FBI restores "separation of church and state" letter from Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists...?

Question

How many of you who claim there is no separation of church and state have knowledge of this letter and if so, why do you choose to ignore its weight since it comes directly from a founder? I would be interested in the rationalizations applied that allow you to do that.

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html

As an aside, I wished to post this in both the Religious and Politics section, but could only choose one. I chose Religious because this is where you most often find the denial of separation of church and state.

cvq: Yes, he was in France during the Constitutional Convention. He was however the primary author of the Declaration of Independence and supported the Constitution as it stood, with the exception of noting it needed a "Bill of Rights." Was that really your answer to this question lol?

Answer 1

I had read this parts of his Danbury letter before , but had no idea that there parts that were omitted. Good for the FBI!
I have also remarked in both this category and the political that the Treaty Of Tripoli was an enacted treaty that affected the separation of church and state; and that it had never been rescinded. I am interested in seeing the denials you'll get.

Those who believe that the Christian Church should use it's power and wealth to influence the Government have already seen the what Red States have brought to bear. There are a majority of Christians, stick to the ballot box to vote your opinions.
Stick to your pulpets and preach your opinions, but when you seek to inflence to take away personal rights you go too far.

Answer 2

BECAUSE, IT IS NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!

That's where it matters, not in a letter to an individual body.

Thomas Jefferson meant, the state was to have no controlling authority over the church, there was to be no established state religion. He did not mean, the church was not to have a voice in government, nor could the church admonish those who are charged with governing.

Answer 3

I believe in separation of Church and State as President Jefferson meant it to be. That the Government should stay OUT of the Christian Church, but that the Christian Church should be involved with and should be inabled to influence the Amercan Government.

Answer 4

Very aware of that letter. The framers of the constitution where very clear in their wishes to establish seperation between church and state....Also they where not Christians.

Answer 5

Yep, it makes sense given the heavy influence of the puritan pilgrims on the culture of our early nation. They came to this continent seeking to be able to practice their religion without persecution, and established their own town governments by election.

Answer 6

Actually, Jefferson was in France when the Constitution was adopted.

Answer 7

I have known about this for some time now.

Answer 8

I have knowledge of the letter. Having knowledge OF a letter is one thing. Understanding WHAT was written in the letter and what the context is/was is something entirely different.

It appears that you are confused, do you believe that there IS a wall of separation between “church and state” which was drawn out in the US Constitution?

One place you can read the US Constitution is here: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1 [1]

I searched the document, which served as the blueprint for our nation. It is the document that provided the ways and means by which we would forever run our country. While searching it, I discovered facts that seem to have been forgotten by history.

Did you realize that the word “religion” is only mentioned once in the whole document? It’s there, in the first of ten amendments that were added to identify the freedoms of the individual from governmental oppression. They were there to identify the freedom from abuse similar to that suffered by the Founding Fathers at the hands of King George III and his puppet government in Colonial America.

The word, “church”, is never mentioned. That's right. I do not care how you want to reationalize it, you can't argue that there is a "separation of Church and State" in the US Constitution if the word "church" is never mentioned in the Constitution!

Interestingly enough to me, neither can you find the words “Spirit”, “Allah”, “Jesus”, “Krishna”, “Buddha”, “atheist”, nor “Christ” in the Constitution.

The word “Lord” does appear – and it does even appear CAPITALIZED as would a proper noun – (a specific person, place or thing…) in the closing paragraph, as if a “benediction” of sorts:

"Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the
States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the
Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty
seven and of the Independence of the United States of
America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto
subscribed our Names".

So I thought I’d investigate what I believe to be the source of confusion in the matter.

Since the US Constitution is the first piece of the puzzle, let’s first look at what the document says. Then we’ll look at the other source of confusion, “the Danbury letter” - a document that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association, a religious minority in Connecticut.


First things first:

Most of the issues appear to revolve around the first ten words of the first of the ten Amendments, which read, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” So let’s examine how these words are used.

The US Constitution

Article IV, Section 3, clause b:

"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all
needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or
other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in
this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any
Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."

How is the word “respecting” used in this section of the Constitution, which details the rights of the states?

www.dictionary.com defines the preposition “respecting” as[3]:
"re·spect·ing (r -sp k t ng) prep. Usage Problem
With respect to; concerning. See Usage Note at regard"

Article VII
“The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be
sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between
the States so ratifying the Same.”

How is the word “establishment” used in this Article dealing with the ratification of the Constitution?

http://www.dictionary.com offers three definitions as a noun :

es·tab·lish·ment ( -st b l sh-m nt)
1. a.The act of establishing.
b.The condition or fact of being established.
2. Something established, as:
a .An arranged order or system, especially a legal code.
b. A permanent civil, political, or military organization.
c. An established church.
d .A place of residence or business with its possessions
and staff.
e .A public or private institution, such as a hospital or
school.
3. often Establishment An established social order, as:
a. A group of people holding most of the power and
influence in a government or society. Often used with
the.
b. A controlling group in a given field of activity. Often
used with the.


Main Entry: es·tab·lish·ment
Function: noun
1 : something established: as
a : a church recognized by law as the official church of a
nation or state and supported by civil authority [You'll never
convince me that this definition was in Noah Webster's first
edition Dictionary!]
b : a permanent civil or military organization
c : a place of residence or esp. business with its
furnishings and staff
2 a : an act of establishing b : the state of being established


Now, let’s visit the first ten words of the First (of ten) Amendments, as well as the rest of the words in that Amendment, so that we can better understand the context.

Amendment I:
"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."

How are the words “respecting” and “establishment” used in the First Amendment? Shouldn’t it be expected that whatever the words meant earlier in the US Constitution (Article IV & Article VII) is what they meant in the very First Amendment? Isn't that what our entire legal system is built upon? The use of "precedence"?

If so, shouldn’t the First Amendment be read as such? :

"Congress shall make no law “with respect to, concerning” an “established” religion, or prohibiting the free expression thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech… "


Instead, we find ourselves saddled with new interpretations of “The Danbury Letter” mentioned above.

According to the website, http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html [which does not appear to be run or managed by the US Government…],

“The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, and they complained that in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature - as ‘favors granted.’ Jefferson's reply did not address their concerns about problems with state establishment of religion - only that on the national level. The letter contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and state," which led to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: ‘Separation of church and state’.”


In fact, this is what the Danbury Baptists wrote:

The Danbury Baptists' letter to Thomas Jefferson

"The address of the Danbury Baptists Association in the state of
Connecticut, assembled October 7, 1801. To Thomas Jefferson,
Esq., President of the United States of America.

Sir,

Among the many million in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration, to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief magistracy in the United States: And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous 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 neighbors;

But, sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the law made coincident therewith, were adopted as the basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our laws and 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 degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power and gain under the pretense of government and religion should reproach their fellow men--should reproach their order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and 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 effect 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 goodwill which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for your arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you to sustain and support you enjoy administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to raise to wealth and 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,
Nehemiah Dodge; Ephraim Robbins; Stephen S. Nelson"


Please note that the “Danbury Baptists” letter refers to
“the prerogatives of Jehovah”, (a very specific Personage);
·“God” (again, CAPITALIZED, as if a proper noun) three times (a triune times?) Once, talking about the relationship between “God and individuals”. Once, again in benediction, begging God to “strengthen” Jefferson for the “arduous task which providence” had set before him, and Once even, as “America’s God”!
·
And in closing, the Danbury Baptists had the nerve to invoke the Jefferson’s preservation by prayerfully requesting that “may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his heavenly kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.”

Jefferson’s response, the one, which supposedly built the infamous “wall of separation of church and state”, reads:

"Mr. President
To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem & 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 & 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 & more pleasing.

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 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 presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented 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.] 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 & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802."

According to the website from which the Danbury Letter and Jefferson’s response were taken, [and bear in mind that this quote is an editorial opionion of the author of the website http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html ] :“The bracketed section in the second paragraph had been blocked off for deletion, though it was not actually deleted in his draft of the letter. It is included here for completeness. Reflecting upon Jefferson's knowledge that his letter was far from a mere personal correspondence, he deleted the block, he says in the margin, to avoid offending members of his party in the eastern states.”

What AMAZES me though, is that by pointing to Jefferson’s “wall of separation of church and state” phrase of his response to the Danbury Baptists, they are giving Constitutional weight to the correspondence.

Jefferson was, they argue, President of the United States at the time of his writing this personal correspondence, so while it was never voted on by Congress, they argue, it should be law.

Yet, in the same document, THE DOCUMENT that liberal secularists point to when they try use to limit prayers and devotions or even the mention of Christ on school properties, President Thomas Jefferson closes out his reply with this blessing:

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 & esteem.

In this closing, Jefferson did not repudiate the beliefs of the Danbury Baptist association, nor did he refute their claims that Jehovah was God – THE God, nor did he refute the claim that Jesus Christ was our “Glorious Mediator”. In fact, Jefferson personally referred to the “common Father and Creator of Man”!

Who would have been the “common Father and creator of man” to whom Jefferson was referring? Jehovah, the Father and Creator of Man, of course, and to “Jesus Christ, our Glorious Mediator”.

So if we must view Jefferson’s response to the Danbury Baptist Letter as some form of emperical canon – some “extra-curricular” Constitutional Amendment - which never saw the light of day in neither the House nor the Senate, then you must not take it out of the context of the Danbury Letter, and instead take it to understand that Jefferson viewed the Old and New Testament "Jehovah" as "America's God".

It is clear from me that - by the Danbury Baptists letter, and by Jefferson's response that Jefferson believed that

*[…man] “owes account to none other for his faith or his
worship,” so there should be no attempts to ban are bar0
me - or anybody - from praying in public - nor in private.

Jefferson clearly believed in:
* the existence of, the blessings of, and protective powers
of Jehovah as the “common Father and creator of man”
(inferred by the “reciprocal blessing”) Jesus Christ is and
was the “Glorious Mediator”, which must be interpreted by
the manner in which Jefferson “reciprocated” the “kind
prayers for the … blessing of the Common Father…” ?
(inferred by the “reciprocal blessing”)

Jefferson also did not refute or repudiate the Danbury Baptist's recognition of Jehova has "America's God". Does Jefferson's lack of denial instantly retro-fit the Old Testament Jehovah as "America's God"?

You simply can’t argue otherwise - if you are relying on Jefferson's response to "the Danbury Baptists" letter for extra-legal definitions vis-a-vis the "separation of chruch and state" clause, because you cannot throw the baby away with the bathwater. And Jefferson further believed that the American “legislature should make no law…prohibiting the free exercise… [of] religion” so, by gum, you'd better allow prayer in school! (And there will continue to be prayers in school so long as there are still tests given!)

###