Re: Jefferson on the "wall of separation" between church and state
From: Phyllis (phyllisnilsson_at_buckeye-express.com)
Date: 09/09/04
- Next message: Bellatrix Lestrange, CMT: "Re: Son and school fundraiser..."
- Previous message: Phyllis: "Re: OT - This just in..."
- In reply to: Jay Vance: "Jefferson on the "wall of separation" between church and state"
- Next in thread: Barbara Carlson: "Re: Jefferson on the "wall of separation" between church and state"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 07:02:35 -0400
Thank you Jay. Makes one wonder if those on the Supreme Court need
remedial reading classes to improve their comprehension.
Jay Vance wrote:
> 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 enjoyd in
> our collective capacity, since your Inauguration, to express our great
> satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief Majestracy in the United States;
> And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompious 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 degradingacknowledgements, 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 cald 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"
>
> If you read Jefferson's words in context, the "wall of separation" he's
> referring to is to protect the church FROM THE GOVERNMENT, not the other way
> around. He's not saying that religion has no place in public life, he's saying
> that the neither the government or any other entity has the right to dictate to
> an individual what their religious beliefs must be.
>
> One phrase of Jefferson's that I find particularly interesting is when he says,
> "the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not
> opinions..." How far have we strayed from THAT sentiment! "Hate crime"
> legislation that adds extra penalties for the same crime if the perpetrator
> BELIEVES a certain way about the victim is a perfect example of legislation
> intended to govern THOUGHT and OPINIONS rather than actions.
>
> Jay
- Next message: Bellatrix Lestrange, CMT: "Re: Son and school fundraiser..."
- Previous message: Phyllis: "Re: OT - This just in..."
- In reply to: Jay Vance: "Jefferson on the "wall of separation" between church and state"
- Next in thread: Barbara Carlson: "Re: Jefferson on the "wall of separation" between church and state"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
