As I sit here on a Sunday morning, getting ready for Church, I find myself wondering what kind of a country we’re going to leave my grandson Robert.
Robert turns 4 years old today, and my family’s coming over for cake and ice cream this afternoon.
Every Sunday morning, Robert’s in Sunday School, whether he’s with us, or his other set of grandparents. However, it is not his Sunday morning activities that concern me.
It’s whether he’ll be able to express his Christianity in public the rest of the week.
As I have been writing about the last two days, and in my Battleground series of posts, there are those who would pigeonhole and constrain Christian Americans from expressing our faith in public, under the false assertions of prejudice, hurt feelings, and, hold on for it…”The Separation of Church and State”.
Have you ever wondered where the expression “separation of church and state” came from?
David Barton, writing at wallbuilders.com, presents the following explanation:
In 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared, “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” The “separation of church and state” phrase which they invoked, and which has today become so familiar, was taken from an exchange of letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, shortly after Jefferson became President.
…Jefferson had committed himself as President to pursuing the purpose of the First Amendment: preventing the “establishment of a particular form of Christianity” by the Episcopalians, Congregationalists, or any other denomination.
Since this was Jefferson’s view concerning religious expression, in his short and polite reply to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802, he assured them that they need not fear; that the free exercise of religion would never be interfered with by the federal government. As he explained:
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. . . . 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 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 and 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. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association assurances of my high respect and esteem.
Jefferson’s reference to “natural rights” invoked an important legal phrase which was part of the rhetoric of that day and which reaffirmed his belief that religious liberties were inalienable rights. While the phrase “natural rights” communicated much to people then, to most citizens today those words mean little.
By definition, “natural rights” included “that which the Books of the Law and the Gospel do contain.” That is, “natural rights” incorporated what God Himself had guaranteed to man in the Scriptures. Thus, when Jefferson assured the Baptists that by following their “natural rights” they would violate no social duty, he was affirming to them that the free exercise of religion was their inalienable God-given right and therefore was protected from federal regulation or interference.
So clearly did Jefferson understand the Source of America’s inalienable rights that he even doubted whether America could survive if we ever lost that knowledge. He queried:
And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?
Jefferson believed that God, not government, was the Author and Source of our rights and that the government, therefore, was to be prevented from interference with those rights. Very simply, the “fence” of the Webster letter and the “wall” of the Danbury letter were not to limit religious activities in public; rather they were to limit the power of the government to prohibit or interfere with those expressions.
Now, as I sit back and wait for the inevitable wailing and gnashing of teeth, allow me to leave you with this thought:
Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise. In this sense and to this extent, our civilizations and our institutions are emphatically Christian.
— Richmond v. Moore, (Illinois Supreme Court, 1883)
Kingsjester's Blog 
Great Post KJ, Happy Birthday Robert!!!!!
LikeLike
I appreciate your passion, I disagree with your conclusions. Whatever happened in 1883 or in the era of our Founding Fathers, we are in 2011 and the Supreme Court has found through their rulings that the separation of church and state is necessary and strong and they can find such through the First Amendment. I know you don’t agree with that finding, and I know many other Christians who think the decisions are wrong. I am of the opinion that in order to preserve religious freedom in this country it is imperative that religion not be in the governmental/public realm, but practiced as much as people want to in the private realm. This does not mean Macy’s shouldn’t have their annual Christmas display (and as someone who travels to NYC each year for the Radio City Christmas Spectacular and to visit all the beautifully decorated store windows, I would sincerely hope they always have such displays), but Macy’s is a private company in the public realm, and can do whatever it likes in that regard. Do I think people should not say “Merry Christmas”? No, I think any well intentioned greeting is a wonderful thing, but I also think that since not everyone celebrates, it’s OK to also say “Happy Holidays” since there are more holidays than just one at that time and it’s OK to be inclusive of others.
But getting back to my statement that I think it is imperative that religion not be in the governmental/opublic realm in order to preserve religious freedom, as we become a less monolithically Christian nation, that very same wall will not allow us as a nation to have any other religion endorsed in the government’s name, should a time come when some other religion is the majority. A vibrant religious community in the private realm is a wonderful thing. It doesn’t mean that people can’t pray in public (they can), or they can’t have a Nativity in a store (they can), but that we keep government away from such things.
I know that you believe that all blessings in our nation come from God, and I know that you think keeping God out of the governmental/public realm will lead to the downfall of the nation. I won’t argue the religious philosophy with you, because I don’t think either of us will convince the other of our belief. I just want you to ponder the idea that if we are a nation of believers, by and large, as you would hope, that whether or not we can pray or have crosses in the town square, God will bring blessings on such a nation.
LikeLike
I appreciate your thoughts, too. However, the things our Founders stood for and wrote about, are still as relevant today as they were at the birth of our nation. I stand with them and the 75%.
LikeLike
When Congress prays before a session, when children recite the Pledge of Allegiance in schools that receive federal $$, when a teacher wears a cross around their neck to public school, when a child brings a Bible to public school to read, when schools allow priests to come to public school to teach religion classes to their church members, when public school students get together to discuss religion on school grounds, NONE of this is the STATE violating an amendment.
I teach in a public school that has a Christmas pageant, with baby Jesus & all + religious songs.
In God We Trust on the money is not Congress making any laws that respect an ESTABLISHMENT of a religion.That word refers to Congress making any religion an OFFICIAL religion that is formally recognized as having special rights over others. Which has NEVER happened.None of the things mentioned above ESTABLISH a religion.
A nation based on Godly principles has every right to display its faith in whatever way they choose, so long as no one is FORCED to recognized that religion as an official religion that has the power to enforce anything, including tithing & attendance.
If you are a Godless person, or someone of another religion that does not recognize God, that is your business. But to disparage the rights of others involved in govt to pray before a Congressional meeting, a public school football game, the right to wear a cross around your neck to a public school, the right to have Bible meetings etc. in public settings is not what the amendment is referring to.
People who respect the rights of others, truly respect them, do not disparage their practices when those practices are not then required of the others who do not believe.
It is the people who do not respect the rights of others who become uncomfortable around such displays and wish to limit others’ rights.
Roma, it is wrong to limit the rights of people involved in public duties displaying faith just because they are involved in official govt duties. It is wrong to tell a county courthouse that they cannot display the 10 commandments. These displays & practices are not ESTABLISHING a religion above others. They are recognizing a shared heritage. If there is a community where there are a bunch of Jews or Muslims, then if the community wants displays of the Torah Koran etc, they have that right.
But there have been no LAWS ESTABLISHING a particular religion.
Rather, there HAVE been laws PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF.
As usual, there will always be people trying to rationalize the exercise of freedom by trying to limit their expressions of their faith.
LikeLike
BRAVO !!!!
LikeLike
I concur with Batman, well said Badger40…
LikeLike