Seperation Of Church And State
Sirus
Join Date: 2002-11-13 Member: 8466Members, NS1 Playtester, Constellation
Join Date: 2002-11-13 Member: 8466Members, NS1 Playtester, Constellation
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">What it really means.</div> I hear this over and over again, but the thing is, it's not true. There is a lack of understanding of what Seperation of Church and State mean. The phrase was created by Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to the Danbury Baptists.
Originally, what the Establishment clauses meant is that there would be no establishment of an official, or "US Religion" or neither would there be any legislation to regulate or curtail any religion. <i>This</i> is the meaning of seperation of church and state.
Please read the below to help further reinforce the understanding.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->JEFFERSON TO THE DANBURY BAPTISTS, 1802
In Everson v. Bd. of Educ., 330 U.S. 1 (1947), the U.S. Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether a local law pursuant to a New Jersey statute authorizing the use of public funds to reimburse parents for money spent by them for the public bus transportation of their children to Catholic parochial schools violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In laying the foundation for its decision, the Court examined the meaning of the Establishment Clause in its historical context. Reasoning that the most influential movement for religious liberty prior to the Bill of Rights took place in Virginia, the Court examined the writings of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, who lead the fight for religious liberty in that state. The Court ultimately concluded that the Establishment Clause was intended to **** "a wall of separation between church and state." This phrase was excerpted from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association. Since its pronouncement in Everson, this phrase has become the popular standard for examining whether government actions violate the Establishment Clause.
In spite of the popularity of this phrase, it is quite likely that the Court's reading of the Danbury letter was incorrect. Although Jefferson penned this phrase, most likely he did not intend "building a wall of separation between church and state" to mean complete independence of religion and government. First, Jefferson was writing to a Baptist Association who firmly believed in church autonomy. The ideas which lead to this oft-cited phrase came from a sermon given by Baptist Roger Williams, entitled "The Garden in the Wilderness," in which Williams explains that the purpose of civil government is to allow religion to flourish, not to be regulated. Thus, Jefferson's use of the phrase "a wall of separation" was an idiom with a particular meaning to the Baptists to whom the letter was addressed.
The "wall of separation" referred to limitations on federal power. In fact, the "act of the whole American people" is the ratification of the First Amendment. At the time of this letter, the Establishment Clause only applied to the federal government. The First Amendment did not create a wall of separation in any state jurisdiction. In fact, the Supreme Court in Everson correctly points out that many states continued various activities for nearly 50 years after the ratification of the First Amendment that would clearly have violated it had it applied to state actions. However, the Supreme Court incorrectly assumes that because the First Amendment now applies to the states, Jefferson's comments in this letter must also be read as if applicable to the states as well. This is inaccurate history. Thus, the Court's interpretation that Jefferson's "separation" statement was intended for the whole federal and state political system is misleading.
In addition, even if the "wall of separation" were meant to be applied to the states, what exactly did Jefferson mean? The Court suggests the phrase is absolute. According to the Court, "that wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve of the slightest breach." Everson, 330 U.S. at 18. Jefferson's actions as President of the United States are important guidelines in understanding what he meant by the "wall of separation." In 1803, one year after the Danbury letter, Jefferson made a treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians, wherein he pledged money to build them a Roman Catholic Church and to support their priests — all from federal funds. Jefferson apparently saw no conflict between asking Congress to implement the treaty's provisions by appropriating funds, and the prohibition that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . ." In addition, Jefferson signed three extensions of "An act regulating the grants of land appropriated for Military Services, and for the Society of the United Brethren for propagating the Gospel among the Heathen." This act granted free of charge titles to sections of land to the United Brethren. In addition to holding the land in trust for Indians who were already Christians, the United Brethren used resources derived from cultivating and leasing the land to send out missionaries to proselyte among the non-Christian Indians. Once again, had Jefferson been an absolutist, as the Everson Court suggests, he would have vetoed not one, but all three extensions of this act. Thus, the Danbury letter is significant because when taken out of context, it provides the foundation for an absolute separation of church and state. Not only was Jefferson referring to the federal government, but his activities while in office also indicate that he was not an absolutist.
In addition to putting a modern gloss on Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, the Supreme Court most likely erred in using Jefferson as a primary example of legislative history surrounding the enactment of the Bill of Rights. Although Jefferson ardently supported the freedom of religion and disestablishment, Jefferson's thoughts and actions, which were somewhat more conservative than his contemporaries, may not be an accurate reflection of legislative history. Throughout the time of the debates surrounding the Bill of Rights and the movement for religious freedom, Jefferson was serving as Ambassador to France. His only knowledge and understanding of the debates came through correspondence from men like James Madison. In fact, the Danbury Baptist letter was written more than a decade following the ratification of the Bill of Rights.
RJ&L Religious Institutions Group
MESSRS. NEHEMIAH DODGE, EPHRAIM ROBBINS, AND STEPHEN S. NELSON, A COMMITTEE OF THE DANBURY BAPTIST ASSOCIATION, IN THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT.
January 1, 1802.
GENTLEMEN,--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.
Source: VIII The Writings of Thomas Jefferson: Being His Autobiography, Correspondence, Reports, Messages, Addresses, and Other Writings, Official and Private 113-14 (H.A. Washington ed., 1854).
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Originally, what the Establishment clauses meant is that there would be no establishment of an official, or "US Religion" or neither would there be any legislation to regulate or curtail any religion. <i>This</i> is the meaning of seperation of church and state.
Please read the below to help further reinforce the understanding.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->JEFFERSON TO THE DANBURY BAPTISTS, 1802
In Everson v. Bd. of Educ., 330 U.S. 1 (1947), the U.S. Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether a local law pursuant to a New Jersey statute authorizing the use of public funds to reimburse parents for money spent by them for the public bus transportation of their children to Catholic parochial schools violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In laying the foundation for its decision, the Court examined the meaning of the Establishment Clause in its historical context. Reasoning that the most influential movement for religious liberty prior to the Bill of Rights took place in Virginia, the Court examined the writings of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, who lead the fight for religious liberty in that state. The Court ultimately concluded that the Establishment Clause was intended to **** "a wall of separation between church and state." This phrase was excerpted from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association. Since its pronouncement in Everson, this phrase has become the popular standard for examining whether government actions violate the Establishment Clause.
In spite of the popularity of this phrase, it is quite likely that the Court's reading of the Danbury letter was incorrect. Although Jefferson penned this phrase, most likely he did not intend "building a wall of separation between church and state" to mean complete independence of religion and government. First, Jefferson was writing to a Baptist Association who firmly believed in church autonomy. The ideas which lead to this oft-cited phrase came from a sermon given by Baptist Roger Williams, entitled "The Garden in the Wilderness," in which Williams explains that the purpose of civil government is to allow religion to flourish, not to be regulated. Thus, Jefferson's use of the phrase "a wall of separation" was an idiom with a particular meaning to the Baptists to whom the letter was addressed.
The "wall of separation" referred to limitations on federal power. In fact, the "act of the whole American people" is the ratification of the First Amendment. At the time of this letter, the Establishment Clause only applied to the federal government. The First Amendment did not create a wall of separation in any state jurisdiction. In fact, the Supreme Court in Everson correctly points out that many states continued various activities for nearly 50 years after the ratification of the First Amendment that would clearly have violated it had it applied to state actions. However, the Supreme Court incorrectly assumes that because the First Amendment now applies to the states, Jefferson's comments in this letter must also be read as if applicable to the states as well. This is inaccurate history. Thus, the Court's interpretation that Jefferson's "separation" statement was intended for the whole federal and state political system is misleading.
In addition, even if the "wall of separation" were meant to be applied to the states, what exactly did Jefferson mean? The Court suggests the phrase is absolute. According to the Court, "that wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve of the slightest breach." Everson, 330 U.S. at 18. Jefferson's actions as President of the United States are important guidelines in understanding what he meant by the "wall of separation." In 1803, one year after the Danbury letter, Jefferson made a treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians, wherein he pledged money to build them a Roman Catholic Church and to support their priests — all from federal funds. Jefferson apparently saw no conflict between asking Congress to implement the treaty's provisions by appropriating funds, and the prohibition that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . ." In addition, Jefferson signed three extensions of "An act regulating the grants of land appropriated for Military Services, and for the Society of the United Brethren for propagating the Gospel among the Heathen." This act granted free of charge titles to sections of land to the United Brethren. In addition to holding the land in trust for Indians who were already Christians, the United Brethren used resources derived from cultivating and leasing the land to send out missionaries to proselyte among the non-Christian Indians. Once again, had Jefferson been an absolutist, as the Everson Court suggests, he would have vetoed not one, but all three extensions of this act. Thus, the Danbury letter is significant because when taken out of context, it provides the foundation for an absolute separation of church and state. Not only was Jefferson referring to the federal government, but his activities while in office also indicate that he was not an absolutist.
In addition to putting a modern gloss on Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, the Supreme Court most likely erred in using Jefferson as a primary example of legislative history surrounding the enactment of the Bill of Rights. Although Jefferson ardently supported the freedom of religion and disestablishment, Jefferson's thoughts and actions, which were somewhat more conservative than his contemporaries, may not be an accurate reflection of legislative history. Throughout the time of the debates surrounding the Bill of Rights and the movement for religious freedom, Jefferson was serving as Ambassador to France. His only knowledge and understanding of the debates came through correspondence from men like James Madison. In fact, the Danbury Baptist letter was written more than a decade following the ratification of the Bill of Rights.
RJ&L Religious Institutions Group
MESSRS. NEHEMIAH DODGE, EPHRAIM ROBBINS, AND STEPHEN S. NELSON, A COMMITTEE OF THE DANBURY BAPTIST ASSOCIATION, IN THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT.
January 1, 1802.
GENTLEMEN,--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.
Source: VIII The Writings of Thomas Jefferson: Being His Autobiography, Correspondence, Reports, Messages, Addresses, and Other Writings, Official and Private 113-14 (H.A. Washington ed., 1854).
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Comments
Always knew that saying was BS. No way it'd pass in a country founded on God.
Of course, some of the latest stuff is pushing it. The G.W. quote about Atheists not being citizens or patriots.
The battle is already lost on that front, the people who prefer their version of "separation of Church and State" are already in power. The Supreme court is heavily stacked against it, and there is no way thats going to change.
But it seems pretty obvious that the separation of church and state rule was twisted completely out of context - so I'd say it has been taken the wrong way by the judicary.
The concept of seperation of Chruch and State can be dated back to the English Magna Carta, and has nowadays reached an international meaning independent from Jeffersons letter, this meaning being close to the Surpreme Courts interpretation.
But even if, it wouldn't change too much:
If we are to assume that this wall should've only been put in place to allow religion to flourish, this'd enforce a strict neutrality of the state as any support for one religious community another one does not recieve would mean that the state kept the latter from flourishing. Seeing the complexity of modern religious opinions amongst and even within the different religious communities at home in each and every western country, the state would act biased with almost any action taken towards, or on the initiation of, a single or a group of religious communities.
Thus, the wall has to be solid from both sides, anyway.
(I bolded the word <b>solely</b> in there because I don't want people chattering about murder and r4pe and theft - these are obviously acts that can be deemed criminal based on purely secular reasoning about what's best for the state and its citizens.)
Care to back that up?
Care to back that up? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think he means all that "One Nation Under God" stuff before you all start quoting Margaret Thatcher (bonus points to the people who know which famous Margaret Thatcher quote I am going on about)
Care to back that up? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think he means all that "One Nation Under God" stuff before you all start quoting Margaret Thatcher (bonus points to the people who know which famous Margaret Thatcher quote I am going on about) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which (I'm sure you know) was added during the fifties.
There are some days when I'm exceptionally proud to have been born in SF...
Also, there's a large difference between having an established religion, and having religion relevant. For example, Having the Ten Commandments outside a courthouse has nothing to do with the establishment clause. Neutrality isn't being absent from anything, it's not being biased against anything in particular.
There are some days when I'm exceptionally proud to have been born in SF... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What I've never gotten is how that doesn't violate article 6, (or rather how people convince themselves that it doesn't violate article 6) stating "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
Thomas Pain, one of our founding fathers was disgusted with organized religion. Remember him? He was the one who wrote "Common Sense" and basically inspired people during the revolution. I haven't heard anything that suggests that our revolution, or the people who caused it, had deep ties to religion.
You can argue that the Pilgrims were part of our desires to separate from England but these are the same people who did witch-hunts and had really bad spelling.
<i>"In ye name God Amen. We whose names are underwritten, the loyall subjects of our dread soveraigne Lord King James, by ye Grace of God, of Great Britaine, Franc, & Ireland king, defender of ye faith, & c. Haveing undertaken, for ye glorie of God, and advancemente of ye Christian faith and honour of our king & countrie, a voyage to plant ye first colonie in ye Northerne parts of Virginia, doe by these presents solemnly & mutualy in ye presence of God, and one of another, covenant, & combine ourselves togeather into a Civill body politick; for our better ordering, & preservation & furtherance of ye ends aforesaid; and by vertue hereof to enacte, constitute, and frame such just & equall Lawes, ordinances, Acts, constitutions, & offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meete & convenient for ye generall good of ye colonie: unto which we promise all due submission and obedience."</i> - The Mayflower Compact, 1620
I think God has a wicked sense of humor. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Care to back that up? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think he means all that "One Nation Under God" stuff before you all start quoting Margaret Thatcher (bonus points to the people who know which famous Margaret Thatcher quote I am going on about) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which (I'm sure you know) was added during the fifties. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
What I was implying was that _he_ felt that.
Not what I felt.
America is also rooted in the country which it waged its very first war against.
Besides, a high number of founders, one of them Jefferson, were of naturalistic persuasion. Naturalism is considered an early form of atheism.
For those living under a rock I was referring to stem cell research.
oh well.
Still, that letter shows the original intent behind the Separation of Church and State, so it seems a little strange that that was the basis behind banning prayers from school.
BTW how many founders were there anyway?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Thomas Pain, one of our founding fathers was disgusted with organized religion. Remember him? He was the one who wrote "Common Sense" and basically inspired people during the revolution. I haven't heard anything that suggests that our revolution, or the people who caused it, had deep ties to religion.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm still pretty sure that Mr Pain believed in the Christian God though. As I believe Washington did also. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought pretty much all the founding fathers were religious people? Atheism is only popular in modern times, so I'd be really surprised if they werent religiously inclined.
A separation so complete cannot exist. Every man, even when he becomes a politician, makes decisions based on his conscience and morals. If these are influenced by religion, so is the man. This is the foundation of democracy.
If you disagree with the man, don't vote for him, but don't deny him the right to act according to his beliefs, and don't deny the voters their democratic right to give power to whomever they favour.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm still pretty sure that Mr Pain believed in the Christian God though. As I believe Washington did also. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought pretty much all the founding fathers were religious people? Atheism is only popular in modern times, so I'd be really surprised if they werent religiously inclined. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Given that these assorted <a href='http://www.barefootsworld.net/founding.html#paine' target='_blank'>quotes</a> are correct, Paine was certainly not a Christian but a deist, although not necessarily in our modern "blind clockmaker" understanding of the term.
And what kind of prayer should that be? A prayer to Jaweh? To Allah? To Vishnuh? To Zeus, Odin, Elvis? Because, if one of them, or any of the other thousands of deities American citizens believe in <i>aren't</i> cited, then that prayer violates the intention of the letter quite clearly.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->BTW how many founders were there anyway?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Depends on how you count. Generally the word 'Founding Fathers' applies to all that had major part in the creation of the US. This extends to the people signing the Declaration of Independence, to those creating the philosophical foundation (such as Paine), and a number of members of the military.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Atheism is only popular in modern times, so I'd be really surprised if they werent religiously inclined. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Quite on the contrary. Atheism has been around since the Greek philosophers, and since the Renaissance, there's been a rising number of people disagreeing with the concept of organized religion.
So the deity has to be cited? Hrrrmmmm I think its time I reread that letter.
So the deity has to be cited? Hrrrmmmm I think its time I reread that letter. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let me cite such times as the Inquisition, maybe it wasn't exactly practiced in the open, the church wasn't always the most accomidating. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
*edit* I know this is vastly oversimplifying but I just wanted to poke and prod a bit <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> *edit*
Marine, what I was getting at was that no prayer in school will be able to do all the different religions the pupils might be part of justice. It's thus best to leave it out of the public room and allow every pupil to do - or do no - prayers outside the curriculum.