Separation of Church And State? The Rest of The Story

41,934 views

Published on

Separation of Church and State? The rest of the story. Hidden history you have never been taught. There is no real separation of Church and State as it has been claimed. Read this report to find out the real facts.

1 Comment
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Good points. For some additional arguments, check out this recent article from the folks a Public Discourse, highlighting some of the comments of Chief Justice Oliver Ellsworth, drafter of the Constitution, a creator of the federal court system, and a chief justice of the Supreme Court. http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/06/14490/
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
41,934
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
38,553
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
7
Comments
1
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Separation of Church And State? The Rest of The Story

  1. 1. Separation of Church And State? Hidden History. What You Have Never Been Told. The Rest of The Real Story. There Is No Separation of Church And State! The Facts:
  2. 2. First what we are going to cover is what most people use as the argument for the separation of powers between church and state. The following is known as the Danbury Letters. A letter sent to Thomas Jefferson, just as he became President of the United States along with Jefferson's response to the letter. Today this is referred to as the Wall of separation of powers. We are going to show why it has been misconstrued and therefore is to be considered wrong as well as potentially dangerous to continue to use this as an argument. The Baptist Letter Sent To Thomas Jefferson, reprinted. Letter from the Danbury Baptists: The address of the Danbury Baptist Association in the State of Connecticut, assembled October 7, 1801. To Thomas Jefferson, Esq., President of the United States of America 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 Unite States. And though the mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe, that none is 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, [and] 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 ancient charter, together with the laws made coincident therewith, were adapted as the basis of our government at the time of our revolution. And such has been our laws and usages, and such still are, [so] 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 acknowledgments, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore, if those who seek after
  3. 3. power and gain, under the pretense of government and Religion, should reproach their fellow men, [or] should reproach their Chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dares 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 sentiment 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-until hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and goodwill shining forth in a course 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 goodwill 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 and 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, Neh,h Dodge Eph'm Robbins The Committee Stephen S. Nelson The next section here is a reprint of the Letter sent in response to the above from Thomas Jefferson;
  4. 4. 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, and 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 and 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 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.] 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. (signed) Thomas Jefferson Jan.1.1802.
  5. 5. Now this is where the argument lies where it has been said is a separation of church and state. However, numerous areas have not been taken into consideration here and instead have been missed, by it seems, everyone. Look again at what Thomas Jefferson wrote. He only used a part of the First Amendment in his statement as it properly addressed his area of concern as well as theirs. The First Amendment as a whole was not included to the good folks of Danbury Baptist Church as it was not needed. Now take that into consideration. If you are to argue the wall of separation, you must look at the entire argument and not just a partial section of it. Let's look at the First Amendment in it's entirety to understand the rest of what we are about to explain. First Amendment: “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, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”. If the wall of separation is to be argued for religion, it must also be argued for the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press and also the right of the people to peaceably assemble and the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. As that is the entire First Amendment and not just a part of it. That is the full wall of the separation of powers. That would mean that neither the Federal Government nor State Government has the right to produce anything for the press as all presently do. That would mean that the Governments are prohibited from the free exercise of speech. That would mean if they are prohibited from the freedom of speech, the only areas of speech they would be allowed to communicate would be the Constitution and it's laws and nothing else. You do not get to pick and choose only one section of the First Amendment to argue and ignore the rest of it as it is done today. That is akin to picking a Federal law or state law that you like and arguing that as the only sole law of the land. It simply does not work. Let's put it another way. Let's look at the story of God and Mosses. As the story goes, God gave Mosses 10 commandments. The laws that God wanted the people to live by. God did not tell Mosses to go down to the people and let them pick and choose what commandments they could live by and ignore the others. It was the full 10 commandments.
  6. 6. So the same issue exists in the letter to the Baptist's from Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson was addressing a religious issue. He only needed to point out one area of the First Amendment and not the entire first amendment. If it were a newspaper that had contacted Jefferson, then Jefferson would have used that part of the First Amendment in his response leaving out the rest. Now it's time to get into American History to understand what Thomas Jefferson was really doing. It's this part of history that remains hidden from the masses and explains what Thomas Jefferson was really working on protecting. Back when the United States Constitution was being constructed, there were a number of arguments on how to protect the people as well as create a strong nation. It was determined that the best way to protect the nation, the states, and the people is to not recognize any forms of classes, orders or groupings of men possessing privileges, duties, immunities, or exemptions. That is early American History. In New York vs Faulkner; 1836, regarding a Tailor's Union, the judge hearing the case stated the following: "The law leaves every individual master of his own individual acts. But it will not suffer him to encroach upon the rights of others. He may work or not, as suits his pleasure, but he shall not enter into a confederacy with a view of controlling others, and take measures to carry it into effect. The reason for the distinction is manifest. So long as individual members of the community do not resort to any acts of violence, their hostility can be guarded against. But who can withstand an extensive combination to injure him in his calling? When such cases, therefore, occur, the law extends its protecting shield". Jefferson's arguments were correct but have been taken out of context. That wall of separation was considered a well established fact in that period of time, whether it was any religious group, company, union, organization or corporation. Thomas Jefferson was not arguing a case for the separation of church and state, as we have all been led to believe, but instead it was the act of law that the United States Constitution did not recognize any form of groups. Today, that simply is not the case. When the judges made their decision separating church and state, they did so based on the best information available with little knowledge of American History in this regard. Information in the past was not at all like it is today. Back then, one was limited to whatever books were available and one had to know where to look. Today the challenge is not access to information by any means. Today the problem is finding the right information in a sea of information that boggles the mind. This is the hidden history of the United States that few know about and this knowledge makes all the difference. If the arguments are to continue on the separation of powers, it must do so to include the rest of the First Amendment and not just a section of it that suits those who wish special
  7. 7. privileges and to deny the full protection of the Constitution to that of the people. This report created by Chuck Thompson of TTC Media. Digital publishing, December, 2013. Everyone is free to distribute this work as long as this section remains in place and is not removed. This is not public domain but instead copy left, creative commons. This report may not be sold at any time by anyone and or any entity in and of itself. Website: http://www.gloucestercounty-va.com Visit us. (Other: Print publishing. This report may be printed in any form of print publication so long as proper attribution is given and a copy of the publication sent to us and is considered only a part of the entire publication such as a magazine, newsletter or newspaper. A digital copy of said publication is considered acceptable).

×