Johnv,
That's not quite true. The phrase "separation of church and state" is the short-hand nickname for the Establishment Clause that is in Amendment I.
That's not quite true. It is A short-hand nickname for the EC, based on an interpretation. One that is wrong, IMO.
Jefferson was responding to responding to, among other things, the the idea that he call for a national day of fasting, which he refused to do out of respect for Amendment I's establishment clause.
I don't see that in the Danbury letter, below, though Jefferson certainly addressed that in his famous reply.
Sir:
Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your Election to office, we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity since your inauguration, to express our great satisfaction in your appointment to the chief Magistracy in the United States: And though our mode of expression may be less costly and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, Sir to believe, that none are more sincere.
Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty - That religion is at all times and places a matter between God and Individuals - That no man ought to suffer in Name, person or effects on account of his religious Opinions - That the legitimate Power of Civil Government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But, Sir our constitution of government is not specific. Our infant charter, together with the Laws made coincident therewith, were adopted as the Basis of our government at the time of our revolution; and such had been our Laws and usages, and such still are; that religion is considered as the first object of Legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favor 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. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those, who seek after power and gain under the pretence of government and Religion should reproach their fellow man - should Reproach their Chief Magistrate, as an enemy of Religion, Law and good order because he will not, dare not assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the kingdom of Christ.
Sir, we are sensible that the President of the United States, is not the national Legislator and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the Laws of each state; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved President, which have had such genial Effect already, like the radiant beams of the Sun, will shine and prevail through all these States and all the world till Hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the Earth.
Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a cause of more than thirty years we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the chair of State out of that good will which he bears to the Millions which you preside over. May God Strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you to sustain, and support you in your Administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to rise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.
And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly kingdom; through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.
Signed in behalf of the Association,
The Committee
Neh. Dodge
Ephraim Robbins
Stephen S. Nelson
BB,
What the phrase “respecting an establishment of religion” means is a matter of intense debate
Agreed.
Jefferson did other things before and after the Declaration. Among them was the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom which was passed with the help of James Madison, among others. It is a clear expression of separation of church and state.
Interesting that, as an advocate of such church-state separation on the state level, Jefferson had no problem issuing such a proclamation ("Proclamation Appointing a Day of Publick and Solemn Thanksgiving and Prayer")on November 11, 1779.
And when the present Constitution and Bill of Rights were drafted and ratified, there were a majority of supporters who believed, like Jefferson, that church and state should be separate.
Like who? The easy answer is Madison, but the usually cited example of his opposition to Congressional and military chaplains, after his Presidency, was not voiced when it was proposed in the First Congress. The usual rejoinder to that is that the First Amendment was obviously not yet a part of the Constitution but I find it hard to believe that someone cited as such a forceful advocate of "church-state separation" would have had
no recorded objection to it at the time. Also, there is nothing in Madison's remarks or proposals in debate on the First Amendment that would lend itself to such an interpretation.
I guess you don't know this, but Baptists have historically led the fight for separation of church and state.
The historical Baptist fight for strict separation goes back to 19th century anti-Catholicism, even as they kept the KJV in predominantly Protestant public schools. I don't find in John Leland's opposition to church establishment anything that would support stripping the 10 commandments from a schoolhouse wall.
larry,
Jefferson actually attended a religious service the same day he wrote that letter to the Danbury Baptists.
Actually, IIRC, that service was in the Capitol building.
BB,
It’s easy to find writings from certain Constitutional framers and influential politicians that disagree with separation of church and state, but they were on the side that did not prevail. (It’s too easy to forget that there were winning and losing sides in the Constitutional convention and we have to read widely and carefully to get the whole picture.)
What writings of those who lost the First Amendment debate (was there opposition to it?) disagree with the accommodationist interpretation of the First Amendment? I'm not talking about the Constitutional Convention or the Constitution ratification conventions in which it was not debated. I do strongly agree with you, though, as to the Constitution itself, one must also read the anti-Federalists.
Freedom of religion requires the possibility of freedom from religion.
Agreed, again.
Johnv,
The Constitution forbids any sort of religious test for public office. Therefore, this statute is unconstitutional.
Wrong.
Article VI, para. 3:
no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
It applied to the national government, not the states. Joseph Story argued in Commentaries on the Constitution that this clause "had a higher object; to cut off for every pretence of any alliance between church and state in the
national government ." Even in opposition to the clause, in the Massachusetts ratifying convention, Dr. Jarvis argued that it "would admit deists, atheists, &c., into the
general government;"
BTW, none of the arguments I've given above are from David Barton, whom I reject as an historian, scholar, or advocate, thanks partially to the late Buffman, from IIDB.
[ January 31, 2006, 08:03 PM: Message edited by: fromtheright ]