Prayers Are Too Christian For ACLU
Posted on August 11, 2005
Call the PC Police! Those fanatical Christians are at it again! This time they actually ended some prayers, brace yourself, in Jesus name! Now, the ACLU will have none of that coming from Cobb County Commission meetings. For heavens goodness sake, these are government officials, and people were offended by it. We can’t have that!
Five very sensitive Cobb County residents are joining the ACLU in the lawsuit after being offended at some of these opening prayers that were “overly Christian.”
The lawsuit, filed by the ACLU Wednesday in federal court in Atlanta, claims the prayers before commission meetings are too Christian. One prayer ended, “in the name of Jesus our savior,” and dozens more since 2003 mentioned Jesus, according to the lawsuit.Source
A spokesman for Cobb County, Robert Quigley, said the commission prayers were in legal bounds because they’re voluntary, they occur before meetings begin and because they’re not always Christian.
See, the ACLU has a much better and more PC idea for opening prayers.
Civil liberties lawyers have appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to allow a Wiccan priestess to offer prayers before a public board’s meetings.Source
Now before I get turned into a newt, let me just say I think the ACLU has merit in this case. But again, its the old double standard. The name of Jesus is too offensive for the PC crowd, but praying to the goddess and the horned god, is A OK! Way to go ACLU!
Thank you Mudville Gazette and Outside The Beltway
Say Anything talks about this too. Hat tip to Wizbang
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, Church And State
Trackback URL
Comments
31 Responses to “Prayers Are Too Christian For ACLU”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
Stop the ACLU blogburst
-
More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
“The name of Jesus is too offensive for the PC crowd, but praying to the goddess and the horned god, is A OK!”
I thikn that the point of the suit is that if christian prayers are allowed, then others should be too. And right now they’re overtly christian and not non-denominational.
Actually this is two seperate cases Fark. One is about the word Jesus “offending” 5 little sensitive souls. The other is about a witch wanting to pray.
If you would actually read, you could figure these things out.
Also, I said the ACLU had merit in the case of the witch.
Jeez people, should I post a rule that says read the post before making idiotic comments?
“Actually this is two seperate cases Fark. ”
And the way to reconcile them both is the way I said it: allow a range of prayers, or have non-denominational prayers.
Just want to add that in military ceremonies, a generic prayer is given almost all the time. Army chaplains always are very conscious to appease their whole audience. I have very rarely heard Jesus mentioned and if they do, I just don’t give an Amen & Don’t call the ACLU!
Five very sensitive Cobb County residents are joining the ACLU in the lawsuit after being offended at some of these opening prayers that were “overly Christian.”
Will somebody explain to me what the “right amount of Christian” would be? I think if the ACLU genuinely wants to prevent people from being subjected to religion (by religion I mean Christianity because saying Islam would be racist) by coming up with a guide to what they find acceptable. Not saying I’d really pay any attention to it but someone may. After all it would cut down on the lawsuits right? Because they’re in it for civil liberties aspect right? Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.
I am not ignoring the blogburst today, my site is down! aarggh
I can’t believe I live in the US!
Wouldn’t all Spanish kids named Jesus (HAY’soos) have to be kicked out of school! What if you stub your toe and say Jesus Christ? Will you get expelled. I’m going to post this on my blog and ask the same questions!
I think it boils down to something very simple. It doesn’t matter if any prayers are prayed or not, it doesn’t matter if it satisfies Christians or Muslims, Wiccans or atheists or Druids. Someone, somewhere is going to complain that they aren’t being treated “fairly” and the ACLU will come “represent” them no matter what – even if it is counter to what they represented last week.
Bottom line, even if they represent the person who is upset because a Christian prayer is said one day, the next day they will represent the person upset because a Wiccan prayer is said, so on and so forth…
The ACLU’s position changes where they feel the biggest monetary gain or political gain may be. They don’t have a flavor of the day, they have a position of the day. And that is all.
The ACLU’s position changes where they feel the biggest monetary gain or political gain may be.
They seem pretty consistent: either everyone’s prayers on a non-discriminatory basis (equal access), or no prayers.
Yeah, the ACLU is nothing but a bunch of evil communists.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/05/589.asp
If the stupid witch wants to open the meeting with a prayer, tell her to get her ass elected and she can say whatever damn prayer she wants! Until then, just shut up and stop trying to take my money.
“If the stupid witch wants to open the meeting with a prayer, tell her to get her ass elected and she can say whatever damn prayer she wants! Until then, just shut up and stop trying to take my money.”
So if she got elected, you’d be cool with her leading a wiccan prayer? I doubt it.
How about we pick a more likely senario: a Muslim mayor in Dearborn, MI wants to open all sporting events and Dearborn city functions with a prayer to Allah. Now let’s say that you also live in Dearborn and your child partakes in this prayer before his baseball games. Does majority rule seem so fair then?
“I think if the ACLU genuinely wants to prevent people from being subjected to religion (by religion I mean Christianity because saying Islam would be racist) by coming up with a guide to what they find acceptable.”
I think the answer is simply none when you’re talking about the government. There is no acceptable amount, because there is no _fair_ mix of religion, government, and politics (unless it’s your personal beliefs). Religion and government end up making such a mess of each other, it’s honestly better to have the two separate.
If you don’t do everything you can to keep the two separate, you may find yourself being prosecuted for something that the religious police (yes, literally the religious police — they have them in Iran and Saudi Arabia) discern to be illegal.
It’s important to also note that Iran also used to be a secular country. It isn’t any more — and it isn’t a place you want to live now. So the social movement can go both ways (towards secularism and towards total religious state).
I prefer non-religious democracy where people can believe what they want to believe so long as they’re not inflicting it on others.
“I think if the ACLU genuinely wants to prevent people from being subjected to religion (by religion I mean Christianity because saying Islam would be racist) by coming up with a guide to what they find acceptable.”
I don’t care what they want nor do I care what they find acceptable!
“I think ( there ya go lieing again!) the answer is simply none when you’re talking about the government. There is no acceptable amount, because there is no _fair_ mix of religion, government, and politics (unless it’s your personal beliefs). Religion and government end up making such a mess of each other, it’s honestly better to have the two separate.”
This Country wasn’t founded on a ‘fair_mix of religion, it was founded on CHRISTIANITY. You can deny it all ya want. Facts are facts and truth is truth, nothing you can do about it!
If you don’t do everything you can to keep the two separate, you may find yourself being prosecuted for something that the religious police (yes, literally the religious police – they have them in Iran and Saudi Arabia) discern to be illegal.
Horse pucky!
“I prefer non-religious democracy where people can believe what they want to believe so long as they’re not inflicting it on others.”
Thats Socialism stupid! Move to Europe, theres a whole Continent of people like that over there!
“Thats Socialism stupid!”
Take a look at our Cuban neighbors to the south — it looks a lot more like what you’re advocating, except that it comes with a crucifix and not a hammer and sickle.
“Horse pucky!”
Famous last words.
“This Country wasn’t founded on a ‘fair_mix of religion, it was founded on CHRISTIANITY.”
If it’s so unbelievably clear that religion should be entertwined with the state, than why is it that even your beloved conservative judges and legislators strike down religion and gov’t? It’s because a theocracy is not what the founders intended. That much is totally obvious.
Loboinok –
The issue of religion in schools would have been settled long ago if our founders had been a little more clear in the Constitution as to what they meant by, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
See, if you take the literal meaning, you know, like supposed strict constructionists say we should, then refraining from, “an establishment of religion,” can be read as Congress shall not make a law that establishes religion. Period. Not a religion but religion at all. Surely you can see how one would come to that conclusion from a strict reading of the words on the page?
I’ll make my point clearer. Imagine if the First Amendment said, “an establishment of car racing.” That would mean, Congress could not pass laws that recognized the existence of Nascar but it could not prohibit the creation of it nor the races. Clearer?
Obviously you don’t agree with this view so you’re arguing that tradition ought to be the arbiter of the issue. The problem here is that the recognition of tradition is fluid. On some matters we may recognize it, on others we simply say, “how quaint,” and do what we want. The point is that tradition is not the best method for deciding what is right or wrong or even appropriate. Tradition is far too subjective to use as a standard for interpreting the Constitution.
And as to your definition of socialism as the separation of church and state I’ll take a line out of your playbook: horse pucky!
In 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared, “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” The “separation of church and state” phrase which they invoked, and which has today become so familiar, was taken from an exchange of letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, shortly after Jefferson became President.
The election of Jefferson-America’s first Anti-Federalist President-elated many Baptists since that denomination, by-and-large, was also strongly Anti-Federalist. This political disposition of the Baptists was understandable, for from the early settlement of Rhode Island in the 1630s to the time of the federal Constitution in the 1780s, the Baptists had often found themselves suffering from the centralization of power.
Consequently, now having a President who not only had championed the rights of Baptists in Virginia but who also had advocated clear limits on the centralization of government powers, the Danbury Baptists wrote Jefferson a letter of praise on October 7, 1801, telling him:
Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office, we embrace the first opportunity . . . to express our great satisfaction in your appointment to the Chief Magistracy in the United States. . . . [W]e 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 the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you. . . . 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.1
However, in that same letter of congratulations, the Baptists also expressed 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. . . . [T]herefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. 2
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. In fact, he made numerous declarations about the constitutional inability of the federal government to regulate, restrict, or interfere with religious expression. For example:
[N]o power over the freedom of religion . . . [is] delegated to the United States by the Constitution.Kentucky Resolution, 1798 3
In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government. Second Inaugural Address, 1805 4
[O]ur excellent Constitution . . . has not placed our religious rights under the power of any public functionary. Letter to the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1808 5
I consider the government of the United States as interdicted [prohibited] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions . . . or exercises. Letter to Samuel Millar, 1808 6
continued…
Jefferson believed that the government was to be powerless to interfere with religious expressions for a very simple reason: he had long witnessed the unhealthy tendency of government to encroach upon the free exercise of religion. As he explained to Noah Webster:
It had become an universal and almost uncontroverted position in the several States that the purposes of society do not require a surrender of all our rights to our ordinary governors . . . and which experience has nevertheless proved they [the government] will be constantly encroaching on if submitted to them; that there are also certain fences which experience has proved peculiarly efficacious [effective] against wrong and rarely obstructive of right, which yet the governing powers have ever shown a disposition to weaken and remove. Of the first kind, for instance, is freedom of religion. 7
Thomas Jefferson had no intention of allowing the government to limit, restrict, regulate, or interfere with public religious practices. He believed, along with the other Founders, that the First Amendment had been enacted only to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination-a fact he made clear in a letter to fellow-signer of the Declaration of Independence Benjamin Rush:
[T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly. 8
Jefferson had committed himself as President to pursuing the purpose of the First Amendment: preventing the “establishment of a particular form of Christianity” by the Episcopalians, Congregationalists, or any other denomination.
Since this was Jefferson’s view concerning religious expression, in his short and polite reply to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802, he assured them that they need not fear; that the free exercise of religion would never be interfered with by the federal government. As he explained:
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. . . . 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. 9
Jefferson believed that the government was to be powerless to interfere with religious expressions for a very simple reason: he had long witnessed the unhealthy tendency of government to encroach upon the free exercise of religion. As he explained to Noah Webster:
It had become an universal and almost uncontroverted position in the several States that the purposes of society do not require a surrender of all our rights to our ordinary governors . . . and which experience has nevertheless proved they [the government] will be constantly encroaching on if submitted to them; that there are also certain fences which experience has proved peculiarly efficacious [effective] against wrong and rarely obstructive of right, which yet the governing powers have ever shown a disposition to weaken and remove. Of the first kind, for instance, is freedom of religion. 7
Thomas Jefferson had no intention of allowing the government to limit, restrict, regulate, or interfere with public religious practices. He believed, along with the other Founders, that the First Amendment had been enacted only to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination-a fact he made clear in a letter to fellow-signer of the Declaration of Independence Benjamin Rush:
[T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly. 8
Jefferson had committed himself as President to pursuing the purpose of the First Amendment: preventing the “establishment of a particular form of Christianity” by the Episcopalians, Congregationalists, or any other denomination.
Since this was Jefferson’s view concerning religious expression, in his short and polite reply to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802, he assured them that they need not fear; that the free exercise of religion would never be interfered with by the federal government. As he explained:
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. . . . 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. 9
Jefferson believed that the government was to be powerless to interfere with religious expressions for a very simple reason: he had long witnessed the unhealthy tendency of government to encroach upon the free exercise of religion. As he explained to Noah Webster:
It had become an universal and almost uncontroverted position in the several States that the purposes of society do not require a surrender of all our rights to our ordinary governors . . . and which experience has nevertheless proved they [the government] will be constantly encroaching on if submitted to them; that there are also certain fences which experience has proved peculiarly efficacious [effective] against wrong and rarely obstructive of right, which yet the governing powers have ever shown a disposition to weaken and remove. Of the first kind, for instance, is freedom of religion. 7
Thomas Jefferson had no intention of allowing the government to limit, restrict, regulate, or interfere with public religious practices. He believed, along with the other Founders, that the First Amendment had been enacted only to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination-a fact he made clear in a letter to fellow-signer of the Declaration of Independence Benjamin Rush:
[T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly. 8
Jefferson had committed himself as President to pursuing the purpose of the First Amendment: preventing the “establishment of a particular form of Christianity” by the Episcopalians, Congregationalists, or any other denomination.
Since this was Jefferson’s view concerning religious expression, in his short and polite reply to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802, he assured them that they need not fear; that the free exercise of religion would never be interfered with by the federal government. As he explained:
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. . . . 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.
I’ll finish when ‘comments’ is fixed!
Jefferson believed that the government was to be powerless to interfere with religious expressions for a very simple reason: he had long witnessed the unhealthy tendency of government to encroach upon the free exercise of religion. As he explained to Noah Webster:
It had become an universal and almost uncontroverted position in the several States that the purposes of society do not require a surrender of all our rights to our ordinary governors . . . and which experience has nevertheless proved they [the government] will be constantly encroaching on if submitted to them; that there are also certain fences which experience has proved peculiarly efficacious [effective] against wrong and rarely obstructive of right, which yet the governing powers have ever shown a disposition to weaken and remove. Of the first kind, for instance, is freedom of religion. 7
Thomas Jefferson had no intention of allowing the government to limit, restrict, regulate, or interfere with public religious practices. He believed, along with the other Founders, that the First Amendment had been enacted only to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination-a fact he made clear in a letter to fellow-signer of the Declaration of Independence Benjamin Rush:
[T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly. 8
Jefferson had committed himself as President to pursuing the purpose of the First Amendment: preventing the “establishment of a particular form of Christianity” by the Episcopalians, Congregationalists, or any other denomination.
Since this was Jefferson’s view concerning religious expression, in his short and polite reply to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802, he assured them that they need not fear; that the free exercise of religion would never be interfered with by the federal government. As he explained:
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. . . . 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.
Jefferson’s reference to “natural rights” invoked an important legal phrase which was part of the rhetoric of that day and which reaffirmed his belief that religious liberties were inalienable rights. While the phrase “natural rights” communicated much to people then, to most citizens today those words mean little.
By definition, “natural rights” included “that which the Books of the Law and the Gospel do contain.” 10 That is, “natural rights” incorporated what God Himself had guaranteed to man in the Scriptures. Thus, when Jefferson assured the Baptists that by following their “natural rights” they would violate no social duty, he was affirming to them that the free exercise of religion was their inalienable God-given right and therefore was protected from federal regulation or interference.
So clearly did Jefferson understand the Source of America’s inalienable rights that he even doubted whether America could survive if we ever lost that knowledge. He queried:
And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? 11
Jefferson believed that God, not government, was the Author and Source of our rights and that the government, therefore, was to be prevented from interference with those rights. Very simply, the “fence” of the Webster letter and the “wall” of the Danbury letter were not to limit religious activities in public; rather they were to limit the power of the government to prohibit or interfere with those expressions.
Earlier courts long understood Jefferson’s intent. In fact, when Jefferson’s letter was invoked by the Supreme Court (only once prior to the 1947 Everson case-the Reynolds v. United States case in 1878), unlike today’s Courts which publish only his eight-word separation phrase, that earlier Court published Jefferson’s entire letter and then concluded:
Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it [Jefferson’s letter] may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the Amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere [religious] opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order. (emphasis added) 12
That Court then succinctly summarized Jefferson’s intent for “separation of church and state”:
[T]he rightful purposes of civil government are for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order. In th[is] . . . is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State. 13
With this even the Baptists had agreed; for while wanting to see the government prohibited from interfering with or limiting religious activities, they also had declared it a legitimate function of government “to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor.”
That Court, therefore, and others (for example, Commonwealth v. Nesbit and Lindenmuller v. The People ), identified actions into which-if perpetrated in the name of religion-the government did have legitimate reason to intrude. Those activities included human sacrifice, polygamy, bigamy, concubinage, incest, infanticide, parricide, advocation and promotion of immorality, etc.
Such acts, even if perpetrated in the name of religion, would be stopped by the government since, as the Court had explained, they were “subversive of good order” and were “overt acts against peace.” However, the government was never to interfere with traditional religious practices outlined in “the Books of the Law and the Gospel”-whether public prayer, the use of the Scriptures, public acknowledgements of God, etc.
Therefore, if Jefferson’s letter is to be used today, let its context be clearly given-as in previous years. Furthermore, earlier Courts had always viewed Jefferson’s Danbury letter for just what it was: a personal, private letter to a specific group. There is probably no other instance in America’s history where words spoken by a single individual in a private letter-words clearly divorced from their context-have become the sole authorization for a national policy. Finally, Jefferson’s Danbury letter should never be invoked as a stand-alone document. A proper analysis of Jefferson’s views must include his numerous other statements on the First Amendment.
For example, in addition to his other statements previously noted, Jefferson also declared that the “power to prescribe any religious exercise. . . . must rest with the States” (emphasis added). Nevertheless, the federal courts ignore this succinct declaration and choose rather to misuse his separation phrase to strike down scores of State laws which encourage or facilitate public religious expressions. Such rulings against State laws are a direct violation of the words and intent of the very one from whom the courts claim to derive their policy.
One further note should be made about the now infamous “separation” dogma. The Congressional Records from June 7 to September 25, 1789, record the months of discussions and debates of the ninety Founding Fathers who framed the First Amendment. Significantly, not only was Thomas Jefferson not one of those ninety who framed the First Amendment, but also, during those debates not one of those ninety Framers ever mentioned the phrase “separation of church and state.” It seems logical that if this had been the intent for the First Amendment-as is so frequently asserted-then at least one of those ninety who framed the Amendment would have mentioned that phrase; none did.
In summary, the “separation” phrase so frequently invoked today was rarely mentioned by any of the Founders; and even Jefferson’s explanation of his phrase is diametrically opposed to the manner in which courts apply it today. “Separation of church and state” currently means almost exactly the opposite of what it originally meant.
“Thomas Jefferson had no intention of allowing the government to limit, restrict, regulate, or interfere with public religious practices. He believed, along with the other Founders, that the First Amendment had been enacted only to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination”
Great, no one is advocating any restriction of that. It’s the state administration of religion we’re arguing here. Simply put: government officials can’t engage in religious practices as a part of the public capacity of their jobs, nor can public property be used for any purpose other than to truly memorialize that tradition (or we suffer the risk of the state sponsoring a particular denomination).
Anyway, which 10 commandments do you put up? Christians can’t even agree which ten commandments are the right ten . . . so that would mean that the governement was involving itself in the affairs of religion and its practices (in sanctioning a particular version of the ten commandments). It’s such an incredibly slippery slope, that we’d be wise as a country to stay off of it as much as possible.
“It’s the state administration of religion we’re arguing here.”
You are trying to tie the ‘States’ in with the federal government.
The Constitutional prohibitions concerning the federal government, does NOT appy to the States.
“…that the First Amendment had been enacted only to prevent the FEDERAL establishment of a national denomination”
Loboinok –
Actually they do apply because of the supremacy clause in Article VI where it says the States must adhere to the U.S. Constitution as well as any law passed by the Federal government that is rightfully within its power to pass. After Marbury v. Madison, such supremacy also applied to Supreme Court case law since it is the final word on what the Constitution says.
David Barton’s essay on Jefferson (yes, I’m familiar with it) is interesting yet follows a pattern of contradiction often displayed by arguments in favor of religion in government.
That argument implies that public expressions of religion are impossible without a government forum. In other words, if we remove prayer from high-school football games, it will spell the end of religion in our society. If our students cannot pray at school then they must not be able to make public expressions of religion at all.
What I also find questionable in Mr. Barton’s essay is that he quotes the Danbury Baptists, “that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals,” and yet he comes to the conclusion that it is perfectly acceptable to use government authority to make a public expression between God and the group.
I find Mr. Barton’s reasoning often contradictory, occassionally circular, and wholly flawed.
Mark S. …
I have yet to find a flaw in anything presented by David Barton in his area of expertise.
His bio and background as evidenced in the following affidavit is easily searchable on the net…Upon being duly sworn by the undersigned officer empowered to administer and attest to oaths, the Affiant, David Barton, testifies as follows:
1. I am a recognized authority in American history, particularly concerning the Colonial, Revolutionary, and Federal Eras.
2. I personally own a vast collection of thousands of documents of American history predating 1812, including handwritten works of the signers of the Declaration and the Constitution.
3. As a result of my expertise, I work as a consultant to national history textbook publishers and have been appointed by the State Boards of Education in States such as California and Texas to help write the American history and government standards for students in those States. Additionally, I consult with Governors and State Boards of Education in several other States and have testified in numerous State Legislatures on American history.
4. I am the recipient of several national and international awards, including the George Washington Honor Medal, the Daughters of the American Revolution Medal of Honor, Who’s Who in America (1997, 1999), Who’s Who in the World (1996, 1999), Who’s Who in American Education (1996, 1997), International Who’s Who of Professionals (1996), Two Thousand Notable American Men Hall of Fame (1995), Who’s Who in the South and Southwest (1995, 1999), Who’s Who Among Outstanding Americans (1994), Outstanding Young Men in America (1990), and numerous other awards.
5. I have also written and published numbers of books and articles on American history and its related issues. (Original Intent, 1996; Bulletproof George Washington, 1990; Ethics: An Early American Handbook, 1999; Lives of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence, 1995, and many others).
6. I offer the following opinion regarding whether the Ten Commandments are a historical document in America’s civil and judicial history based upon my expertise and study in the areas of American history and the forces and ideas that formed the basis for our system of laws and government.
Obviously you are an educated man but I don’t know you from Adam. So I’m sure you will pardon me for not lending any credence to your criticism.
Maybe you would favor us with a little background of yourself.
My background is no where near as impressive as Mr. Barton’s. However, if my arguments cannot stand on their own then my resume, whatever it contains, wouldn’t be worth much.
Good blog