A surpising quote from Jefferson on the wall between church and state

[WDWHound]

During a break, I was looking for some quotes on freedom and God to use in my sermon this weekend (I preach at a local nursing home approx once a month). I found this...

"The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state, but that wall is a one directional wall; it keeps the government from running the church, but it makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government."

Thomas Jefferson, President of the United States January 1, 1802 in an address to the Danbury Baptists.


I am not one who beleives any religion should run the government, but this quote sounds like Jefferson wess less against the idea than he has been made out to be. I was familiar with the wall of seperation reference from another letter of Jefferson's (who isn't), but not the "one way" concept described here. I have always beleived our government was founded on Christian principals (and there is lots of evidence for this), but Jefferson was a Deist. Its interesting that even he acknowledged the role of Christian principles in our government.

 

[Dan Murphy]

Very interesting, Don. Thanks.

PS: (Not even going to look for 'errors' )

 

[Disney Debbie]

Hey Hound!

I think we would find that most of the founding fathers felt that way. I don't want the gov. to be run by religion either - but I also think it's gone too far in trying to strip any religious observence at any public gathering (i.e. high school graduations for example) as not keeping church & state separate. We've now gone to minority rules instead of majority rules when it comes to things like that and I think it's ridiculous!

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Excellent post, WDWHound.

It makes my day!

 

[WDWHound]

Hey Hound!

I think we would find that most of the founding fathers felt that way. I don't want the gov. to be run by religion either - but I also think it's gone too far in trying to strip any religious observence at any public gathering (i.e. high school graduations for example) as not keeping church & state separate. We've now gone to minority rules instead of majority rules when it comes to things like that and I think it's ridiculous!

Hey Deb!!!! Its good to see posts from you again! Seems like your were gone for quite awhile. Good to have you back on the CB!


I agree that we have gone too far in trying to strip religious concepts from everthing governmental. At the same time I understand the worries of those who fear we will now go to far in favor of religious concepts in government. its such a tricky balance, but apparently it was one that Jefferson was not afraid of.

 

[Disney Debbie]

I go in spurts! This last year I spent more time on cancer then the DIS!

You are right - it is a VERY fine line - but we as a society have become so AFRAID of the line that we've given up trying to walk it. I think it's sad.

 

[wvrevy]

A few more Jefferson quotes from the UVA library website:

"Whenever... preachers, instead of a lesson in religion, put [their congregation] off with a discourse on the Copernican system, on chemical affinities, on the construction of government, or the characters or conduct of those administering it, it is a breach of contract, depriving their audience of the kind of service for which they are salaried, and giving them, instead of it, what they did not want, or, if wanted, would rather seek from better sources in that particular art of science." --Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815. ME 14:281

"Ministers of the Gospel are excluded [from serving as Visitors of the county Elementary Schools] to avoid jealousy from the other sects, were the public education committed to the ministers of a particular one; and with more reason than in the case of their exclusion from the legislative and executive functions." --Thomas Jefferson: Note to Elementary School Act, 1817. ME 17:419

"No religious reading, instruction or exercise, shall be prescribed or practiced [in the elementary schools] inconsistent with the tenets of any religious sect or denomination." --Thomas Jefferson: Elementary School Act, 1817. ME 17:425

"I do not know that it is a duty to disturb by missionaries the religion and peace of other countries, who may think themselves bound to extinguish by fire and fagot the heresies to which we give the name of conversions, and quote our own example for it. Were the Pope, or his holy allies, to send in mission to us some thousands of Jesuit priests to convert us to their orthodoxy, I suspect that we should deem and treat it as a national aggression on our peace and faith." --Thomas Jefferson to Michael Megear, 1823. ME 15:434

Seems that he may have been talking out of both sides of his mouth...which makes him no different from most politicians I've seen in my time. But these quotes - one of which is from an official document, similar to his signature on the Treaty of Tripoli that formally declared the US to be a secular nation - certainly seem to contradict the one posted above.

Inclusion of christian principles in governmental procedures would most certainly be offensive to those of us that are not christian. Our government may have been set up as "majority rule", but it was specifically designed so that the rights of the minority would be protected. That cannot happen if our government is viewed as a "christian" entity, rather than a secular one.

 

[jrydberg]

Ole TJ has a whole slew of quotes that might be surprising to many today. My personal favorite:

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

-- Thomas Jefferson

 

[yeartolate]

I think TJ had a unique view of Christianity. I am a personal fan of his version of the bible.

 

[WDWHound]

A few more Jefferson quotes from the UVA library website:



Seems that he may have been talking out of both sides of his mouth...which makes him no different from most politicians I've seen in my time. But these quotes - one of which is from an official document, similar to his signature on the Treaty of Tripoli that formally declared the US to be a secular nation - certainly seem to contradict the one posted above.

Inclusion of christian principles in governmental procedures would most certainly be offensive to those of us that are not christian. Our government may have been set up as "majority rule", but it was specifically designed so that the rights of the minority would be protected. That cannot happen if our government is viewed as a "christian" entity, rather than a secular one.

Considering the quotes you listed and the fact Jefferson also lead prayer during government fundtions and declared a national day of prayer as President, I will say agree he probably liked to play both sides of the fence on this topic. (note the audiences of the various quotes) I also understand the concern of non-Christians regarding this. However, many documents can be shown in which the founding fathers state the Government was founded on Christian or Religious principles. They did not want a government run by by religion, but they did want to include its principles at its core.

I think The big question becomes where to draw the line between religious principles and forcing religious concepts on people. Another reasonable question is, even if the founding fathers saw it this way, should we still see it this way? My answer is yes only to the point where it does not opress those who don't practice a faith. The problem is that even the mention of religion or a religious concept is considered opressive, and it can be clearly demonstrated that our founding fathers did not intend it to be taken to that extreme.

 

[WDWHound]

I think TJ had a unique view of Christianity. I am a personal fan of his version of the bible.

We would differ there. In my opinion, to accept the authority of Jesus' moral teachings but deny the authorty of his religious ones is inconsistant, for they are meant to be taken as a whole.

 

[wvrevy]

Considering the quotes you listed and the fact Jefferson also lead prayer during government fucntions and declared a nothion day of prayer as President, I will say agree he probably liked to play both sides of the fence here. I alos understand the concern of none Christians regarding this. However, many documents can be shown in which the founding fathers state the Government was founded on Christian or Religious principles. They did not want a government run by by relihgion, but they did want to include its principles at its core.

That's part of the problem..they were hardly clear on the subject For every quote you can provide showing how important they thought religion was to public life, I can provide just as many that show that their view on religion, at least privately, was very different. Shoot, just look at the dollar bill as a good example. It does, indeed, say, "In God We Trust." But what most people miss is that it also has a latin inscription declaring the US a secular endeavor.

I think The big question becomes where to draw the line between religious principles and forcing religious concepts on people. Another reasonable question is, even if the founding fathers saw it this way, should we still see it this way? My answer is yes only to the point where it does not opress those who don't practice a faith. The problmem is that even the mention of religion or a religious concept is considered opressive, and it can be clearly demonstrated that our founding fathers did not intend it to be taken to that extreme.

And my answer would be a simple "no." We enjoy many more freedoms in today's society than they did during those times. I don't think you can view their public comments without also taking into account the times they lived in. I'm perfectly free, in this day and age, to declare myself an atheist, a wiccan, or anything else I like. Back then, that freedom still existed...but it would have come at a much greater personal cost.I don't see how taking a step back in that direction could be considered a good thing.

 

[BuckNaked]

I'm perfectly free, in this day and age, to declare myself an atheist, a wiccan, or anything else I like. Back then, that freedom still existed...but it would have come at a much greater personal cost.I don't see how taking a step back in that direction could be considered a good thing.

I agree, we don't want to go backwards. But at the same time, people should be free to declare that they are Christians without being told to sit down, shut up and quit forcing their beliefs on others.

 

[WDWHound]

I would certainly that government should never force anyone to be Christian, nor do I think the founding fathers proposed that (quite the opposite actually).

 

[wvrevy]

I agree, we don't want to go backwards. But at the same time, people should be free to declare that they are Christians without being told to sit down, shut up and quit forcing their beliefs on others.

I agree wholeheartedly with that...but could you please point me to a single case of that happening ? Christians are, and will remain for the foreseeable future, the vast majority. Their rights aren't in any danger. It is only when they insist on legislating their beliefs - or displaying them in inappropriate places, such as courthouses - that I would ever say, "stop."

 

[wvrevy]

Here's a question for you....Considering that this president is an avowed evangelical christian, how would you feel if he were making a choice between two options: you - a devout muslim (or professed atheist, if you wish) - or someone that publicly shared his religious views? I would imagine this kind of thing would come up at some point in this day and age. Now...knowing that both the president as well as your opposition are evangelicals...would you be completely confident of receiving a fair judgement ? Or would you worry that his religious belief, while not having anything to do with the decision at hand, might color his judgement ?

What if it was a judge, and he was deciding a case between you and someone of his faith ? Or deciding if you, as an atheist, deserve "mercy" in your sentencing ?

These are a couple of the reasons why I think public displays of religion in government are a bad thing. It just opens up too many problems that have no solutions.

 

[BuckNaked]

I agree wholeheartedly with that...but could you please point me to a single case of that happening ? Christians are, and will remain for the foreseeable future, the vast majority. Their rights aren't in any danger. It is only when they insist on legislating their beliefs - or displaying them in inappropriate places, such as courthouses - that I would ever say, "stop."

What was the big debate here on the CB a couple of months ago? The one where the teens in CT (I believe) wore the T-shirts with Bible verses about homosexuality on them? Where so many of the folks here on the CB were talking about how they had no right to wear their shirts and force their beliefs on others?

Or at my workplace, where an employee claimed that having to see all of us with ashes on our foreheads for Ash Wednesday was a violation of her rights (federal workplace). It would seem to me that if someone feels their rights are being violated simply by seeing someone else exercising their rights, they don't have enough real problems in their life.

 

[SonicLogic]

The Constitution of the United States not only guarantees us freedom of religion, it also guarantees us freedom from religion.

 

[wvrevy]

What was the big debate here on the CB a couple of months ago? The one where the teens in CT (I believe) wore the T-shirts with Bible verses about homosexuality on them? Where so many of the folks here on the CB were talking about how they had no right to wear their shirts and force their beliefs on others?

Well, I wasn't one making the argument that it "forced their belief on others," so I don't know those poster's reasons for saying that. I would object simply because their shirts were condemning fellow students, and I would say the same if some group of kids decided to wear shirts saying that all "nerds" weren't worth the air they breathed. School isn't the place for that kind of hatred....that would have been my argument.

Or at my workplace, where an employee claimed that having to see all of us with ashes on our foreheads for Ash Wednesday was a violation of her rights (federal workplace). It would seem to me that if someone feels their rights are being violated simply by seeing someone else exercising their rights, they don't have enough real problems in their life.

I suspect that, had that employee tried to go to court over that issue, they would have lost. Rightly so, in my opinion. Now, if you were a federal judge rather than just a federal employee, that might be different...but a federal judge is not just a person, he is also a representative of the state. Not sure how I would rule on that one if I was a SCOTUS justice, but it would be an interesting debate. But just as a federal employee ? No, your right to excersize your religious freedom would not infringe on the other employee's rights in the least, in my opinion.

 

[yeartolate]

Or at my workplace, where an employee claimed that having to see all of us with ashes on our foreheads for Ash Wednesday was a violation of her rights (federal workplace).

Do you believe if that case went to court the other party would win? I sure don't. People can claim a violation of rights all they want. It does not make a legal truth.