Response to a forum post.
Quote:
Okay, okay, okay. We all know that “Separation of Church and State” is
written nowhere in the Constitution, ever. But here, I put forth my
argument. The separation is indeed there:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
First Amendment. Bill of Rights. First thing written in the Bill, hard
to miss. Before the first semicolon in the Bill of Rights.
In plain english, Congress will never legislate anything regarding
religion or outlawing free practice of religion. Seeing as the not
president nor the courts can make laws, there is no way to make a law
that deals with religion.
I seriously want to hear a counter-argument to this: people affirm that
America is a Christian nation and fail to back it up. I get the feeling
that I may be missing something obvious.
The first part of the message isn’t very important, or even relevant,
really, to the main point. I’ll address it later, or in a second post.
Not this one. This one is for meat and potatoes.
Ok, let’s start, at the beginning. The first thing to go to is the
original document. You’ve done that. Now, we need to break it down,
logically.
Here’s my outline, before I go into it.
A. Breakdown
1. Language breakdown. What exactly does it say?
2. Context breakdown. In what context was it placed?
B. Historical references
1. Background of the phrase “separation of church and state”
2. Background about the founding fathers.
3. Background about the social climate, and religious context of the day.
So, without further ado – here we go.
A. Breakdown
When we approach history, we have to take a holistic
approach. We can’t come at the issue without an understanding of what
it says, exactly, the context we need to place it in, and the frame of
reference the authors penned it in.
History is not fluid – it is static. Only the present is fluid –
and merely because we cannot see the myriad effects each isolated event
has on others, or the effect a series, or a group of events has. Only
from the perspective of history can these trends be examined. Even that
much is the province of scholars, and researchers – and often takes
decades of their lives. I’m not going to presume upon my own
scholarship to settle the question. Thus, I shall fall back on
reference, and the assembled wisdom of many, in order to answer the
question: (which is actually in two parts, as I understand it.)
1. “Why do Christians affirm that America is a Christian nation?”
2. “Why do Christians assert that “separation of church and state” is
not what the Founding Fathers intended by penning the First Amendment?”
This short essay is an attempt to answer those two questions, and
provide the references, reasoning, and response to those two questions.
A. 1. Language
The first thing we need to do, as the source document is in slightly
archaic English, is to examine the actual wording, and linguistically
study, the document in question.
The Document. (provided for those who wish to study it for themselves, and do it conveniently)
Now, as you’ve already stated, the First Amendment (I’m going to snip
the later portions of it, as they are unrelated) says the following:
Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
So, let’s break the sentence down, word by word.
Congress. The national legislative body of the United States, consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Straightforward.
Shall. Something, such as an order, promise, requirement, or obligation. Future tense.
Make. To cause to exist or happen; bring about; create. In this case, it is tied to the word “law” – so “create law”.
No. Used to express refusal, denial, disbelief, emphasis, or disagreement. In this particular cas,e “no” is used as a modifier – thus, it turns “create law” into “create no law. Or, in other words – “Do NOT create any law”
Law. A piece of enacted legislation. Thus, we now have the following:
Congress (the legislative branch) shall (is obligated) make (create) no (modifer of create – negatively. “Not create”, effectively.) law (legislation, rule of conduct, judiciary quideline).
We’ll go on.
Respecting. To relate or refer to; concern.
the case could be made that the word “respecting” could mean,
alternately, “deferential regard for; esteem.”, or ” To avoid violation
of or interference with”. Which is it? It’s an important question, on
which much hangs. Let direct our attention toward the rest of the
document.
Article IV: Section 3: The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting
the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and
nothing in this constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any
claims of the United States, or of any particular state.
Respecting is not used as “esteem” – it is used as “to refer to”. Let’s
see what “respect” and “respective” turn up – as they are the “refer
to” form, of a certainty.
Constitution:
Respect:
Article II: Section 3: in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment (in reference to)
Respective:
Article I: Section 2: States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers (in reference to)
Article I: Section 6: be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses (in reference to)
Article I: Section 8: to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries (in reference to)
Article II: Section I: [The electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by ballot (in reference to)
Article II: Section 2: relating to the duties of their respective offices (in reference to)
Respectively:
Article I: Section 7: the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each house respectively. (in reference to)
Article I: Section 8: reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers. (in reference to)
Bill of Rights:
Amendment 10: are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. (in reference to)
Amendment 12: The Electors shall meet in their respective states (in reference to)
Amendment 14: Section 2: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers (in reference to)
That’s all of them. Now, here is what we get, by all of that research, linguistically.
We now know that there is one place in the Constitution where the word
“respecting” is used – in that case, it is NOT referring to esteem – it
is referring to definition #3 – “To relate or refer to; concern.”
Every other derivation of “respect” in the Constitution is also
referring to this same definition. Thus, we can safely say, that by
comparision, the word “respecting”, whn used in the First Amendment, is
used as “refer”, “concern”, or “relate”.
So, we can NOW move on. That point, incidentally, is often used,
incorrectly, by proponents of the so-called “separation clause”, to
mean that Congress cannot “respect or esteem” religion. We have now
addressed that, shown it to be false, and can continue.
An. The form of a used before words beginning with a vowel or with an unpronounced h. So, we are thus referred to the definition of “a”.
A Used before nouns and noun phrases that denote a single but unspecified person or thing.
So, the object of this reference is singular. This, by the way, is
important. Keep that thought in the back of your mind – I’m going to
come back to it.
Establishment. 2. Something established, as
a. An arranged order or system, especially a legal code.
b. A permanent civil, political, or military organization.
c. An established church.
As the sentence is laid out, it seems to suggest C, in particular:
However, “an arranged order or system”, or “a permanent civil, political, or military organization” may also apply.
But, this is even more argued than “respecting”. So we’ll delve into it like we did the other.
“Establishment”
Article VII: The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this constitution between the states so ratifying the same.
This is the other usage of the word “Establishment” in the
Constitution. There is no other usage in the Bill of Rights. In this
case, the sentence lends itself to only two definitions – both of which
fit the prior definition we used:
2. Something established, as
a. An arranged order or system, especially a legal code.
b. A permanent civil, political, or military organization.
c. An established church.
So, what Congress cannot do, is create a law arranging a single,
permanent, order or system, an arranged order or system, or an
established church… (in regards to religion.) Which brings us to the
next couple words.
Of. Associated with or adhering to – or, if you prefer, Derived or coming from; originating at or from
So, we are now at this point: Congress cannot create a law arranging a single, permanent, order or system adhering to….
Religion.
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
Hrmm, so. We are now complete, and here is how our definition reads:
Congress cannot create a law to arrange a single institutionalized system adhering to a certain belief.
NOT that Congress cannot allow any expression of any belief in any
place in government – there is simply a prohibition on selecting any
religion, or sect of any religion, as the state, or sanctioned,
religion.
Now, we’ll move on to the second half:
Quote:
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Or. Used to indicate an alternative, usually only before the last term of a series. The “no” which modified “make” earlier, with this “or” operator, also applies to the following word.
Prohibiting. To forbid by authority, or, To prevent; preclude. In no way is to Congress to forbid, prevent, or preclude “the free exercise thereof” – ie: They cannot
interfere with the practice of religious adherents. Not to forbid parts
of their worship, not to prevent their worship, or to preclude their
worship. Add that up with free speech, and there is a serious
constitutional case directly contrary to the “separation” clause. The so-called separation clause not only interferes with the first amendment religious rights of religious practioners, but also the first amendment free speech
rights of religious practitioners! Nothing imaginable could be further
from the truth than the so-called “separation” of church and state.
But… I digressed. I’ll finish the dissection.
The. Used before singular or plural nouns and noun phrases that denote particular, specified persons or things. So, the following is both particular, and specific. Gotcha.
Free.
1. Not imprisoned or enslaved; being at liberty.
2. Not controlled by obligation or the will of another: felt free to go.
3.
a. Having political independence
b. Governed by consent and possessing or granting civil liberties
c. Not subject to arbitrary interference by a government
4.
a. Not affected or restricted by a given condition or circumstance
b. Not subject to a given condition
5. Not subject to external restraint.
Pick one of the above, and apply it.
Exercise 1 : the discharge of an official function or professional occupation
I’m going to use this definition. You know why? A. it’s a legal
definition – and a large, large percentage of the Founding fathers were
lawyers. B. The Constitution itself is a legal document, by which all
other laws are interpreted. It makes more sense, and it fits the usage
in this sentence best.
So there. The official function (or professional occupation) of any
member of any religion, is what the religion in question outlines.
So… if a religion calls for a certain action by it’s members, then
Congress cannot forbid, prevent, or preclude anyone from freely doing what that religion says.
All you have to do is look up the words, and their definitions. I don’t
know why people are so confused, or so upset about it. It’s very, very,
VERY clear.
Thereof.
1. Of or concerning this, that, or it.
2. From that cause or origin; therefrom.
Or anything which concerns religion, in essence.
So, to close this up. Not only can Congress not make any religion the
“official” religion – they cannot interfere, forbid, prevent, or in any
way regulate, the practice, or anything concerning the practice, or
religion.
So, what would be bad about disallowing the practice, or reference to, religion in public? The law is now prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
This applies for all religions – yes. This means
Muslims have an equal right to practice Islam. Jews have an equal right
to practice Judaism. All sects of all of the receding, as well as all
sects of Christianity, are free to practice (not believe…
PRACTICE) their religions, whether public, or private, as they please,
and without any interference from the law. Period.
Practice of a belief is defined by the belief in question – not the
state. They cannot make any religion “official”, thus, they have no
power over defining what is a belief or not – or what can be practiced,
or not.
So… that is point 1. Of at least 5.
Linguistics shows that the intent, according to the wording, was to
prohibit a single, state religion – but NOT to interfere, in any way,
with the exercise of any religious practices. There is no state
religion, and there has never been. However, a movement is underway
which states that the “establishment clause” (to be accurate to the
text), or the “separation clause” (which is inaccurate to the text)
requires that all references to religion must be expunged from public
buildings, public display, public schooling, public actions, and public
fora, in any circumstances. This movement believes the aforementioned,
to varying degrees. I feel that such actions violate the “free
exercise” clause, as well as the spirit, intent, and meaning of the
“establishment” clause.
A. 2. Context
Everything depends, in most areas of study – especially the fields of
history, literature, and theology, on a correct understanding of the context. Context is defined as follows:
Quote:
1. The part of a text or statement that surrounds a particular word or passage and determines its meaning.
2. The circumstances in which an event occurs; a setting.
So, we have to do two things:
1. Examine the surrounding text, to determine the meaning of the text in question.
2. Examine the circumstances and setting surrounding the adoption, and writing, of the Bill of Rights.
Ready?
Textual Context
The sorrounding words can give us a clue into the tone, and intent of
the writers. The following words, they will have to be, as the words
we’re dealing with are the very first of the document, and set the tone
for the rest. However, by picking up that tone, we can see which tone
the first amendment was trying to give to the rest.
The First Amendment concerns other rights as well, which imediately follow those outlined at the beginning of the amendment.
Quote:
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right ofthe people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Speech, press, assembly, petition. None of these can be abridged – diminished or reduced in scope.
So, directly following the admonition that no one state religion can be
established, and that no prohibition of the exercise of religion may be
made, we are immediately told that the right to speak as we wish, write
what we wish, assemble as we wish, and petition as we wish, cannot be
curtailed, either.
That makes a case, to me, not of removing these things from the government, but of protecting all of these things from the government.
The government, if given unlimited power, will take
unlimited power. All of these examples, and, indeed, the entire Bill of
Rights, is an enumerated listing of the limitations we have placed on
government. Not protection for the government. The government needs
no protection from it’s citizens. Nothing in the first ten amendments
lists any protections for the government – only protections from the government.
The rest of the amendments are in a similar vein:
Quote:
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Note: This is a protection of the people, not the state.
Quote:
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Once again, a protection of the people – not the state.
Quote:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated
Once again, a protection of the people – not the state.
Quote:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or
otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a
Grand Jury…nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law
Once again, a protection of the people – not the state.
Quote:
the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an
impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have
been committed
Once again, a protection of the people – not the state.
Quote:
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed
twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved
Once again, a protection of the people – not the state.
Quote:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Once again, a protection of the people – not the state.
Quote:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
This one is always fun to watch. Or argue. It’s an interesting amendment – and neither often used, nor often cited.
Quote:
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.
Yet, once again, it is an affirmation of the rights of persons being
the central focus – NOT the rights of the state, in any fashion
whatsoever. In fact, every single one of the Amendments comprising the
Bill of Rights is a personal rights amendment. Are we to say that only
the first is a right reserved for the state? I think not. The contextual evidence from the surrounding areas in the document also rules against the “separation clause” argument.
Circumstancial Context
In Madison’s original speech, proposing an amendment to the Constitution, the following statement is made:
Quote:
Fourthly.
That in article 2st, section 9, between clauses 3 and 4, be inserted
these clauses, to wit, The civil rights of none shall be abridged on
account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience by in any manner, or on any pretext infringed.
That should be very, very, very eye-opening. If you look at the
statement, and apply the test of intent to the final version, the
intent, and circumstances surrounding it are very, very clear.
No right on account of religious belief, or worship, should be
abridged. Neither should the right of conscience be infringed, in any
manner, or on any pretext.
That, my friends, is unbelievably, eye-openingly, clear, when it comes
to the intent. Nothing, in any way, shape, or form, when you get down
to brass tacks, was ever, ever said, or implied concerning religion,
save to protect it from government influence, or interference. Nothing.
At all.
From the proposer of the Bill of Rights, from his own speech, we have
the actual, clear intent of the framers – to protect religious
expression, exercise, and worship from being abridged. In any manner,
or on any pretext! ANY. Including, I might add, the pretext of
“protecting” the state from the church.
Historical Reference
The actual words, and speeches of the founders have everything – every
cotton-pickin thing, to do with this issue. The original intent, the
original thoughts, the original writing, of the people that wrote the thing.
The Infamous Danbury Baptist Association letter.
The final text, as sent:
Quote:
To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a
committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of
Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so
good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist
association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a
faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, &
in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the
discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between
Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or
his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions
only, & 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 & State. Adhering to this expression of
the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I
shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments
which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has
no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of
the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves
& your religious association, assurances of my high respect &
esteem.
Now, for the original version: (As found here)
Quote:
To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a
committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of
Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are
so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist
association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a
faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents,
and, in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those
duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between
man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or
his worship, that the legitimate 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 eternal separation between Church & State. Congress
thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive
authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from
prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced
indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its
church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary
regulations and discipline of each respective sect,
[Jefferson first wrote: “confining
myself therefore to the duties of my station, which are merely
temporal, be assured that your religious rights shall never be
infringed by any act of mine and that.” These lines he crossed out and then wrote: “concurring with”; having crossed out these two words, he wrote: “Adhering to this great act of national legislation in behalf of the rights of conscience”; next he crossed out these words and wrote: “Adhering
to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the
rights of conscience I shall see with friendly dispositions the
progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his
natural rights, convinced that he has no natural rights in opposition
to his social duties.”]
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of
the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves
& the Danbury Baptist [your religious] association assurances of my high respect & esteem.
I’d also invite you to read this article, concerning the letter, and the circumstances surrounding it: FBI Helps Restore Jefferson’s Obliterated Draft
I’ll quote it, though:
Quote:
It
seems likely that in modifying the draft of the Danbury Baptist letter
by eliminating words like “eternal” and “merely temporal,” which
sounded so uncompromisingly secular, Jefferson was motivated not merely
by political considerations but by a realization that these words,
written in haste to make a political statement, did not accurately
reflect the conviction he had reached by the beginning of 1802 on the
role of government in religion. Jefferson would never compromise his
views that there were things government could not do in the religious
sphere — legally establish one creed as official truth and support it
with its full financial and coercive powers. But by 1802, he seems to
have come around to something close to the views of New England Baptist
leaders such as Isaac Backus and Caleb Blood, who believed that,
provided the state kept within its well-appointed limits, it could
provide “friendly aids” to the churches, including putting at their
disposal public property that even a stickler like John Leland was
comfortable using.
There is a lot more, mostly concerning the times, and circumstances under which it was written.
Go read it. Also, read one of Jefferson’s own essays on religion.
A large number of his writings can be found Here as well. Happy studying.
Selected references
1. One contributor to the First Amendment – Fisher Ames
“Should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a school
book? Its morals are pure, its examples, captivating and noble.
In no book is there so good English, so pure and so elegant;
and by teaching all the same book, they will speak alike, and
the Bible will justly remain the standard of language as well
as of faith.”
3. James Madison:
“There is not a shadow of right in the general [federal] government to
intermeddle with religion….This subject is, for the honor of America,
perfectly free and unshackled.” (The Writings of James Madison, Vol. 5,
pp. 176, 132.)
4. Gouverneur Morris
“Religion is the only solid basis of good morals; therefore education
should teach the precepts of religion, and the duties of man towards
God.” (1792, Notes on the Form of a Constitution for France.)
5. George Washington
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity,
religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that
man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these
great pillars…. The mere politician, equally with the pious man,
ought to respect and cherish them…. Let it simply
be asked, ‘Where is the security for property, for reputation, for
life, if the sense of religious obligation desert?’ …And let us with
caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without
religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined
education on minds…reason and experience both forbid us to expect
that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious
principle.” (George Washington, 1796, Farewell Address.)
6. Benjamin Franklin
“I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more
convincing proofs I see of this truth-that God governs in the affairs
of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice,
it is probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been
assured in the Sacred Writings, that ‘except the Lord build the House,
they labour in vain that build it.’ I firmly believe this; and I also
believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this
political building no better than the Builders of Babel:”
(At the Constitutional Convention, June 28, 1787.)
7.
“How comes it that Sunday, the Christian Sabbath, is recognized by all
the departments of Government? In the law, Sunday is a ‘dies non;’ it
cannot be used for the service of legal process, the return of writs,
or other judicial purposes. The executive departments, the public
establishments, are all closed on Sundays; …neither House of Congress
sits.”
(U.S. Senate, January 19, 1853, on Congressional Chaplains.)
Trivia:
A. Note the date that it was written: 1802. Date the Bill of Rights was adopted? 1789
B. While President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson was also made
president of the Washington, DC public school system in which he placed
the Bible and the Isaac Watt’s hymnal as the two primary reading texts.
C. “In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is
placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the General
[federal] Government.” – Jefferson, second Inaugural address.
D. First English language Bible printed in America was by Congress in 1782 “for use of schools.”
E. “Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have
removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people
that these liberties are the gift of God?” – Jefferson, Notes on the
State of Virginia, 1781
Last, the courts.
Not until 1879 was this ever even used. Not until 1947 was it used concerning the “establishment clause”.
“In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of
religion by law was intended to erect `a wall of separation between
church and State.’ Reynolds v. United States, [98 U.S. 145, 164
(1879)].”
Now, not only have we shown that this basis is untrue, we have shown
the contrary to be true. Not only does Jefferson’s single letter not
have a thing to do with what the Constitution says, it is, in fact,
unconstitutional to try to do so.
Quote:
“It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine on a mistaken
understanding of Constitutional history…. The establishment clause
has been expressly freighted with Jefferson’s misleading metaphor for
nearly forty years…. There is simply no historical foundation for the
proposition that the Framers intended to build a wall of separation….
The recent court decisions are in no way based on either the language
or the intent of the Framers.”
Supreme Court Justice William Rhenquist, WALLACE v. JAFFREE, 472 U.S. 38
The reading is very, very, very good – if you can, and have the patience, to read legal documents.
The synopsis: From the linguistic, contextual,
and historical frames of reference, the so-called “separation of church
and state” is not only incorrect, but the antithesis of the intent and
beliefs of the founders, and statesmen behind both the Constitution,
and the Bill of Rights.
The answers:
Q: 1. “Why do Christians affirm that America is a Christian nation?”
A: Because of the overwhelming evidence – from personal letters, public
speeches, and public writing, which attests to the Christian
foundation, heritage, and background of both our nation, and it’s
people.
Q: 2. “Why do Christians assert that “separation of church and state”
is not what the Founding Fathers intended by penning the First
Amendment?”
A. Because, the liguistic, contextual, and historical evidence says exactly the opposite.
Please post rebuttals, nitpicking, and general comments now….
Carnival.