The "Wall of Separation Between Church and State"
The words seem so simple and straightforward.
The First Amendment is the only place in the U.S. Constitution which addresses the relationship between the U.S. Government and religion. The First Amendment is only a single sentence in length. There are no big words. There are no archaic words. It is simple, straightforward English -- the kind we use today.
And only one part of that single sentence addresses our religious freedom. Only a few words, but my they say it all. The concept is so simple even a child should understand it. Let's read the First Amendment again, shall we?
And only one part of that single sentence addresses our religious freedom. Only a few words, but my they say it all. The concept is so simple even a child should understand it. Let's read the First Amendment again, shall we?
Amendment I, Bill of Rights, U.S. Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...." That simply means that our government cannot establish an official state religion. The government cannot compel anyone to practice any chosen religion. The government cannot prevent any person from freely practicing his faith as he sees fit. Simple, right?
But wait a minute! Where's that stuff about a "Wall of separation between Church and State?" And what does that mean? Well, first off, that phrase does not appear in any of our Founding documents or laws. It was not in the Articles of Confederation. It is not found anywhere in the Declaration of Independence, nor the U.S. Constitution (including all Amendments), nor even in the Federalist Papers or the Anti-Federalist Papers. Where did it come from?
Well, the first place that phrase was used was in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson back to some Connecticut clergymen. "The Baptists expressed in a letter to Jefferson their grave concern over the entire concept of the First Amendment, including of its guarantee for 'the free exercise of religion':
But wait a minute! Where's that stuff about a "Wall of separation between Church and State?" And what does that mean? Well, first off, that phrase does not appear in any of our Founding documents or laws. It was not in the Articles of Confederation. It is not found anywhere in the Declaration of Independence, nor the U.S. Constitution (including all Amendments), nor even in the Federalist Papers or the Anti-Federalist Papers. Where did it come from?
Well, the first place that phrase was used was in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson back to some Connecticut clergymen. "The Baptists expressed in a letter to Jefferson their grave concern over the entire concept of the First Amendment, including of its guarantee for 'the free exercise of religion':
|
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, [and] 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. . . . Therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights.
|
In short, the inclusion of protection for the "free exercise of religion" in the constitution suggested to the Danbury Baptists that the right of religious expression was government-given (thus alienable) rather than God-given (hence inalienable), and that therefore the government might someday attempt to regulate religious expression. This was a possibility to which they strenuously objected -- unless, as they had explained, someone's religious practice caused him to 'work ill to his neighbor'.
Jefferson understood their concern; it was also his own." So he wrote back to the Baptist clergymen to reassure them that government is absolutely prohibited from interfering with their religious institutions by the First Amendment. Jefferson's letter follows:
Jefferson understood their concern; it was also his own." So he wrote back to the Baptist clergymen to reassure them that government is absolutely prohibited from interfering with their religious institutions by the First Amendment. Jefferson's letter follows:
The first place that the phrase appears:
To Messrs. Nehemiah Dodge and Others, a Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, in the State of Connecticut
Gentleman,
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as 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 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 to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.
Th. Jefferson January 1, 1802
Gentleman,
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as 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 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 to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.
Th. Jefferson January 1, 1802
So Jefferson used the phrase in a letter to reassure some clergy that the Government could never and would never interfere in their religious institution. Nothing more, nothing less.
Still seems clear enough to me. But then over time, activist voices on the Supreme Court have vested the words of the First Amendment with twisted and perverted meanings that were never contemplated by the Founders -- and would never have been tolerated by them, either. A brief history of those rulings can be found here.
Through Progressive corruptions of the words, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...." has been "interpreted" to mean that our kids cannot pray in school or before an event, that the Ten Commandments cannot be displayed in public buildings, that crosses in military cemeteries are forbidden, that no mention of the role of Christianity in our U.S. history, traditions, and heritage may be taught in the classroom. The Supreme Court and the Federal Government have changed the foundational principle of "Freedom of Religion" to "Freedom from Religion".
And most folks don't even take the time to think about it. Most folks don't even realize how their Inalienable Rights are being turned inside out and upside down. Most folks don't stop to think, as the Danbury Baptists worried so, that our Freedom of Religion has, indeed, been made "alienable". And most folks don't seem willing to stand up for their Rights against those who continue to attack, erode, and diminish them. When will we all stand together and shout: "Enough is Enough!"
Still seems clear enough to me. But then over time, activist voices on the Supreme Court have vested the words of the First Amendment with twisted and perverted meanings that were never contemplated by the Founders -- and would never have been tolerated by them, either. A brief history of those rulings can be found here.
Through Progressive corruptions of the words, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...." has been "interpreted" to mean that our kids cannot pray in school or before an event, that the Ten Commandments cannot be displayed in public buildings, that crosses in military cemeteries are forbidden, that no mention of the role of Christianity in our U.S. history, traditions, and heritage may be taught in the classroom. The Supreme Court and the Federal Government have changed the foundational principle of "Freedom of Religion" to "Freedom from Religion".
And most folks don't even take the time to think about it. Most folks don't even realize how their Inalienable Rights are being turned inside out and upside down. Most folks don't stop to think, as the Danbury Baptists worried so, that our Freedom of Religion has, indeed, been made "alienable". And most folks don't seem willing to stand up for their Rights against those who continue to attack, erode, and diminish them. When will we all stand together and shout: "Enough is Enough!"
