Religious Freedom

Posted July 6th, 2008 by Jen in features, history, persecuted church, religion

historic church, Redmond, ORSorry I posted a blank Religious Freedom article earlier. It was set to auto-publish, and I lost track of time - it came and went without me noticing. All I had at that point was a poorly written document that started out something like “It was a dark and stormy night.”

I don’t promise much better at this point because the topic of religious liberty is so vast and convoluted by bizarre interpretations of the First Amendment that I can’t think straight. I’ve been looking at early original writings on religious liberty, a church history book, and modern writers on the subject. Then there’s the ACLU, the atheists, and the activist judges who muck it all up.

Here’s what we all know from 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 First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

The horrors of the Old World still near in their minds, the Founders in the New World wanted a fresh approach. The high price of enforced religious conformity, with its untold thousands of martyrs, was the climate in which the Founders were seeking true religious freedom of conscience.

I was listening to a Focus on the Family broadcast a few days ago, featuring historian David Barton, in which he talks about the large percentage of people who actually think the term “separation of church and state” appears in the Constitution, and mistake the Founders’ intent for the government to leave people alone in regards to their religion, with some twisted idea of a religion-free public life.

Here is an excellent piece on the Founders’ view of religion in public life:

The Founders’ View of Religion in Public Life

But far from wanting to expunge religion from public life, the Founders encouraged religion as a necessary and vital part of their new nation. They sought the official separation of church and state in order to build civil and religious liberty on the grounds of equal natural rights, but never intended–indeed, roundly rejected–the idea of separating religion and politics.

The Founders opposed the establishment of a national church (though the federal government did not do away with state establishments); church doctrine would not determine the laws, and laws would not determine church doctrine. However, the Founders did favor government encouragement and support of religion in public laws, official speeches and ceremonies, on public property and in public buildings, and even in public schools.

Indeed, the official separation of church and state allows and encourages (just as true religious freedom depends upon) a certain mixing of religion and politics. On the day after it approved the Bill of Rights, Congress called upon the president to ‘recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many signal favors of Almighty God.’ President Thomas Jefferson regularly attended church services held in the House of Representatives and allowed executive branch buildings to be used for the same purpose. Jefferson seemed to find nothing wrong with the federal government supporting religion in a non-discriminatory and non-coercive way.

Even after the ‘republican revolution’ of 1800, President Thomas Jefferson praised America’s ‘benign religion, professed, indeed, and practiced in various forms, yet all of them inculcating honesty, truth, temperance, gratitude, and the love of man; acknowledging and adoring an overruling Providence, which by all its dispensations proves that it delights in the happiness of man here and his greater happiness hereafter.’ From The Meaning of Religious Liberty by Matthew Spalding, Ph.D.

The phase “separation of church and state” comes from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association, and can be read here in its entirety. In fact, this letter is the only record of Thomas Jefferson ever mentioning this phrase, and none of the other 90 or so men involved in the writing of the Constitution ever talked in terms of a “wall of separation between church and state,” but in the past 50 years, it’s been cited over 3,000 times by the courts, typically to justify the eradication of religious expression from public life.

Here’s what’s taken terribly out of context: these Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut were opposed to a “religion clause” even being in the Constitution at all. The reason is because they feared that religious privileges would thus be viewed as “favors granted” from the state, not as inalienable rights. They felt that the government guaranteeing religious liberty was a “degrading acknowledgment” and “inconsistent with the rights of freemen.”

Jefferson replies that the Danbury Baptists need not worry, that he completely agrees with them that “religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God.” The assurance of the “wall of separation between Church and State” that Jefferson mentions in this letter is a promise and commitment to this group of Christians that the language of “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” was simply meant to “restore to man all his natural rights.” Coming from the religious tyranny of England, it’s no wonder the Founders felt a need to be very explicit about religious freedom.

I discovered an interesting phrase in this very letter in which the “separation of church and state” is mentioned by Thomas Jefferson. It’s an overlooked phrase, one that has incredible bearing on current events regarding religious liberty and free speech. Are you ready?

“…the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions…”

Wow. I’ll be discussing Free Speech next week, but for now, I’ll just say that I find it quite ironic that the “separation of church and state” phrase has been latched onto and used mercilessly to eject any and all Christian thought from American public or political discourse, but this phrase has been conveniently disregarded. This phrase, were it made law by the Supreme Court, as has the “separation” phrase, should preclude such religious intolerance and government meddling like telling public schools what prayers they can or can’t say, what language is acceptable and what is not, or telling a private photography company that it violated state law by refusing (for religious reasons) to take a job photographing a lesbian commitment ceremony.

Those Danbury Baptists had some very valid concerns and clearly anticipated the religious/political landscape we now call Post-Modern America. I’m grateful for the inclusion of the Establishment Clause, however, America needs a return to the intent of the Founders before her people find themselves again under total religious tyranny at the hands of the government.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

14 Responses

  1. Julie July 6th, 2008 at 8:35 pm

    Jen - i did an entire research paper on this very thing for my graduate work. Studied a ton of Jefferson writings and other men. I am going to try and find it.If I do, I’ll send it your way.

    Any chance we could see you guys this week?

    Mornings look good.

    http://runninggalinsights.blogspot.com/

  2. Mandi July 7th, 2008 at 6:42 am

    Great post Jen!
    I just watched David Barton last night on much of the same topic - I so enjoy listening to him. He was sharing charts showing the trend of moral decay in all areas since the 62-63 court ruling prohibiting prayer in school. I believe the title of the show was America’s Godly Heritage. Very Excellent!

    The fact is there is no way to separate religion from the state. Atheism has crept into our schools and countless other public arenas under the guise of religious neutrality.

    Thanks for posting this - I look forward to the rest in this series! ( :

  3. Sheila July 7th, 2008 at 7:52 am

    Excellent post Jen! I love what the Dansbury Baptist’s said…I think their concerns were prophetic.

    When we become dependent upon government to define for us what our freedoms our concerning the ordinances of God and the gospel we hand government more power than God gives it.

    I think we come upon a point in our own history in America where what the Danbury Baptist’s were concerned about will be proven by those who cling to the freedom that is there’s to worship and serve Jesus as Lord no matter what the government defines as religious freedom.

    Were you ever a journalist? You write great stuff! I love it!!!!

    thanks
    sheila

  4. Jen July 7th, 2008 at 8:44 am

    Julie, thanks, you’ll have to show me that sometime. I’ll call you about this week!

    Mandi, thanks for the recommendation of that show. You make a very important point about other “religion” like atheism or humanism being taught, mostly indirectly but nonetheless, in our public schools. There is no neutrality.

    Sheila, years ago I read that letter from the Danbury Baptists and it really didn’t resonate with me like it does today. We sure seem to be at a prophetic point in history.

    I was never a journalist, but thanks for the compliment!!

  5. mrs darling July 7th, 2008 at 1:57 pm

    I have nothing intelligent to say. Just wanted to wish you a good day and let you know Im thinking of you.

  6. Veggie Mom July 7th, 2008 at 2:29 pm

    Thanks for the informative post! You ARE a good writer–I followed this all the way to the end. BTW, I’m hosting a Giveaway, starting tomorrow–please drop on by!

  7. Jen July 7th, 2008 at 3:07 pm

    Mrs. Darling, I don’t know that I have anything coherent to say, either! The summer heat is getting to me! I think you have to be “in the mood” to respond to something heavy like this. :-) Thanks for thinking of me today!

    Veggie Mom, thank you much, and I’ll come check out your giveaway later…

  8. Veggie Mom July 8th, 2008 at 6:03 pm

    Jen: Thanks so much for dropping in today and entering my giveaway. I LOVE the Oregon Coast–and Tillamook Cheese, too! :) Please remember to Share the Comment Love, and tell all your bloggy friends to stop by and enter, too!

  9. Renae July 8th, 2008 at 9:05 pm

    Very informative. I look forward to reading some of the links you included. I’ve read Jefferson’s letter in the past, but my brain always needs to be refreshed.

    My prayers will mingle with yours. Religious tyranny does seems to be gaining ground in the form of tolerance for anything but Christianity.

  10. Thomas Peters July 9th, 2008 at 11:29 am

    A couple of comments:

    (1) It is not true that Jefferson was the only founder that used the phrase “separation of church and state.” James Madison used the phrase on a number of occasions, as well as phrases similar in import. See http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/qmadison.htm for some of these uses. His usage is vastly more important than Jefferson’s since, unlike Jefferson, Madison was a major player in the writing of the Constitution.

    (2) The Danbury Baptists’ complaint had nothing to do with the religious liberty provisions of the federal Constitution. The “ancient charter” spoken of in the letter referenced the Connecticut Constitution adopted “at the time of our revolution,” not the federal one. The Baptist complaint was that the Connecticut Constitution did not prohibit the state from legislating about religious matters. As a consequence, they argued that “…what religious privileges we [Baptists] enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights: and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen.” The term “degrading acknowledgements” referred to the Connecticut system of allowing each town to determine which church it would support with public monies. Since Connecticut was overwhelmingly Congregationalist, it meant that most Baptists were forced against their will to contribute to Congregationalist Churches.

    The Baptists would have loved something like a First Amendment in their state Constitution, since it would have made their religious liberty a matter of right, and not a mere favor granted by Government. There concern in the letter was not to object that the Constitution contained a First Amendment, but that the Connecticut Constitution lacked a similar guarantee. I think this is the opposite of your reading.

  11. Jeremy Pierce July 9th, 2008 at 11:54 am

    I think Jefferson’s distinction between actions and ideas is important, but I’m not sure language is in the second category. Language is what you do with words. It’s action, as opposed to things you happen to believe but may or may not act on. So I’m not sure that’s relevant to the main issue here, unless I’m misunderstanding how you wanted to apply it. I agree with the general thrust of your post, but I’m not sure that quote achieves what you want it to do.

  12. Tipper July 9th, 2008 at 12:22 pm

    Very interesting post-I agree with the others you are a great writer. And I like and agree with your perspective on this issue. I to believe we are at an important time in history-almost a crossroads. And I’m afraid we-as a whole- are going down the wrong road.

  13. Jen July 9th, 2008 at 3:36 pm

    Renae, your thought that tolerance for anything but Christianity seems to be gaining ground is apparent to me, as well.

    Thomas, thank you for your insightful comment. I’ll follow your link later and respond in more detail at that point (hopefully I get a moment tonight).

    Jeremy, language as action…versus ideas as action - an interesting issue. I think at this point in history, Jefferson would have considered language as an opinion, not an action - for an opinion is typically thought of as what one expresses outloud, their point of view on a particular topic. If not spoken with language, how would one know anyone’s opinion? I’ll have to look into this; I really appreciate your input.

  14. Jen July 18th, 2008 at 10:41 am

    Thomas, sorry it took so long to get back to you. I’ll have to edit this article. I believe you’re correct, that the Danbury Baptists were concerned about the Connecticut Constitution. As a Baptist minority in a Congregationalist state, they indeed had to pay taxes to the that church, or else submit a form asking that their monies be diverted to their own church - I’m assuming this is the “degrading acknowledgment” they refer to.

    The bottom line of my argument doesn’t change - I still believe that phrase (”separation of church and state”) is grossly misused to justify a complete cleansing of religious thought/action from public life.

    Thanks again for pointing out the Danbury issue.

RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URL

Comment