• 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"

WCH said:
One problem is people are moving there hoping to become pot rich and there's no affordable housing or jobs. Homelessness is out of control leading people to commit crimes to survive.
Click to expand...

Which means that you could not really attribute the increase to legalizing marijuana in that state, but rather to other states not legalizing it. The more states that legalize it, the more evened out the populations become with little regard to that particular factor.
 
American said:
It's a comparison and you know; one that you can't justify one iota. No one based a judicial argument on a letter written by a president to a church. Please!
Click to expand...

That letter was a PUBLIC letter, and Jefferson made it clear in no uncertain terms her wanted to clarify clearly for all to know there was to be a wall of separation between government and church.

James Madison also made it clear there was to be a wall of separation between church and state.

And you really should look up Reynolds v United States - because you are talking out of your hat.
 
"In his New Year's note to Lincoln, Jefferson revealed that he hoped to accomplish two things by replying to the Danbury Baptists. One was to issue a "condemnation of the alliance between church and state." This he accomplished in the first, printed, part of the draft. Jefferson's strictures on church-state entanglement were little more than rewarmed phrases and ideas from his Statute Establishing Religious Freedom (1786) and from other, similar statements.

To needle his political opponents, Jefferson paraphrased a passage, that "the legitimate powers of government extend to ... acts only" and not to opinions, from the Notes on the State of Virginia, which the Federalists had shamelessly distorted in the election of 1800 in an effort to stigmatize him as an atheist.

So politicized had church-state issues become by 1802 that Jefferson told Lincoln that he considered the articulation of his views on the subject, in messages like the Danbury Baptist letter, as ways to fix his supporters' "political tenets."

'A Wall of Separation' (June 1998) - Library of Congress Information Bulletin
 
Paperview said:
That letter was a PUBLIC letter, and Jefferson made it clear in no uncertain terms her wanted to clarify clearly for all to know there was to be a wall of separation between government and church.

James Madison also made it clear there was to be a wall of separation between church and state.

And you really should look up Reynolds v United States - because you are talking out of your hat.
Click to expand...

Does the Declaration of Independence carry and power of law?
 
Somerville said:
No, it does not.
Click to expand...

So one document written by Jefferson (and signed by duly appointed state delegates) doesn't, while another document written by Jefferson does. How convenient.
 
American said:
Does the Declaration of Independence carry and power of law?
Click to expand...

Nope, and neither does the Danbury Baptist letter. I’m sure both have been quoted in court decisions, though, but citing something as an example does not mean it carries the weight of law by itself.
 
American said:
So one document written by Jefferson doesn't, while another document written by Jefferson does. How convenient.
Click to expand...
No one claims the Danbury Baptist letter is law or carries the power of law.
Your straw man is on fire.
 
American said:
It's a comparison and you know; one that you can't justify one iota.
Click to expand...
What is the “it” you are referring to, and what do you think I’m trying to justify?

No one based a judicial argument on a letter written by a president to a church.
Click to expand...
Correct. Who is arguing differently?
 
pinqy said:
Nope, and neither does the Danbury Baptist letter. I’m sure both have been quoted in court decisions, though, but citing something as an example does not mean it carries the weight of law by itself.
Click to expand...

It seems that some would like us to believe that court decisions are based on the Danbury letter. There have been a number of threads debating this subject (over the years) with the Danbury letter cited as what led to decisions. I myself don't see it.
 
American said:
It's a comparison and you know; one that you can't justify one iota. No one based a judicial argument on a letter written by a president to a church. Please!
Click to expand...

I never said the DoI did, I just said there seems to be a selectiveness used to support a point of view. If we had a true wall of separation we wouldn't have prayer going on in Congress, but we do. The so called wall that might exist, I contend, is not the one that atheists and theocracy fearmongers would like to have.
 
American said:
I never said the DoI did, I just said there seems to be a selectiveness used to support a point of view. If we had a true wall of separation we wouldn't have prayer going on in Congress, but we do. The so called wall that might exist, I contend, is not the one that atheists and theocracy fearmongers would like to have.
Click to expand...

Are you an 'originalist', a person who believes the Constitution should only be interpreted as the Founders saw it at the time of its construction?
 
Freedom of speech, includes religious freedom, since one's personal beliefs impact what you think and what you will speak. What people will say, is already predefined by the fundamental premises of their belief system. If the state controls these premises, it controls the final output of speech.

As an example, say are an activist in the Democrat party. The Democratic party has a fundamental belief system. This fundamental belief system sets your foundation premises, and impacts what you will say for any given question. You cannot freely start discussing the pros of Conservative principles, if you are fully conditioned by the foundation premises of the Democratic party. Some things would conflict with these premises, and be avoided. You are funneled what to say, by what the party teaches you as fundamental.

Freedom of religion assured that the state could not establish a set of foundation premises for all at a deep spiritual level. Religious values are very heart felt fundamental premises and will direct the direction of thought. The goal of freedom of religion, using the example, was more like wanting everyone to be an independent, who gets to dabble in both sets of political foundation premises, and cherry pick the best for them. Now their speech is not predetermined by one set of group think, but by their own choice of premises.

Religion and politics both run deep in people. Both are heart felt and therefore can create deep arguments. Both induce very firm foundation premises that don't wish to budge. The speech is already molded in advance. If the government could force one religion or one political party on everyone, you would have group think and not the diversity of individual ideas needed to brain storm the future.

As an analogy to freedom of religion, what would happen if President Trump and the Republicans decided to use the state to consolidate politics into only one party; only allow the Republican party? The children would be only taught the foundation premises of Conservative thinking. This means we already know what they will say to any question. Speech is controlled, even if they think they are free.

Would state control of politics and religion be good? Or would it be better to allow individuals to have a choice in political parties and religion, and allow each party and religion to influence the state, in its own time, through the election process? The answer is the same for politics and religion; freedom is better for everyone. Freedom to establish your foundation premises fills in the thought sphere more completely that just one way.
 
American said:
pinqy said:
Do you have any examples of this? Specifically of the Danbury letter treated as law?
Click to expand...

https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html
Click to expand...



Asking for a second time as my questions seems to have been ignored the first time. Are you an 'originalist', a person who believes the Constitution should only be interpreted as the Founders saw it at the time of its construction?

I ask because if you read the full text of the judgment in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878) you might discover that the justices who ruled in the case also are apparently 'originalists'. They aren't citing Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists as law but as an explanation of how the First Amendment was understood by those men who voted for its inclusion in the Constitution.

Jefferson as quoted in the decision:
"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 his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."
Click to expand...

This paragraph is followed by
Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.
Click to expand...
 
American said:
I did, but what you proved is that you didn't read the link.
Click to expand...
I’ve had that link bookmarked for many years and have read it multiple times. It is NOT an example of anyone claiming the letter is or should be treated as law, nor does it claim any court decisions have been based on it. I have no idea why you would think it is an example of either of those.
 
Last edited:
American said:
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.
Click to expand...


Please quote where any part of the US Constitution permits or grants a license to any religion to be involved in government?
 
bigred1cav said:
Please quote where any part of the US Constitution permits or grants a license to any religion to be involved in government?
Click to expand...

I don't have to until you demonstrate an understanding of the Constitution and its structure worthy of a response. Please explain the 1st Amendment and who is limited by it. Then explain how govt has control over religion. You're also avoiding a direct response to what I said. By trying to make the premise that religion has no rights unless spelled out in the Constitution, you have laid the document on it's head; proving you don't know how it works.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom