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
Get a FREE Copy of "The Essential Federalist Papers
What Jefferson called the greatest commentary on Government ever written, organized by topic!
Jefferson’s view was that the Establishment Clause meant that Congress couldn’t establish religion and it couldn’t disestablish the states’ churches. Everyone knew this — which is why no one thought that Massachusetts’ establishment, maintained until 1833, was unconstitutional.
I believe it was so one denomination couldnt take control
All of the Framers knew what they meant: that religious devotion and scriptural guidance are so important for the citizens of a free country that government must allow the free exercise thereof, without governmental meddling or management of it.
They believed that religion is critical, and the freedom to choose your denomination is equally critical.
Both. There is place for religion but only based in the principals of those governing. Basing policy on religion cannot serve the best interests off all in a true republic.
Wow has this letter become one of the biggest problems this country has ever faced.
They have turned this “suggestion” into the “Seperation Of Church & State” lie & it has cost us.
Jefferson clearly wanted to keep the State out of Churches so they would not be taxed but unfortunately, people believe this is an actual law that means there is a seperation everywhere when there is not.
Yes, I believe CHRISTIANITY was, is & always should be the foundation of Government in America.
What about the people who are not Christian? The majority of people that came to America during colonial times came because of religious persecution from England. Even though England renounced religious persecution in 1689, the public continued to persecute people of a differing religious background than themselves. The Founding Fathers had seen what a country was like when people were being discriminated against for their religion, and they did not want that to happen in the new country that they were forming the laws of, but you cannot tell the government to stay out of religion and then let religion have a say in what happens in the government. Especially not one individual religion, because that is only a portion of the people in America, not all, or even a majority. It’s not that the government should be against religion, but neutral, so that all people have equal opportunity.
Keeping the state out of the church- one of the reasons people came here was religious freedom.
Primarily to keep the State out of the Church.
The only thing Government should do is protect the rights of those who worship from the persecutors of faith. The Government should also protect the rights of those that want nothing to do with the religious.
Absolutely both. Don is right
Remember, the religious persecution in Europe was a key driver of folks coming to the new land. This country was founded on the principals of both freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion; The latter being the reason for the former.
… A nation must serve all of the people as a plurality of beliefs, and govern from a basis of science and logical reason in order to meet the needs of a diverse people of all faiths and ways of life. The moment laws are passed which endorse one specific religious/spiritual framework to the exclusion of others, those taxpayers who believe differently are completely disenfranchised, unrepresented, and a class system of believers v non-believers is established. This is what Jefferson referred to as a Tyranny of the Majority. We must never allow any faith to govern the whole of the nation, and always remember that this is not a Christians-Only society.
This was very well phrased. I like it.
The purpose was to protect religion from government not the other way around. The founders counted on the effect of religion on man to establish this country. It is ridiculous to believe that they intended to not only eliminate religious influence in public policy but for government to have an animous attitude towards religion.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the book “5,000 Year Leap” explain that at the time Jefferson wrote the letter to the Danbury Baptists, there were 7 states that had established official state churches, and that no action was taken to abolish them? For me, it means keep the state (read: the federal government, not the individual states) out of the church.
Besides, regardless of intent, I personally would find it difficult for me to run for any elected office without some sort of spiritual guidance. To deny God is to put our full belief in Men, by default. I couldn’t have run for office without God, so I have no qualms about religion’s influence on American politics.
If our rights are “endowed by our Creator” then to ignore the creator is to do away with our rights.
Its about not establishing a state-approved church (or a church-approved state). Freedom of religion cannot mean “freedom FROM religion” but “freedom for ALL religions”, to include those that are athiests, those that prefer to keep their beliefs private, and those that are loud and proud about them. The people will elect those that they feel represent them. In gov’t service, such as military chaplains, it must be ecumenical…you can have your belief, but you cannot push yours on other or tear down the beliefs of others. When such is done within gov’t service, its wrong. When its done by private citizens, its freedom to worship and act as you wish legally…and what is “legal” with repsect to religion is a lot broader than it is almost anywhere else.
To keep the states from having a “State Religion.” In which the state can propagandize via their churches. Not to keep religion OUT of government….we need us some God in our government business…he’s been run out so far, the devil has taken up residence!
John, that’s wrong. The point of the Establishment Clause was to prevent establishment of a national church while keeping the Federal Government from disestablishing state churches. (Remember, in 1789 — when the First Amendment was proposed to the states –, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire still had state churches.) Madison’s first draft of the Clause made the matter unclear, and some New England members of the House objected that they feared his version would mean a ban on their states’ churches. That’s why the final version has that funny language about “respecting and establishment of religion.”
Kory, the 5000 Year Leap is John Birch Society Propaganda and many of the statements therein have been fact checked and thoroughly dismissed as bogus with the intent of shaping social political philosophy and policy in contradiction with actual history.
The very purpose of the letter to TJ was seeking his advice because the Danbury Baptists thought the Gov. was getting into their business. This applies to the FEDERAL Gov’t..not states. so, its pretty clear (except to liberals!) it means keeping Gov’t out of religion, and that the Federal Gov’t cannot establish any religion (think England). remember, they fled religious persecution already, so it would have been very important to establish the bounds of what the Fed role would be. All the founders believed this.
unfortunately Liberals and God haters have taken Jefferson’s letter and are twisting its meaning as a means to remove God from every aspect of public life,we can see just how much good that has done,it has made this country even worse,bash away liberals i don’t care anymore.
The main goal was so that a Church of England style government could never happen. That is the tyranny their forefathers ran from and they would not stand for it here. Most of you are right, in some ways, but this was their purpose.
They did not want a repeat of England with the King changing his mind on what the state religion was (catholic when it suited him or protestant). This resulted in many deaths and upheavel. However, I believe in this time frame, the majority of the religions that were known all had a basis in the Old Testament and the moral code of the 10 Commandments. So the moral code is the basis for law and ethics and it absolutely has its place. It seems to me that the government restricts the free practice of religion. Churches used to always be open to the sick, poor, homeless and unemployed as part as their duty to God. However, with the involvement of the Federal and State governments and the welfare system, people turn to the “non-judgemental” government, instead of turning to their communities and their churches for help. Because the church and communities would expect some contribution of work for their help. In the 1940′s my mother left home at 15 because her sisters did not think she had a right to go to school. She went to the church, the nuns took her in and gave her room, board and an education for high school and for nursing, in return for her helping out at the church and later in the hospital. I do not believe you can find that type of religion being practiced. If that happened now she would have been sucked into welfare, received no education and never would have been a contributing member of society.
Anna, some people came here for religious freedom. However, most of the colonies were founded with established religions, and some of them were founded precisely TO establish religions. The New England colonies other than Rhode Island were settled precisely to be Puritan societies. South Carolina’s very first law made the Church of England the church of South Carolina. Virginia established the Church of England in the first session of its legislature. Etc.
What you’ve said reflects the myth of American history laid out by Justice Black in _Everson_ (1947). For the effect of Black’s Ku Klux Klan membership on his ideas of church-state relations, see Prof. Philip Hamburger’s _Separation of Church and State_. For that case’s relationship to _Engel v. Vitale_ (the School Prayer Case), see my _Who Killed the Constitution?_
If you believe religion has a role in government, look to that logical conclusion: the Middle East.
Jefferson could not have meant “separation” in the way that the ACLU and FFRF mean it, since at the time he wrote this, he was attending church services that met in the House chamber of the Capitol building, and clearly saw nothing wrong with that. I think his understanding was that government can neither compel nor prohibit a person’s observance of a particular religion. He did not have in mind that religion should be censored out of the public square.
The American founders believed that freedom must be linked to faith, or freedom would fail. They were convinced that a free nation can function well only if its citizens live by the fruits of faith, although they did not want the government to impose one church on the nation. They believed that individual men and women can live in liberty only if they are governed from within. They believed that faith fosters good character, and that without virtue and self-restraint, there would be conflict and chaos. The American founders were certain that religion is indispensable for freedom. The relationship of church and state is this: the state depends on the fruits of faith for its survival. Without virtue, freedom cannot be sustained. And faith is necessary to foster virtue. See “Faith and the American Founding” posted on The Imaginative Conservative. http://www.imaginativeconservative.org/2011/02/faith-and-american-founding.html
The 1st Amendment starts off with “Congress shall make no law …”
There was no prohibition in the Constitution that prevented states from doing so. That prohibition was extended to the states by the 14th Amendment in Section 1.
There are 2 other places in the Constitution that require neutrality towards religion. Article II Section 1.7 provides that the President does not have to take an oath but instead may make an affirmation. Article VI Section 3 extends the “oath or affirmation” requirement to the states and all officers. Then it continues to state that there be “no religious test”. The claim that we are a Christian or religious nation is bogus and denied by the Constitution.