WhatFinger


On the question of "Separation of Church & State" According to Thomas Jefferson

Christine O’Donnell was Right!



A serious Constitutional debate between Senate candidates, TEA party conservative Christine O'Donnell and self-proclaimed Marxist Chris # occurred on October 19th, 2010 at Widener Law School.

Support Canada Free Press


What is stunning and drew national attention to the debate was the ignorant reaction (@ 9:38 in the video) of the Widener Law School students and professors to Democrat Senate Candidate Chris Coon's assertion that the U.S. Constitution contained the literal or implied phrase: "Separation of Church and State". This is due in large part to the usurpation of our Rights by what Jefferson termed an "Independent Government", a concern of Jefferson's which he voiced in a letter to James Madison, October 17th, 1788, affirming his support for a "Bill of Rights".
"Perhaps too there may be a certain degree of danger, that a succession of artful and ambitious rulers may by gradual & well times advances, finally erect an independent Government on the subversion of liberty. Should this danger exist at all, it is prudent to guard agst it, especially when the precaution can do no injury." --Thomas Jefferson
The current debate begs the questions, if the phrase, Separation of Church & State, is not in the Constitution (It isn't.). Then, where did it come from? Why the ignorant reaction by the Widener Law students & professors? And more importantly, why should "We" or the Courts be bound by it? This essay can answer the first question. I will leave it to you for the answers to the last questions........ Here are some facts. The answer to the first question can be found in what is today known as: "Jefferson's Wall of Separation Letter" to the Danbury Baptists. But how can that be? Mr. Jefferson used the word "Creator" in his original draft of the Declaration of Independence which was not edited-out or changed in the adoption process. Jefferson's view, along with most of the Founders and Framers, was the John Lockean view that all human beings were entitled to "Natural Rights" simply because they exist. (The true meaning of "IS".) Jefferson was known to be a Deist, who used the term "Nature's God". The important part of Jefferson's actual view from our perspective is that he meant any supernatural "Supreme Being" of our choosing, just so long it is not of "mankind". Because once one agrees that his or her Rights come from another human being; those Rights can then be withdrawn and eventually taken all together. The Left consistently mischaracterizes Jefferson's response to the Danbury Baptists simply by omitting their letter to him. Jefferson was simply stating the obvious; the Constitution did not establish a Theocracy. That was the Baptist's essential question to him in their letter. The Left has simply lifted Jefferson's phrase: "thus building a wall of separation between Church & State" out of context as if it were an "argument" for their entire notion. Notice too, that Jefferson, a supreme wordsmith, did not use the root word "establish" but rather the less firm word "building" meaning kept apart but just slightly. Supreme Court Associate Justice Hugo Black, a supreme Catholic Church hater, repeated the phrase in the "Everson" Decision in 1947. Through the principle of "Stare Decisis" the left has used that precedent to establish the true "Wall of Separation"; not between Church & State but as a "Wall of Separation" between American Citizens and their Constitution. Because, we let that silly notion stand and the ACLU et al have sued everyone who thought differently to intimidate anyone who differed from their opinion. I think we can simplify the truth of the argument by looking at it in two parts: One is that the Framers knew that one could have a simple and unobtrusive life by following the Ten Commandments (This is why the Left has had to get rid of them) which for our purposes of daily living could be condensed into the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Most of us do not need or want a government that tells what light bulb, toilet paper, car, trans-fat, salt, sugar, seat belts, helmets, etc., etc., etc. because we know that that leads inevitably to a Soft tyranny and then a "Police State". Notice how many local governments use fines for ridiculous infractions to fund their social interventions. It might be helpful to remember that we had no national government from July 4th, 1776 until the "Articles of Confederation" were ratified almost five years later. The Continental Congress concerned itself with fighting the Revolution and all that entailed, not running the day to day life of colonial citizens. Secondly the Constitution is a contract between the States. That is the very meaning of the word "Federal" according to Webster's 1828 Dictionary. Because the Constitution is a contract, built on a foundation of many other compacts, the words mean exactly what they meant on the day of ratification which in the case of the First Amendment was December 15th, 1791. You do not have a "Living & Breathing" mortgage or deed, do you? Neither do "We the people". Furthermore, many documents were clearly in force by the time of Jefferson's Presidency: The earliest "American" contract is: The Mayflower Compact --1620 - avalon.law.yale.edu - John Adams referred to this as the foundation for the Constitution. The one of earliest --Roger Williams --A Plea for Religious Liberty --Date uncertain constitution.org - gave us a departure from the Church of England and toward religious diversity through out the Colonies. The Flushing Remonstrance --December 27, 1657 -- The Dutch Reformed statement in New York. Jefferson's "The Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom" - 1786 Jefferson's Kentucky Resolutions of 1798: Resolution #3
3. Resolved, That it is true as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the Constitution, that " the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people;" and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press, being delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the states, or to the people ; that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use, should be tolerated rather than the use be destroyed; and thus also they guarded against all abridgment by the United States of the freedom of religious opinions and exercises, and retained to themselves the right of protecting the same. as this state by a law passed on the general demand of its citizens, had already protected them from all human restraint or interference: and that in addition to this general principle and express declaration, another and more special provision has been made by one of the amendments to the Constitution, which expressly declares, that " 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," thereby guarding in the same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press, insomuch, that whatever violates either, throws down the sanctuary which covers the others, and that libels, falsehoods, and defamations, equally with heresy and false religion, are withheld from the cognizance of federal tribunals: that therefore the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, entitled, "an act in addition to the act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States," which does abridge the freedom of the press, is not law, but is altogether void and of no effect.
Thomas Jefferson was President from 1801 --until March 4th, 1809. Why didn't he propose a Constitutional Amendment to put into effect a "Wall of Separation between Church and State" if that was actually his intention or belief? The simplest answer is because; I do not think that that interpretation never occurred to him. As we can see in the ending of his First Inaugural Address: "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." Mr. Jefferson had not changed his mind on this subject by the occasion of his Second Inaugural Address: "In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the constitution independent of the powers of the general government. I have therefore undertaken, on no occasion, to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them, as the constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of state or church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies. " Exactly right, Mr. President. # / O'Donnell Debate: The Danbury Baptist's Letter to President Jefferson: "Jefferson's Wall of Separation Letter": Thomas Jefferson --Deist: John Locke: Jefferson's First Inaugural Address: Jefferson's Second Inaugural Address: 1828 Definition of Federal: Everson Summary: Stare Decisis definition:


View Comments

Otis A. Glazebrook, IV -- Bio and Archives

Otis Allan Glazebrook IV of East Hampton died at his home on March 28. He was 65.


Sponsored