tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post1831054191125098319..comments2024-03-17T14:55:33.289-06:00Comments on American Creation: Jefferson and the Real Meaning of the "Wall of Separation"Brad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-54768982458193839132014-04-20T22:46:26.677-06:002014-04-20T22:46:26.677-06:00padraig said...
"the Founding principle was n...<i>padraig said...<br />"the Founding principle was not 'freedom' from religion, but accommodation of all religions--two very different things."<br /><br />Perhaps, but if religions refuse to be mutually accommodated, the only way to accommodate them both is to be free from both, no?</i><br /><br />That's a big "if," and not one that is the fact today in America, or even back then. Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-90243988809112639242014-01-25T23:33:25.611-07:002014-01-25T23:33:25.611-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01967034818210502708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-70945095108014162022014-01-06T22:25:18.513-07:002014-01-06T22:25:18.513-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00993116376366695814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-59979059963358778672014-01-02T13:11:21.335-07:002014-01-02T13:11:21.335-07:00"the Founding principle was not 'freedom&..."the Founding principle was not 'freedom' from religion, but accommodation of all religions--two very different things."<br /><br />Perhaps, but if religions refuse to be mutually accommodated, the only way to accommodate them both is to be free from both, no?padraighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06567721244433276365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-71225669595457374432013-11-22T02:27:57.081-07:002013-11-22T02:27:57.081-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.bradmaddoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14839427415714509223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-90556227297246711802013-11-16T02:04:23.520-07:002013-11-16T02:04:23.520-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17539445012135869026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-31916853315769025922013-11-09T00:22:52.314-07:002013-11-09T00:22:52.314-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.faisalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08649706327910271050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-49556498806857569032013-11-05T00:55:22.866-07:002013-11-05T00:55:22.866-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03595014092524521992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-44222499088725465972013-10-23T16:25:06.486-06:002013-10-23T16:25:06.486-06:00Tom, they are only “very different” in your presen...<i>Tom, they are only “very different” in your presentist mind, not Jefferson, Madison or Leland’s.</i><br /><br />Well, I confess to a "presentism" in that I used the language in its present day sense. Duh, JMS.<br /><br />Separation of "church and state" is not the same as the separation of religion and government, or between faith and ethos, which we can say informs the "spirit of the laws."<br /><br />I use "freedom" from religion in its modern-day sense that virtually every reader of my post understood: <a href="http://ffrf.org/" rel="nofollow">The Freedom From Religion Foundation</a>, which litigates to remove virtually every trace of religion from the public square.<br /><br />And although your observations re John Leland are accurate [I have never found your facts questionable], the whole point of the post is that Leland HIMSELF preached a service in the Halls of Congress!<br /><br />And there is no purpose in arguing that Founder X said "but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion.” After all this time in our company, it's inexplicable that y'd think anyone is saying otherwise, or that "freedom" from religion [esp with the scare quotes only on "freedom"] was being used in any but the contemporary sense, esp in the context of Tommy Kidd's essay, which that's also the point of:<br /><br /><i>Did Jefferson envision a secular public sphere, as his liberal admirers might imagine today? Clues to Jefferson’s intentions came the weekend that [Baptist Rev. John] Leland delivered the mammoth cheese, a weekend, as it turns out, that was one of the most significant in America’s history with regard to church-state relations...</i><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-82291845869400720302013-10-23T14:25:07.938-06:002013-10-23T14:25:07.938-06:00TVD wrote: “the Founding principle was not "f...TVD wrote: “the Founding principle was not "freedom" from religion, but accommodation of all religions--two very different things.” <br /><br />Tom, they are only “very different” in your presentist mind, not Jefferson, Madison or Leland’s. They saw these founding principles as “both and” rather than “either or.” The Virginia Statute for Religious insisted on freedom from gov’t sponsored or mandated religion and the dogmas of other people’s religious beliefs so that everyone would be free to follow the demands of our own conscience. Section 2: “no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion.” Leland concurred: “the liberty I contend for is more than toleration. The very idea of toleration is despicable; it supposes that some have a pre-eminence above the rest to grant indulgence; whereas all should be equally free, Jews, Turks, Pagans and Christians.”<br /><br />While the Danbury Baptists and Leland appealed to God, and Jefferson appealed to reason, they came to the same conclusion: the “rights of conscience” were “natural” and “unalienable” rights. Leland wrote, “Government has no more to do with the religious opinions of men than it has with the principles of mathematics. Let every man speak freely without fear, maintain the principles that he believes, worship according to his own faith, either one God, three Gods, no God or twenty Gods; and let government protect him in so doing.” <br /><br />The religion clauses of the First Amendment constitutionally guarantee that we have both freedom of religion and freedom from religion. The broad-minded policies of Jefferson and Madison protected religious freedom at the national level, but in the early Republic states remained free to promote favored faiths and oppress religious minorities. Leland never accepted that discriminatory policy as just, and he relentlessly fought government-backed religious establishments in Massachusetts and Connecticut. He opposed Sunday laws, all special privileges for the clergy, state-paid chaplains, and the “mischievous dagger” of any government aid to religion.<br /> <br />As William Lee Miller wrote, “dissenting Protestantism made common cause with rationalism and deism to bring about a revolution within the Revolution.” their novel “free marketplace of religion” approach to religious pluralism (i.e., Jefferson’s “truth is great and will prevail if left to herself”) worked! Between 1776 and 1833, every state ended tax support for churches and religious qualifications for voting and office-holding. Religious denominations had to compete for followers without government support, and voluntary support for religion proved to be enormously successful. Between 1800 and 1840, the proportion of Americans who were church members doubled. Today, a higher proportion of Americans regularly attend a religious institution than in any other western country. <br />JMSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-582292996419890212013-10-23T01:29:06.809-06:002013-10-23T01:29:06.809-06:00I used to love the Atlantic. Now it's just an...I used to love the Atlantic. Now it's just another banal organ of the left. <br /><br />i still subscribe, because they're practically giving it away, $3.48 a year at this website.<br /><br />http://www.magazinepricesearch.com/detail/atlantic.html<br /><br />I still manage to get through most odf an issue before tossing it across the room, but I used to savor every word when Michael Kelly was running it.<br /><br />That said, it was a pretty even-handed article:<br /><br /><i>He said to the Assembly, Here's the idea. If I and my associates can raise such-and-such an amount of money (an enormous sum for the time), you will match it, and the project moves forward.</i><br /><br />That's not Obamacare, it's a public-private partnership, and a faith-based initiative at that. The GOP would have supported that. Contrary to popular slander, those who voted against Obamacare still favor public charity for the poor and sick.<br /><br />Some of us might enjoy Christopher Hitchens' Straussian take on Ben Franklin linked in the article<br /><br />http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/11/free-and-easy/304323/?single_page=true<br /><br />I loved Hitchens, but I think it's he who's left "swinging at air" here. Franklin was quite capable of sincerity, the one thing that Straussian "esotericism" is unprepared for.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-21428764720931445392013-10-22T22:59:53.237-06:002013-10-22T22:59:53.237-06:00You all might get a kick out of this: What Does Be...You all might get a kick out of this: What Does Benjamin Franklin Have to Do With Obamacare? (at the Atlantic):<br /><br />http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/10/what-does-benjamin-franklin-have-to-do-with-obamacare/280735/polymathishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13122383984552473728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-70556565874717892312013-10-21T11:15:30.237-06:002013-10-21T11:15:30.237-06:00I found out about that MyJSTOR Beta a month or so ...I found out about that MyJSTOR Beta a month or so ago. Makes me drool just thinking about all those history articles...polymathishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13122383984552473728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-89539902822192871062013-10-21T10:22:14.121-06:002013-10-21T10:22:14.121-06:00Oops. I see that the term "eternal" was ...Oops. I see that the term "eternal" was in the original draft, but then dropped by TJ.<br /><br />https://www.pbs.org/godinamerica/people/wall-of-separation.htmlJonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-26238162249535370452013-10-21T07:01:25.970-06:002013-10-21T07:01:25.970-06:00Mr. Fortenberry,
You may be on to something with...Mr. Fortenberry, <br /><br />You may be on to something with your analysis of "Wall of Separation." But I don't "see it." Rather I see, novel eccentric word parsing. But still there are a lot of things I don't "see." If I "saw" everything I'd pick the right stocks and would be a billionaire. <br /><br />You have to get the right people to buy into it. And if you hit big, then be able to withstand the scrutiny of the Roddas (as Barton could not).<br /><br />I certainly don't buy the Hamburger/Dreisbach/Hutson separation analysis completely; but they at least got a lot of important folks to buy into their narrative (notably Supreme Court dissenters).<br /><br />But back to your word parsing. If you can dismiss the phrase "Separation of Church and State" as a "contrivance" because Jefferson didn't use those exact words, I can do the same with "Wall of Separation."<br /><br />He didn't say that either. He said "Wall of ETERNAL Separation...." (Emphasis mine.)Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-45878676046123827222013-10-20T21:32:26.048-06:002013-10-20T21:32:26.048-06:00The Heritage Foundation on Jefferson's politic...The Heritage Foundation on Jefferson's political purpose:<br />____________<br /><br />January 1, 1802<br />The Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut wrote to President Thomas Jefferson on October 7, 1801, to complain about the infringement of their religious liberty by their state legislature: “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.” <br /><br />The Baptists, of course, acknowledged that “the president of the United States is not the national legislator,” but expressed the wish that his views on religious liberty would “shine and prevail through all these states and all the world.”<br /><br />In his brief response, President Jefferson sympathized with the Connecticut Baptists in their opposition to the state’s established religion, while expressing his reverence for the First Amendment’s “wall of separation between Church & State” at the federal level. Jefferson was not advancing the modern view that religion must be excluded from the public square. After all, he concludes his letter, written in his official capacity as President, with a brief prayer.<br /><br />The now well-known expression lay dormant for nearly a century and a half until Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, in the 1947 case Everson v. Board of Education, put forth the novel interpretation that the First Amendment’s establishment clause applied to the states and that any government support or preference for religion amounts to an unconstitutional establishment of religion. In support of his argument for a radical separation of religion and politics, he cited Jefferson’s metaphor: “[t]he First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable.”<br /><br />Jefferson’s actual aim was quite to the contrary. While he, along with James Madison, stoutly opposed established churches as existed in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and other states (while recognizing that, as President, he had to respect them), he was deeply committed to religious liberty. Jefferson’s letter must also be read in context of his declaration in the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom: “Almighty God hath created the mind free….” <br /><br />The “wall of separation” exists to affirm natural rights, including those of faith and religious worship. The “wall” does not imprison the free exercise of religion. Rather, Jefferson sought to prevent the domination of particular sects, making free the religious practices of all.<br />________<br /><br />TVD: And if you follow the links to the JSTOR article by Hutson above, iirc Hutson maintains that Jefferson--already president--was trying to put the final nail in the Federalists' coffin and further diminish their power in Congress, hence his courting of the New England Baptists.<br />Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-22348188580631314022013-10-20T21:24:49.549-06:002013-10-20T21:24:49.549-06:00Can you provide any examples of a pre-nineteenth c...<i>Can you provide any examples of a pre-nineteenth century usage of the phrase "wall of separation" which conveys a meaning other than "something which prevents the complete union of two groups"?</i><br /><br />Actually, I took that as Bill's key point, the general meaning of the metaphor. As for Jon's point, the specific application of the metaphor to religion and state, the link above to the Hutson investigation speaks to Jon's point, and that Jefferson was engaging in a pointed political polemic vs. the Federalists.<br /><br />Danbury is in Connecticut, a state controlled by the Federalists and one that had an official, established state church. Danbury's Baptists didn't dig that, for obvious reasons. Baptists were always in 3rd place, behind Presbyterianism/Congregationalism and Anglican/Episcopalianism. Baptists were THE natural allies for Jefferson's Democratic Republicans, and indeed had more to do with passing Virginia's statute for Religious Freedom than did the "secular Enlightenment" types.<br /><br />http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2008/09/scholarly-malpractice-and-founding.html<br />Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-23691098377055514862013-10-20T21:10:47.095-06:002013-10-20T21:10:47.095-06:00I suspected as much. Well let me throw you a bone...I suspected as much. Well let me throw you a bone and see if you can run with it to something more meaningful than a mere dismissal. Here is a 19th century occurrence of the phrase "wall of separation" in the context of church and state relations which was published prior to the publication of Jefferson's papers:<br /><br /><i>The enlightened policy of the Roman government, at first went a great way to break down this. To mould into one so many states, they carefully protected the religious rites of each, when not cruel and horrible to nature. But when special superstitions were transported beyond their own limits, and ceremonies the most discordant were celebrated, side by side, in the same metropolis, they destroyed each other's credit; and general unbelief became widely diffused. On the blending of so many nations into one empire, the old separate religions were no longer in appearance useful; they were a wall of separation, not a wall of strength. In this 'fulness of times' Christianity was preached, as an extra-political religion; separating the things of Caesar from the things of God, which had never before been done. The Church and State were now no longer one. The personal responsibility of each separate conscience to God was proclaimed, and religion was made a right and a duty of the individual. Such was the great revolution in thought, introduced by the preaching of the apostles.</i><br /><br />http://books.google.com/books?id=htgEAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA292Bill Fortenberryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14205053444988720146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-59983483744023839182013-10-20T20:41:10.407-06:002013-10-20T20:41:10.407-06:00I don't need to because it is an irrelevant in...I don't need to because it is an irrelevant inquiry.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-91125839601498037402013-10-20T20:32:31.738-06:002013-10-20T20:32:31.738-06:00That's an interesting possibility. Can you pr...That's an interesting possibility. Can you provide any examples of a pre-nineteenth century usage of the phrase "wall of separation" which conveys a meaning other than "something which prevents the complete union of two groups"?Bill Fortenberryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14205053444988720146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-36162174059968941332013-10-20T20:26:00.271-06:002013-10-20T20:26:00.271-06:00Wall of separation as it relates to church and sta...Wall of separation as it relates to church and state in the relevant context that interests this blog traces to Roger Williams. Your described lineage is hair brained and most likely the result of a misuse of google .Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-42804638635915719052013-10-20T20:16:54.023-06:002013-10-20T20:16:54.023-06:00By the way, Tom, thanks for the link. That is ver...By the way, Tom, thanks for the link. That is very interesting indeed.Bill Fortenberryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14205053444988720146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-25247471360112503402013-10-20T20:08:21.216-06:002013-10-20T20:08:21.216-06:00I think that you may be reading your opinion into ...I think that you may be reading your opinion into what I wrote. You claim that I did not prove any common usage of the phrase "separation of church and state" in the eighteenth century, but there is a very good reason for this supposed failure on my part: <b>Jefferson did not use the phrase "separation of church and state" in his letter to the Danbury Baptists.</b> Jefferson referred to the First Amendment "building a wall of separation between Church & State." He did not say that the First Amendment created a separation <b>of</b> church and state, but rather than it built something <b>between</b> the church and the state. That something which was built in between these two entities was "a wall of separation." Thus (there's that word again), in order to understand what Jefferson was saying, we should study the phrase describing the thing which he viewed as being in between the church and state and not some contrived phrase that he did not use.Bill Fortenberryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14205053444988720146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-6090922244285686012013-10-20T19:35:46.204-06:002013-10-20T19:35:46.204-06:00You didn't prove that you properly defined the...You didn't prove that you properly defined the "common usage" of late 18th Cen./early 19th American term "SOCAS."<br /><br />Hamburger questions that the phrase was indeed "commonly used" in the late 18th Century and noted when used in the early 19th Cen. by Democratic-Republicans it was loaded with peculiar (controversial, politicized) meaning.<br /><br />All I see from you are cherry picks that have no relationship to Jefferson and what he meant when he wrote the phrase.<br />Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-63732173518008805282013-10-20T19:25:14.390-06:002013-10-20T19:25:14.390-06:00Jon, my "thus" in this instance is based...Jon, my "thus" in this instance is based on the underlying assumption that, unless we have good reason to assume otherwise, we should recognize an author's use of a common phrase as an intention to convey the idea commonly associated with it. Do you think that we should take a different approach in this instance?Bill Fortenberryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14205053444988720146noreply@blogger.com