The “wall of separation”
A letter dated January 1, 1802 by Thomas Jefferson in response to one from a local association of Baptist Churches in
Danbury Connecticut, October 7, 1801, contained the sentence fragment, “wall of separation between church and state”.
This seven word fragment lifted from the letter and used out of context, has become the favorite quote in the progressive’s
argument against local, state or federal government’s acknowledgement of religious influence in American public affairs. An
objective examination of the Danbury letter and Jefferson’s reply makes it painfully obvious that those who use this argument
are either ignorant of the facts or are deliberately attempting to mislead the public to further their own ends.
The Danbury Baptists’ letter, written during Jefferson’s first year in office was to seek assurances that the Federal
government, under his leadership, would not add to the oppress-sive conditions imposed on them already by the Connecticut
State Constitution. Jefferson’s reply containing the famous reference to a “wall of separation” assured them that the First
Amendment forbad any interference on the part of the federal government with the religious practices of the people. The
“wall” metaphor was intended to express protection of the church from the government, not protection of the government
from the church.
When Independence was declared, most of the states immediately drew up new Constitutions as the basis for their
governments. Connecticut was one of the few that did not. It continued to operate under its 1639 Constitution known as the
“Fundamental Orders” until 1818. While a certain amount of religious toleration was permitted, religious freedom was far
from absolute. The preamble to the “Fundamental Orders” describes the purpose of its government being….
Pursuant to its Constitution, the Connecticut General Assembly, in 1723 passed a law against dissenters. It provided for
punishment and fines for a variety of religious offenses.
Citizens of Connecticut were taxed to support the churches and ministers of the “approved religion”, Congregationalist
(Puritan) until it was disestablished by Connecticut’s new Constitution in 1818. In 1813, Baptist Historian David Benedict
wrote,
It was these regulations and taxes that prompted the members of the Danbury, Connecticut Baptist Association to write to
President Jefferson for his moral support. The Baptists explained their circumstances as,
They recognized the limitations placed on the President’s and the national government’s authority and asked only that he
continues to be an advocate for religious liberty.
In his reply, Jefferson expresses the assurances sought by the Baptists.
Taken in context, it is clear that Jefferson’s use of the phrase “wall of separation between church and state” in conjunction
with the First Amendment, which he describes as an “expression of the supreme will of the nation,” is nothing more than an
assurance to the Danbury Baptists that the federal government could not establish a national religion. That he did not consider
the First Amendment as binding upon the states, is evidenced by a letter he wrote to a Reverend Mr. Millar in 1808 in
response to a request from him that Jefferson declare a national day of prayer.
The First Amendment and the freedom of religion clauses in state constitutions are intended to protect religious observances
and practices from oppression by government. They were never intended to protect individual citizens from incidental
exposure to religious precepts through overhearing religious speech or observing religious symbols or behaviors in public
places. Furthermore, unless prohibited by state constitutions, states and municipalities may, by statute or local custom,
permit religious symbols or expression on publicly owned properties, Bible reading and/or prayer in public schools, Christmas
displays, Christmas pageants, et cetera, without interference by the federal government, under the authority of the Tenth
Amendment.
A letter dated January 1, 1802 by Thomas Jefferson in response to one from a local association of Baptist Churches in
Danbury Connecticut, October 7, 1801, contained the sentence fragment, “wall of separation between church and state”.
This seven word fragment lifted from the letter and used out of context, has become the favorite quote in the progressive’s
argument against local, state or federal government’s acknowledgement of religious influence in American public affairs. An
objective examination of the Danbury letter and Jefferson’s reply makes it painfully obvious that those who use this argument
are either ignorant of the facts or are deliberately attempting to mislead the public to further their own ends.
The Danbury Baptists’ letter, written during Jefferson’s first year in office was to seek assurances that the Federal
government, under his leadership, would not add to the oppress-sive conditions imposed on them already by the Connecticut
State Constitution. Jefferson’s reply containing the famous reference to a “wall of separation” assured them that the First
Amendment forbad any interference on the part of the federal government with the religious practices of the people. The
“wall” metaphor was intended to express protection of the church from the government, not protection of the government
from the church.
When Independence was declared, most of the states immediately drew up new Constitutions as the basis for their
governments. Connecticut was one of the few that did not. It continued to operate under its 1639 Constitution known as the
“Fundamental Orders” until 1818. While a certain amount of religious toleration was permitted, religious freedom was far
from absolute. The preamble to the “Fundamental Orders” describes the purpose of its government being….
- “…to maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus which we now profess, as also,
the discipline of the Churches, which according to the truth of the said Gospel is now practiced amongst us; as also
in our civil affairs to be guided and governed according to such Laws, Rules, Orders and Decrees as shall be made,
ordered, and decreed as followeth:” (emphasis added)
Pursuant to its Constitution, the Connecticut General Assembly, in 1723 passed a law against dissenters. It provided for
punishment and fines for a variety of religious offenses.
- A fine of twenty shillings was imposed for “forming themselves into separate companies in private houses,” A
person “not being a lawful or allowed minister of the gospel, [and presuming] . . . to profane the holy sacraments
by administering or making shew of administering them” would incur a penalty of ten pounds for every offense or
whipping not to exceed thirty stripes for each offense.
~ Baptists and Religious Liberty in Early Connecticut by George W. Grisevich
Citizens of Connecticut were taxed to support the churches and ministers of the “approved religion”, Congregationalist
(Puritan) until it was disestablished by Connecticut’s new Constitution in 1818. In 1813, Baptist Historian David Benedict
wrote,
- “Some ministers here as well as in Massachusetts are supported from funds, pew rents, etc., but by far the greater
part have their living by a direct tax according to the civil lists, which every human being within the parish bounds,
whether Jew or Gentile, Infidel or Christian possessed of a rateable poll or taxable property is obliged to pay unless
he gives a certificate of his different belief.”
It was these regulations and taxes that prompted the members of the Danbury, Connecticut Baptist Association to write to
President Jefferson for his moral support. The Baptists explained their circumstances as,
- “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 neighbors; But, sir, our constitution of government is not specific.
Our ancient charter together with the law 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 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.”
They recognized the limitations placed on the President’s and the national government’s authority and asked only that he
continues to be an advocate for religious liberty.
- “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.”
In his reply, Jefferson expresses the assurances sought by the Baptists.
- “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.”
Taken in context, it is clear that Jefferson’s use of the phrase “wall of separation between church and state” in conjunction
with the First Amendment, which he describes as an “expression of the supreme will of the nation,” is nothing more than an
assurance to the Danbury Baptists that the federal government could not establish a national religion. That he did not consider
the First Amendment as binding upon the states, is evidenced by a letter he wrote to a Reverend Mr. Millar in 1808 in
response to a request from him that Jefferson declare a national day of prayer.
- "I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the constitution from intermeddling with religious
institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made
respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the States the powers
not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in
religious discipline, has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the States, as far as it can
be in any human authority.” (emphasis added)
~ Thomas Jefferson
The First Amendment and the freedom of religion clauses in state constitutions are intended to protect religious observances
and practices from oppression by government. They were never intended to protect individual citizens from incidental
exposure to religious precepts through overhearing religious speech or observing religious symbols or behaviors in public
places. Furthermore, unless prohibited by state constitutions, states and municipalities may, by statute or local custom,
permit religious symbols or expression on publicly owned properties, Bible reading and/or prayer in public schools, Christmas
displays, Christmas pageants, et cetera, without interference by the federal government, under the authority of the Tenth
Amendment.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
E-mail address
jfm@illinoisconservative.com
jfm@illinoisconservative.com
| Philosophy of Evil Socialism in America "The struggle of History is not between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat; it is between government and the governed." Jerry McDaniel |
Purchase a book for your
library or as a gift
library or as a gift
| Philosophy of Evil Socialism In America By Jerry McDaniel Chapter 21, Continued Separation of Church and State |
| In God We Trust |
| Christian Patriots USA |