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.
Separation of Church And State? The Rest of The Story
Separation of Church And State?
What You Have Never Been Told.
The Rest of The Real Story.
There Is No Separation
Church And State!
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
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
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
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
And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you
at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious
Signed in behalf of the Association,
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;
To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a
committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
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
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
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
“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
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
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
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
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).