
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
3,400
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Many people like to point out that the words "Separation of Church and State do not appear in the Constitution. Which seems odd to me, because I'm not aware of anyone who claims they do. But, just as "right to a fair trial" is not explicitly stated, but is still a fundamental cornerstone of our legal system, separation of Church and State is a fundamental cornerstone of our Government.

So where did the phrase come from, and what did Jefferson mean?

The State of Connecticut was founded as a religious colony by the Congregationalist Church. The Church elders had firm control over the legislature and until 1816 Congregationalism was the established church, and attendance and taxes to support the Church were mandatory unless you provided documentation that you belonged to, attended, and paid for the support of a different church. The government and the Church were firmly intertwined and non-Congregationalists were in effect second-class citizens.

Now, Thomas Jefferson was well known to be opposed to established religions, to the point where his opponents denounced him as an atheist during his Presidential campaign. After he won, the Danbury Baptist Association wrote him a letter congratulating him on his victory and expressing the hope of his positive influence on the states.
From the Danbury Baptist Association:
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 aught to suffer in Name, person or effects on account of his religious Opinions—That the legetimate Power of civil Goverment extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbour: But Sir, our constitution of goverment is not specific. Our antient charter, together with the Laws made coincident therewith, were adopted as the Basis of our goverment, At the time of our revolution; and such had been our Laws & usages, & such still are; that religion is consider’d as the first object of Legislation; & 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 expence of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistant with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondred at therefore; if those, who seek after power & gain under the pretence of goverment & Religion should reproach their fellow men—should reproach their chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion Law & good order because he will not, dares not assume the prerogative 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, & also sensible that the national goverment 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 & prevail through all these States and all the world till Hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the Earth


In his ]url=https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/selected-documents/draft-reply-danbury-baptist-association]Draft Reply to the Danbury Baptist Association, Jefferson wrote:
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 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 [eternal] separation between church and state. Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even [those] occasional performances of devotion prescribed indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.

Upon advice from Levi Lincoln, Jefferson removed that last sentence out of fear it would offend people who thought the President should pronounce days of Thanksgiving or prayer, especially those in New England, where such practice was common.

While your mileage may vary, my take is that Jefferson understood the Constitution to create a wall of separation by not allowing the government to use religion, or any religion to use the government, to support its own ends, but rather to keep the two spheres separate.
 
Funny how every atheist or non-religious person takes Jefferson's Danbury letter like the Gospel from God, but can't seem to accept the plain text of the 1st Amendment. Where in that amendment is a prohibition on churches mentioned? Please, just quote the part.
 
Funny how every atheist or non-religious person takes Jefferson's Danbury letter like the Gospel from God, but can't seem to accept the plain text of the 1st Amendment. Where in that amendment is a prohibition on churches mentioned? Please, just quote the part.

"Congress shall make no law regarding an Establishment of Religion." meaning no national church. The 14th amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights and applies them to the States, so no state churches either. And, of course, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" which naturally also means the government can neither compel someone to participate in religion or restrict their (private) exercise.

What then is your interpretation of the "plain language" of the 1st amendment?
 
The most interesting (interestingly stupid) interpretation that I've seen right here at DP is that the First only forbids Congress from starting a new religion, and since Christianity already exists they could make it the official religion.
 
"Congress shall make no law regarding an Establishment of Religion." meaning no national church. The 14th amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights and applies them to the States, so no state churches either. And, of course, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" which naturally also means the government can neither compel someone to participate in religion or restrict their (private) exercise.

What then is your interpretation of the "plain language" of the 1st amendment?
Congress shall make no law establishing religion or banning the free practice thereof. Sounds pretty straight forward...right? It doesnt say anything about communities engaging in religious practice. It doesnt say anything about any government entity separating itself from religion. It merely says that government cannot establish an official religion. No Church of America. No religious control over government. Nothing more. Nothing less.
 
"Congress shall make no law regarding an Establishment of Religion." meaning no national church. The 14th amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights and applies them to the States, so no state churches either. And, of course, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" which naturally also means the government can neither compel someone to participate in religion or restrict their (private) exercise.

What then is your interpretation of the "plain language" of the 1st amendment?

I agree with the view taken by several justices of the Supreme Court, most recently Justice Thomas. That is, roughly, that the states meant the Establishment Clause to prevent the new federal government from interfering with their authority to make religious establishments. Therefore, according to this view, the Court grossly misinterpreted the Establishment Clause by incorporating it into the Fourteenth Amendment and making it a limitation on the states, because that brought about the very thing the clause was designed to prevent. Thomas makes this argument in his concurring opinion in Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow, a 2004 case involving the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, and I think it is a good one. His purpose was to suggest a way to straighten out the Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence, which was--and still is--an incoherent, contradictory mess.
 
Congress shall make no law establishing religion or banning the free practice thereof. Sounds pretty straight forward...right? It doesnt say anything about communities engaging in religious practice. It doesnt say anything about any government entity separating itself from religion. It merely says that government cannot establish an official religion. No Church of America. No religious control over government. Nothing more. Nothing less.

I agree with you in general, but I think the question is not quite as simple as you suggest. The Supreme Court has made clear in several of its Establishment Clause decisions that the clause means something more than just to prevent Congress from establishing an official national religion. What it has not been able to make very clear, ever since it first interpreted the clause in Everson v. Board in 1947, is how much more.
 
The most interesting (interestingly stupid) interpretation that I've seen right here at DP is that the First only forbids Congress from starting a new religion, and since Christianity already exists they could make it the official religion.

Wow. I missed that one. That would have been....interesting.
 
Where things get tricky is with blue laws, dry counties, chaplains on the government payroll and national holidays (holy days?) like Christmas (Christ's mass?). We seem to pretend that these religiously based (inspired?) laws are really secular since no particular religious sect is specifically mentioned but it does not take more than common sense to say that government mandated "day of rest" (that just happens to coincide with the Christian sabbath) and for only certain (sinful?) business activity is not anything secular.
 
Congress shall make no law establishing religion or banning the free practice thereof. Sounds pretty straight forward...right? It doesnt say anything about communities engaging in religious practice. It doesnt say anything about any government entity separating itself from religion. It merely says that government cannot establish an official religion. No Church of America. No religious control over government. Nothing more. Nothing less.
By inference, the government cannot establish an unofficial religion either. If the majority of a community is religion X, and laws universally support religion X over other religions, and religious expression is left to majority vote (so that only religion X would ever be represented) then what is the practical difference between that and making religion X official?

And not establishing a religion and protecting free exercise cannot reasonably be interpreted as anything but separating government from religion.
 
Funny how every atheist or non-religious person takes Jefferson's Danbury letter like the Gospel from God, but can't seem to accept the plain text of the 1st Amendment.
Where in that amendment is a prohibition on churches mentioned? Please, just quote the part.



The 1st Amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion.
 
Some far right evangelicals would like to get the U. S. government off of Wall Street's back and into every American bedroom,controlling every American's private life.And they'd like to have complete control over that government.

That's not going to happen.Not today,not tomorrow,not ever.

Wait and see.
 
Last edited:
The Danbury letter is descriptive in that it adds detail to the 1st amendment. Just about everyone understands 'wall of separation' and its interpretative equivalent 'separation between church and state'. However, what tends to get overlooked, especially by secular progressives, is the intent of the letter (both the initial inquisition sent by the Danbury Church) and Jefferson's response.

First, the back and forth enforces the idea that there should be no national religion. I wonder if Bernie Sanders understood this when he asked a recent Trump appointee about his religious views in a Senate confirmation hearing. The point here is that the federal government is prohibited from favoring a specific religion. However, from the letter, it should be clear that actions may be legislated and this is true even if religiously motivated. From Jefferson's response, "that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions".

The most important aspect of this letter though is the implication that runs throughout the discussion. Jefferson is making it clear to the Danbury congregation that the federal government would impose a national religion, the people of Connecticut, but the state legislature was free to continue as it had been. Indeed, the 1st amendment notes specifically, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." which does not preclude any state government from taking such a course. What the Danbury letter should confirm to all is how independent state governments are in our federalist system. In fact, federalism implies a separation of powers and equality between the states and central government. Jefferson implies as much when he, essentially, tells the Danbury congregation not to worry.

Why do I worry? After all, I am an atheist. So, why do I care that secular government has been imposed gradually over the states to the point where all legislation must now be filtered through the secular lens? One would expect me to celebrate. To celebrate would be to ignore the terrible acrimony of our body politic. The us v. them mentality which is stoked by the leviathan like expansion of the federal government, forcing the collapse the unique cultural and communal expressions which don't conform with the views of whomever controls the central government. In this environment, the political parties don't just fight for ideas, but battle for the rights of large swaths of people to maintain their very identities. Is it any wonder that the fighting has become so nasty and even violent? To win a local or state election is almost meaningless if you have lost at the national voting box since all legislation, now, comes from Congress and the federal court system. States have been relegated to powerless entities confined to managing our daily state of affairs in the form of potholes and administrative tasks. Some states make symbolic gestures which penalize its own citizens because the vitriol towards the national law makers is so great. Consider CA's own legislature which recently passed global warming legislation which won't be more than a symbolic gesture, but will cost its own citizens billions over the next ten years.

The Danbury letter should serve as an example for all of us on how to live in a diverse nation with diverse views. Certainly, from what we think we know about Jefferson, he couldn't have approved of how Connecticut imposed a specific religious view on its people. However, he was wise enough to understand that our union cannot exist if we try to force conformity through top-down government. Out union isn't stronger by eliminating the federalist principles it was founded upon.
 
The 1st Amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion.

Right, and churches can't make law last time I checked. Take some deep breaths.
 
"Congress shall make no law regarding an Establishment of Religion." meaning no national church. The 14th amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights and applies them to the States, so no state churches either. And, of course, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" which naturally also means the government can neither compel someone to participate in religion or restrict their (private) exercise.

What then is your interpretation of the "plain language" of the 1st amendment?
The key word is Congress. There are no restrictions placed on churches. It doesn't even say President. Last time I checked the Dept of Education was under the President, but they still won't allow a prayer at a high school graduation. What they've done is bastardize the entire amendment.
 
The key word is Congress. There are no restrictions placed on churches. It doesn't even say President. Last time I checked the Dept of Education was under the President, but they still won't allow a prayer at a high school graduation. What they've done is bastardize the entire amendment.

Ok, so if it's not Congress banning any prayer, there's no issue, either, by your own argument. If only Congress is restricted from establishing a religion, then only Congress is prohibited from denying free exercise.
 
Ok, so if it's not Congress banning any prayer, there's no issue, either, by your own argument. If only Congress is restricted from establishing a religion, then only Congress is prohibited from denying free exercise.

That's right.

Congress can't pass any religious law, either establishing or controlling religion. It's that simple.
 
That's right.

Congress can't pass any religious law, either establishing or controlling religion. It's that simple.

Then you have no problem with bans on school prayer. So, what exactly is your complaint?
 
Congress shall make no law establishing religion or banning the free practice thereof. Sounds pretty straight forward...right? It doesnt say anything about communities engaging in religious practice.
Communities are allowed to engage in religious practices.

City, state and federal governments are not.


It doesnt say anything about any government entity separating itself from religion. It merely says that government cannot establish an official religion.
It also protects the freedom of belief for individuals, did you forget?

It is also routine to rely on exactly these types of materials to determine the intent of the law or Constitutional provision in question. Have you never appealed to intent, or the Declaration of Independence, or Federalist Papers, in a discussion about constitutional law? You do know that is standard practice, across all ideological positions, yes?



No Church of America. No religious control over government. Nothing more. Nothing less.[/QUOTE]
 
The key word is Congress. There are no restrictions placed on churches. It doesn't even say President. Last time I checked the Dept of Education was under the President, but they still won't allow a prayer at a high school graduation. What they've done is bastardize the entire amendment.
Actually, the key word is incorporation, which is the legal process by which most of the Bill of Rights is extended to the states.

Contrary to your claim, preventing student prayer at a public high school graduation as part of the proceedings makes perfect sense. It is sending a clear message to all that the state is sponsoring a religious activity, and that is precisely what is barred by the First Amendment. The school still can set aside a private area for attendees to make religious observances; they just can't have someone on stage, as part of the ceremony, leading people in prayer.

We should also get real, and recognize that most Americans would be infuriated if the student was praying to Allah, instead of engaging in Christian prayers....
 
I agree with you in general, but I think the question is not quite as simple as you suggest. The Supreme Court has made clear in several of its Establishment Clause decisions that the clause means something more than just to prevent Congress from establishing an official national religion. What it has not been able to make very clear, ever since it first interpreted the clause in Everson v. Board in 1947, is how much more.
No doubt...society has forever been massaging the Constitution and Bill of Rights into something that it was into something that it wants.
 
Actually, the key word is incorporation, which is the legal process by which most of the Bill of Rights is extended to the states.

Contrary to your claim, preventing student prayer at a public high school graduation as part of the proceedings makes perfect sense. It is sending a clear message to all that the state is sponsoring a religious activity, and that is precisely what is barred by the First Amendment. The school still can set aside a private area for attendees to make religious observances; they just can't have someone on stage, as part of the ceremony, leading people in prayer.

We should also get real, and recognize that most Americans would be infuriated if the student was praying to Allah, instead of engaging in Christian prayers....

Yes.
"Prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the development of the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court in 1833 held in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal, but not any state governments. Even years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank (1876) still held that the First and Second Amendment did not apply to state governments. However, beginning in the 1920s, a series of United States Supreme Court decisions interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to "incorporate" most portions of the Bill of Rights, making these portions, for the first time, enforceable against the state governments."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

Noting the highlighted, I don't think those on the right here really want to go back and reverse all of that. It makes me wonder if Justice Thomas really thought through what he's opined on this church/state issue. Or maybe he thinks we should selectively reverse things he doesn't like, leaving stand what does like?:confused:
 
Communities are allowed to engage in religious practices.

City, state and federal governments are not.



It also protects the freedom of belief for individuals, did you forget?

It is also routine to rely on exactly these types of materials to determine the intent of the law or Constitutional provision in question. Have you never appealed to intent, or the Declaration of Independence, or Federalist Papers, in a discussion about constitutional law? You do know that is standard practice, across all ideological positions, yes?



No Church of America. No religious control over government. Nothing more. Nothing less.
[/QUOTE]Im not much interested in ideological positions. ideological positions tend to cause all manner of things to become bastardized. And yes...Im quite aware...no establishment of religion and no restriction of free practice of religion. Unfortunately people have become convinced that in addition to their right to be offended by anything they like, that somehow they should have the right to NOT be offended and to that end, they should be able to limit or restrict other peoples rights. Its seen in such stupid arguments as the protesting of crosses on the highway because some mindless **** is 'offended'.
 
By inference, the government cannot establish an unofficial religion either. If the majority of a community is religion X, and laws universally support religion X over other religions, and religious expression is left to majority vote (so that only religion X would ever be represented) then what is the practical difference between that and making religion X official?

And not establishing a religion and protecting free exercise cannot reasonably be interpreted as anything but separating government from religion.
Any community that is formed by citizens with a majority religious background will carry those influences into their decision making. Baptists will comprise the largest majority of most small southern towns. Logically, every rule or ordinance they vote for will be for what they perceive as the betterment of their community and that may very well be guided by their religious foundation. That us 'normal' and perfectly acceptable. What would be unacceptable would be if those small cities declared their version of the Baptist faith as the official town religion and the pastor as their town leader. It would also be unconstitutional if the town declared it illegal for Muslims or Catholics to congregate.
 
Im not much interested in ideological positions. ideological positions tend to cause all manner of things to become bastardized.
I can't help but notice that you seem offended by the suggestion that church and state should be separate. :D

At any rate, it seems clear based on the text, the writings of the ratifiers, and much of the context that the intent was to keep church and state separate -- as much for the church as for the state and citizens.
 
Back
Top Bottom