Re: Jefferson on the "wall of separation" between church and state
From: Barbara Carlson (bbcarlson_at_snappydsl.net)
Date: 09/10/04
- Next message: Barbara Carlson: "Re: OT- "Is this your cat?" Humor break"
- Previous message: Barbara Carlson: "Re: OT: Weather"
- In reply to: Jay Vance: "Jefferson on the "wall of separation" between church and state"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 22:44:28 -0400
Jay, thanks for posting that. I was sure it dated way back, and I did think
it was part of the constitution. Better get it out and read it again!
Barb C.
"Jay Vance" <digitalvance@aol.comdelete> wrote in message
news:20040909005005.01624.00000516@mb-m28.aol.com...
> 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: Barbara Carlson: "Re: OT- "Is this your cat?" Humor break"
- Previous message: Barbara Carlson: "Re: OT: Weather"
- In reply to: Jay Vance: "Jefferson on the "wall of separation" between church and state"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
