From: jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only)
Subject: Re: "Separation of Church and State"
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:08:04 GMT

In article <parsons.724484675@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu.cis.ksu.edu> parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish ) writes:
>bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>
>>jimb@rcx1.csd.harris.com (Jim Burmeister) writes:
>>>
>>>Occasionally we hear someone point out that the words "separation of church
>>>and state" don't appear in the U.S. Constitution--the wording is something 
>>>like "Congress shall pass no laws restricting the free exercise of religion"
>>>(inexact quote).  My question is, who first came up with the phrase "Separation
>>>of Church and State" and in what context was it used?  I would like as exact
>>>a reference as possible.
>
>>"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 legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not
>> opinions, I contemplate with soveriegn 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 and State."
>
>>     [Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT.
>>      "The Complete Jefferson" by Saul K. Padover, pp 518-519]
>
>"... Although the statesmen and patriots who framed the Constitution had
>made it clear that no one Christian denomination would become the official
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It was clearer than that. Read the first amendment again.

>denomination, the Danbury Baptists expressed their concern over a rumor
>that a particular denomination was soon to be recognized as the national
>denomination.  On January 1, 1802, President Jefferson responded to the
>Danbury Baptists in a letter.  He calmed their fears by using the now 
>infamous phrase to assure them that the federal government would not
>establish any single denomination of Christianity as the national
>denomination.

So, it is quite clear what was meant by Jefferson in the context of the first
amendment.


>... Jefferson's words of assurance to the Danbury Baptist Association 
>were soon forgotton since the rumor never became fact.  Jeferson's speech
>remained in obscurity, as is usual with most presidential addresses
>delivered to specific audiences, until 76 years later when it appeared
>in the 1878 case of Reynolds v. United States.  In that case, a lengthy
>excerpt from Jefferson's speech was used, and its context clearly presented.
>In that case, the [Supreme] Court did NOT use Jefferson's speech to attempte 
>to spearate church and state, but used it in an opposite manner.

And the Supreme Court then reinterpreted his meaning for their own purposes.

>The opportunity for the Court to use Jefferson's speech arose in 1878 when
>the Mormons claimed that the First Amendment's 'free exercise of religion'
>promise and the 'separation of church and state' principle should keep the
>United States government from making laws prohibiting their 'religious'
>exercise of polygamy.  Using Jefferson's address, the Court showed that
>while the government was not free to interfere with opinions on religion,
>which is what frequently distinguishes one denomination from another, it
>was responsible to enforce civil laws according to general Christian
>standards.  In other words, separation of church and state pertained to
>denominational differences, not to basic Christian principles.  Therefore,
>and on that basis, the Court ruled that the Mormon practice of polygamy
>and bigamy was a violation of the Constitution because it was a violation
>of basic Christian principles.

Again, all of this according to the Supreme Court's mis-interpretation.

>Nearly 70 years after the Reynolds case, in the 1947 Everson [v. Board of
>Education] case, the Court excerpted eight words out of Jefferson's address
>('a wall of separation between church and state') and adopted that phrase
>as its new battle cry.  It announced for the first time the new meaning
                                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^
>of separation of church and state--a separation of basic religious
>principles from public arenas.  When the Court excerpted Jefferson's words
>in the Everson case, it did not bother to present the context in which
>the phrase had originally been used, nor reveal that it had been applied
>in an opposite manner in previous Supreme Court cases."  
>
>David Bartion, THE MYTH OF SEPARATION, WallBuilder Press, p.41-43, 1992.

No, not a new meaning, but the original intent of Jefferson and the 
Constitution.  Supreme Court interpretations don't change the original
intent.

Jim Copeland
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|      Reporter: "Mr. Gandhi, What do you think of Western Civilization?"    |
|      Mr. Gandhi: "I think it would be a good idea!"                        |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.atheism