Christians Sue for Right To Be Intolerant
Posted on April 10, 2006
This news came from: LA Times, and all apologies. I’m not sure of the details, but I have been informed that their was a number of errors in this article. I’m deleting the post until I can I can further research the facts.
I got this email:
Dear Editor:
You currently have on your website a story titled, “Christians Sue for Right
not to Tolerate Policies,” first published in the Los Angeles Times on
Monday, April 10, 2006. This article contained numerous factual errors,
misquotes, and misrepresentations. Please find attached a letter demanding
a retraction from Gregory S. Baylor, Director of the Center for Law and
Religious Freedom to Stephanie Simon, the author of this article. We
request that you immediately post this letter on your website and/or remove
the LA Times article from your website.Thank you for your urgent attention to this matter.
The attachment is as follows:
Dear Ms. Simon: After spending some time with you discussing the work of the Christian Legal Society in defense of religious freedom, I was surprised by the misquotes, misrepresentations and simple factual errors in your article. It is readily apparent that you approached this article with a firmexpectation of who CLS is and who I am that was simply not going to be shaken by the actual facts. This is disappointing. By this letter, I demand that you immediately issue a retraction in both the print and on-line versions of the Los Angeles Times correcting these errors. First, you refer throughout the article to “tolerance” policies, a term that I’ve never encountered. You have apparently used this invented term to lump together very different policies that prohibit harassment on the basis of sexual orientation and those that require nondiscrimination in employment, membership and officer positions on the basis of sexual orientation. You then claim that the Christian Legal Society “has formed a national group to challenge tolerance policies in federal court.” Thus, you have attributed to CLS an agenda to defend and claim a right to harass persons on the basis of their sexual orientation. CLS is a Christian ministry. We believe that every individual is created in the image of a loving God. Wedo not advocate or defend harassment of anyone. Indeed, homosexuals are encouraged and welcome to attend Christian Legal Society meetings and other events. CLS, through its legal advocacy division, The Center for Law & Religious Freedom, is challenging very different laws that require religious nonprofit organizations, including churches, to sacrifice their constitutional right to staff according to shared faith commitments in order to participate in programs by which state employees voluntarily authorize payroll deductions for their chosen charities. In Wisconsin and other states, for example, the law would require even churches to foreswear their right to hire Christians as pastors in order to participate. It is unfortunate that you have conflated this challenge with advocacy of a right to be “intolerant” to or to “harass” homosexuals. Center for Law & Religious Freedom 8001 Braddock Road, Ste 300 Springfield, VA 22151 (703) 642-1070 fax (703) 642-1075 clrf@clsnet.orgwww.clsnet.org
——————————————————————————–
Page 2
Second, you claimed that I “[drew] a distinction that infuriates gay rights activists when [I] argue[] that sexual orientation is different – a lifestyle choice, not an inborn trait.” In mydiscussions with you I drew no such distinction. I stake no position as to whether same-sex sexual attraction is a product of genes, choice, environment, or some combination thereof. I didstate that there is a difference between (a) requiring that certain employees, members, officers, etc. of a religious nonprofit organization refrain from engaging in extramarital sexual conduct (which would include homosexual conduct), and (b) discriminating against someone because of their race or gender. In my view, the morality of homosexual conduct and the legitimacy of a religious group’s consideration of that conduct does not depend upon the cause of same-sex sexual attraction. Third, you state that I “predict[ed] the government will one day revoke the tax-exempt status of churches that preach homosexuality is sinful or that refuse to hire gays and lesbians.” I did not say this. I said that government might one day revoke the tax-exempt status of churches that take sexual conduct into account in their hiring decisions. Your attention to this urgent matter is greatly appreciated. Please contact me by the close of business today to confirm that you will make the referenced retractions. Thank you. Sincerely,Gregory S. Baylor
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, ACLU, Homosexual Agenda, News
Trackback URL
Comments
25 Responses to “Christians Sue for Right To Be Intolerant”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
We seem to come to this a lot. This isn’t about expressing religious beliefs, it never is. It’s about expressing religious beliefs while occupying an official role where advocation of religious belief is inappropriate.
Trying to compare a police to stop a teacher from wearing an anti-gay T-shirt to school and being forced to be Christian only at church is ridiculous. Once again, it’s brought up that the ACLU thinks the KKK and Nazi’s should be able to spew hate, and it’s true. Just let a teacher try to wear a white hood into a classroom, or a swastika into the legislature and see if they’re still defended. Of course not. It’s inappropriate to express those positions of advocation from an official, secular role.
I’m not pretending that tolerance doesn’t cross the line into advocacy itself from time to time, which it shouldn’t. But they aren’t the same thing. Telling a bunch of kids that there are different people who believe different things and that it doesn’t necessarily make them bad, just different is a whole lot different then suggesting everyone go out and sodomize the nearest person.
Cue argument about separation of church and state. Have we done this before?
Colleges and Universities (aka Indoctrination Centers of Amerika) have long prided themselves in being bastions of free speech hence the civil rights marches and anti war protests of the 1960s and early 70s. But it seems today that they all have adopted policies in which speech is suppressed in the name of tolerance. Seems to me that their hypocrisy is exposed.
This has nothing to do with Separation of Church and State which in itself is an inflated idea which has no basis in the Constitution. It comes from a letter sent to a religious group who were concerned that their abilties to worship as they please would be over-shadowed by a national dictate from the government. This term was never meant to find its way into the legal system of the nation.
That being said, even if it were in the Constitution, I distinctly recall a couple of provisions in the 1st Amendment.
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.
Liberal America has long since applied the restrictions on the states regarding the establishment clause (which is also much misunderstood itself), so why can’t the same apply to the rest of the Amendment?
Jimmy, Ruth Malhotra is a senior at GIT, not a teacher. But even if she were a teacher, do you honestly think that Liberal professors withhold their political viewpoints in the classroom? Do you really think Atheist teachers refrain from voicing their beliefs in University settings?
Jimmy, “Cue argument about separation of church and state. Have we done this before?” There is no argument. It does not exist. It’s only in the minds of liberal politicians who have brainwashed a small percentage of the country. In reading the first amendment, “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,” the second part dealing the free excercise thereof, is not limiting government. It includes it.
Danny,
Whoopsy-doodle. I can’t say I agree with abridgement of free-speech where a student is involved. That’s what I get for skimming. I DO stand by my statement that claims by Christians that they’re forced to hide their religions anywhere but in church are ridiculous, though. More and more republicans are using this manufactured war on Christians to make political book and whip the fundamentalists in their base into a froth so they’ll go out and vote. A smart, but gross tactic.
“Do you really think Atheist teachers refrain from voicing their beliefs in University setings?”
I can tell you that I got all the way through Grade School, High School and University without a knowing a single teacher’s religion or sexual alignment, so clearly it’s not only possible but massively common.
Gribbit,
I don’t have the energy to whip out my separation of church and state elitist conspiracy talking points card, but I will leave you with this rather juicy bit of logical inconsistency: plenty of Christian groups are willing to marry homosexuals fully recognized by their Christian God. The US government making it unconstitutional for gays to marry expressly prohibits the free exercise of that interpretation of Christianity. It’s a perfect example of why the government shouldn’t go around basing policy on an interpretation of a religion. There’s enough conflict between secular, social laws and religious freedom as there is. Trying to integrate laws based on an official religion with other religions is going to be impossible. So there you go, even if legal scholars throughout the ages are wrong and the separation of church and state isn’t implied in the Constitution, it’s logically required for the Constitution to even work.
For examples of religiously based laws not integrating well with other religions, see: Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and well, pretty much the whole middle east.
And I know I’ve wandered off topic. Sorry about that.
Jimmy said, “I can tell you that I got all the way through Grade School, High School and University without a knowing a single teacher’s religion or sexual alignment, so clearly it’s not only possible but massively common.”
I’m not sure how young you are, or where you are from, but it is more common than you think…especially in universities that athiests not only profess their beliefs to students as professors, but even incorporate it into their lessons. There are even cases where dissent from their elitist views have recieved lower scores in research projects. If I have to, I will research and reference some of these cases.
Regardless, its not only possible but highly common that athiest professors are pushing their beliefs.
Without arguing the point of the Christians, what is it about FREE SPEECH that the ACLU doesn’t understand?
I am not a member of any of those Christian groups. My religion teaches that sex is a sacrament of the covenant of marriage. And that the purpose of sex is procreative and bonding to the married couple.
Marriage is a religious vocation which has the responsibility of evangilization. Spreading the word of GOD to their children. Homosexuals cannot have children with each other it is biologically impossible. This is by design.
Saint Paul in his letter to the Romans instructed us that those who engage in unnatural sex would receive the punishment of GOD.
Romans 1:26-27
Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.
So those religions which marry homosexuals are not following the word of GOD are they?
GM Roper,
I’m not sure what you’re referring to here, exactly. The only comment from the ACLU here is criticising the “Religion is under attack in this country.” rhetoric as being a fund-raising ploy. The ACLU’s involvement in this case seems to be minimal to nonexistent, except the absence of their representation of Malhotra.
Gribbit,
Heh, well, you’re not going to like this response but: You seem to care none at all about freedom of religion and care a great deal about the freedom of your one religious belief. Separation of church and state or not, that’s exactly what the 1st amendment is in there to stop from happening. It isn’t there to defend Gribbit’s religion, it’s there to defend all religions which includes other takes on Christianity.
My point was that I have the right to profess my beliefs in public and so does that student who is suing in this case. She obviously believes as I do and she has the right under the 1st Amendment to express that belief.
We are tired of the left shoving this PC crap down our throats and forcing us to take it. If we believe it is wrong we have the right to express that. And this school shouldn’t have any ability to interfere with that right. If I’m not mistaken, it is a state school. And if I’m not mistaken, it is the ACLU and looney left’s belief that the 14th Amendment forces the provisions of the Bill of Rights onto State governments.
Time to put up or shut up. You can’t have it both ways.
Humph. If a particular group is weak enough to warrant them getting special protection, I say let them get Darwin’d.
/Y’all caught me on a bad day.
Jimmy: “I’m not sure what you’re referring to here, exactly. The only comment from the ACLU here is criticising the “Religion is under attack in this country.” rhetoric as being a fund-raising ploy. The ACLU’s involvement in this case seems to be minimal to nonexistent, except the absence of their representation of Malhotra.”
Jimmy, that is precisely my point. Do the Christians (of which I am one, though I am not one that believes homosexuality is a choice except perhaps in very, very limited cases) have a right to express their beliefs in the marketplace of ideas? I hold that they do; I further hold that if someone is offended, tough, there is nothing in the Constitution (the supposedly sole basis for any action by the ACLU) that says it is against the rules to be offended. It does say that the right to free speech shall not be abriged. You say that there is no “war against Christians, but look at the history. I noted in a very old post regarding removal of the Spanish Missions from Seal of The City Of Los Angles yet, they left the Roman Goddess Pomona on the seal. Why? What does that suggest? Are they perhaps too stupid to know what each of the symbols stand for including the Missions? Not Christianity, but the establishment of the Spanish in that area of California via building Missions, part of the historical movement beginning with the re-conquest of Andalusia by the Spanish and kicking the Moors out of Spain. The use of religious symbols in historical context has long been allowed (See the USSC decision regarding the 10 Commandments on the grounds of the Texas State Capital).
Free speech, if it is to mean anything means that it must be free to all. If the ACLU backs free speech for some (Nazi’s marching in Ill., KKK marchers etc) then it must back it for all or the backing has no meaning at all and is an exercise in selective inforcement - which looks strongly like an inforcement against the free speech rights of fundamentalist Christians. Would you not agree?
It IS there to protect Gribbit’s religion too. How can you say it isn’t if you say it protects all religion?
What we are tired of are the thought police.
Gribbit,
“My point was that I have the right to profess my beliefs in public and so does that student who is suing in this case. She obviously believes as I do and she has the right under the 1st Amendment to express that belief.”
Once my mistake about the disposition of the student was pointed out, which I’ll happily admit to, I agree whole-heartedly with your statement here. I wasn’t arguing that. I was arguing that regardless of implication of separation of church and state in the Constitution, that logically the 1st amendment cannot possibly be satisfied without such a separation. That’s the point I think you were trying to refute with your bible quotations. And by the way, I still stand behind my assertion 100%.
Sheldon,
I sure hope that’s sarcasm otherwise the mentally handicapped, physically handicapped, child labourers, generations worth of blacks, citizens of totalitarian regimes, women in the middle east and countless other “weak” groups would have something to say about that idea.
Roper,
“Do the Christians (of which I am one, though I am not one that believes homosexuality is a choice except perhaps in very, very limited cases) have a right to express their beliefs in the marketplace of ideas?”
Absolutely. The apparent argument to to contrary I made in this thread was a mistake, which I’m said multiple times. I mistakenly believed she was a teacher because I committed the sin of only skimming before commenting.
As to the selective pursuit of cases I would agree completely, except that the ACLU has taken on Christian cases, and specifically Christian rights on campus in the past. If the rejection of Christian rights cases were systemic I’d be forced to agree with you, but it isn’t. I honestly think that a) they are biased pro-gay rights (I’ll admit it) and b) there are realities of workload/manpower. They can’t possibly get involved in every constitutionally charged every case in existence.
Of course they can’t, only the ones they agree with, that furthers their liberal agenda.
My quotation of the Bible was to illustrate her point of view. Some of us are taught that engaging in homosexual activity is a mortal sin as described by Saint Paul in his letter to the Romans 1:26-27.
This thread is about a struggle for a young lady to assert her rights of free speech on campus. She doesn’t believe that all the pro-gay agenda crap that goes on at her school is morally right. And she is attempting to exercise her rights of free speech to make her beliefs known.
Can’t say this story surprises me, I had a similar run-in at my college freshman orientation. They blathered to us for hours on respect, tolerance, etc. Then gave us a lecture on why Mitt Romney and Republicans are stealing condoms…or maybe it was Christmas…I can’t remember which to be honest.
Jimmy wrote:
“We seem to come to this a lot. This isn’t about expressing religious beliefs, it never is. It’s about expressing religious beliefs while occupying an official role where advocation of religious belief is inappropriate.”
The U.S. Constitution wrote:
“but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address stated:
“And may that Infinite Power which rules the destinies of the universe lead our councils to what is best, and give them a favorable issue for your peace and prosperity. “
I guess Jimmy regards his word as the high law of the land.
“but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
Is obviously up for interpretation because that instantly means to me that no member of office or public trust need subscribe to any specific religious belief in order to serve. A quick google shows that overwhelmingly (in fact, exclusively from my limited check) that is the standard interpretation, and this clause is even used on a regular basis to strengthen arguments for the separation of church and state. It speaks to the depth to which the framers intended that religion and politics stay disentangled.
I’m really not sure what you were trying to do with that quote except help my argument.
As for the Jefferson quote, it’s neither constitution nor policy, it’s a speech. Speeches, either rightly or wrongly contain references to God blessing things every day. I’ll agree that could be considered an empirical example of support of for religion guiding state, but not only is that a stretch, it’s also as a quote painstakingly careful to be spiritual, but religiously neutral. I suppose quotes like that will forever go down in history as fodder on the “pro-religion in government” side of the ledger.
“I guess Jimmy regards his word as the high law of the land.”
If only, plebe. Wait until you see the uniforms I start making women wear.
T-Jeff is the closest thing we’ve ever had to an atheist president, which scores him beaucoup de points with me. I would call him my personal hero if not for the slavery thing. He’s responsible for some of the best parts of the Constitution, and he wasn’t even around when they wrote the thing!
“T-Jeff is the closest thing we’ve ever had to an atheist president,”
Jefferson attended church at the Capitol while he was Vice President [5] and also throughout his presidency. The first Capitol church service that Jefferson attended as President was a service preached by Jefferson’s friend, the Rev. John Leland, on January 3, 1802. [6] Significantly, Jefferson attended that Capitol church service just two days after he penned his famous letter containing the “wall of separation between church and state” metaphor.
U. S. Rep. Manasseh Cutler, who also attended church at the Capitol, recorded in his own diary that “He [Jefferson] and his family have constantly attended public worship in the Hall.” [7] Mary Bayard Smith, another attendee at the Capitol services, confirmed: “Mr. Jefferson, during his whole administration, was a most regular attendant.” [8] She noted that Jefferson even had a designated seat at the Capitol church: “The seat he chose the first Sabbath, and the adjoining one (which his private secretary occupied), were ever afterwards by the courtesy of the congregation, left for him and his secretary.” [9] Jefferson was so committed to those services that he would not even allow inclement weather to dissuade him; as Rep. Cutler noted: “It was very rainy, but his [Jefferson’s] ardent zeal brought him through the rain and on horseback to the Hall.” [10] Other diary entries confirm Jefferson’s attendance in spite of bad weather. [11]
NOTES
[5] Bishop Claggett’s (Episcopal Bishop of Maryland) letter of February 18, 1801, reveals that, as vice- President, Jefferson went to church services in the House. Available in the Maryland Diocesan Archives.
[6] William Parker Cutler and Julia Perkins Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence of Rev. Manasseh Cutler (Cincinnati: Colin Robert Clarke & Co., 1888), Vol. II, p. 66, 119, letter to Joseph Torrey, January 4, 1802. Cutler meant that Jefferson attended church on January 3, 1802, for the first time as President. Bishop Claggett’s letter of February 18, 1801, already revealed that as Vice-President, Jefferson went to church services in the House.
[7] Cutler and Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence, Vol. II, p. 119, in a letter to Dr. Joseph Torrey on January 3, 1803; see also his entry of December 12, 1802 (Vol. II, p. 113).
[8] Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 13.
[9] Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 13.
[10] Cutler and Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence, Vol. II, p. 119, in a letter to Dr. Joseph Torrey on January 3, 1803; see also his entry of December 26, 1802 (Vol. II, p. 114).
[11] Cutler and Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence, Vol. II, p. 114, December 26, 1802.
Thomas Jefferson
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.
11. Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (Philadelphia: Matthew Carey, 1794), Query XVIII, p. 237.
The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of mankind.
(Source: Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1904), Vol. XV, p. 383.)
I concur with the author in considering the moral precepts of Jesus as more pure, correct, and sublime than those of ancient philosophers.
(Source: Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1904), Vol. X, pp. 376-377. In a letter to Edward Dowse on April 19, 1803.)
I wouldn’t describe him as pious or devout but I certainly wouldn’t describe him as “the closest thing to an atheist president”.
While attending Church does not make one a Christian, Thomas Jefferson was most certainly nowhere close to being athiest. Wishful thinking and revisionism at its best by the left.
I think that personally I’m going to let this horse die, but I would really like to bring up a couple last things. I have no idea why anyone discusses the religions of the founding fathers. I can’t see how that could mean less. Just like the Catholic Church says evolution belongs in school, not Intelligent Design, some of the biggest supporters of strong separation between church and state in the 18th century were evangelicals who felt repressed by other more dominate sects of Christian belief. All the way back to Jefferson’s presidency conservative religious figures had said that a vote for him was a vote against god, and that he was the leader of a war on religion in America. Sound familiar? I can understand that religious people feel threatened when their beliefs are challenged by proxy by people like me who want the government to govern man, and god to govern man’s soul; but they should really realize that the government is a tool for order, not a tool for salvation.
The only way we can all hold our separate beliefs and live together peacefully is to agree to disagree about religion and not meddle in each-other’s affairs with god. Even the staunchest supporters of religion in government here must be able to see logic in that, assuming they can even admit other religions have the right to exist. The official indoctrination of a single religion into government puts us onto the road to becoming Afghanistan, ready to hang non-believers just for not believing something else. It may be a long road, but why even start walking it?
http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm
Jeff was a deist. It’s straight-up half-assed pseudo-religion.
“It’s straight-up half-assed pseudo-religion.”
Pseudo is an apt description for what you consider accurate source material.
Walker… The complete statement reads as follows:
“The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: & enough too in their opinion, & this is the cause of their printing lying pamphlets against me. . .”
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:
The correct statement…
[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’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.
8. Jefferson, Writings, Vol. III, p. 441, to Benjamin Rush on September 23, 1800.
9. Jefferson, Writings, Vol. XVI, pp. 281-282, to the Danbury Baptist Association on January 1, 1802.
10. Richard Hooker, The Works of Richard Hooker (Oxford: University Press, 1845), Vol. I, p. 207.
Now given the last two paragraphs and Jefferson’s understanding and affirmation of “inalienable God-given rights”, how can his views be considered part of a secular political philosophy?
Walker was correct in stating, Jefferson had a complex view of religion.