If you were to ask the people you know if they understand the phrase ‘separation of church and state’, most of them would say that they do. If you pressed them further, they would tell you it means that anything that is religious must be separate from that which is public, or owned or controlled by the government. As long as you’ve got them talking, you could ask what this government policy is based on, and they would tell you it is based on the Constitution. This is the common understanding of our day.
You might be quite surprised to learn that the source of the phrase ‘separation of church and state’ is not in the Constitution, but rather a personal letter. This letter was written to a specific group in response to their concerns and therefore it has a definite context we need to understand.
In this account, we will look at the key points from the referenced source documents. As you read this account, keep your eyes open for this phrase: “The ‘fence’ of the Noah Webster letter and the ‘wall’ of the Danbury letter”, because when you find this phrase you are into the key truth.
Explore the History
In October 1801, Thomas Jefferson had just been elected President of the United States. He was the first anti-Federalist president to be elected and this was welcome news to the Baptists, who were a group that primarily held to the anti-Federalist position. There had been a growing concern among some that other larger denominations such as Episcopalians and Congregationalists would be endorsed by the new government.
In light of this concern, the Danbury Baptists wrote a letter to Thomas Jefferson. The first portion of the letter was focused on congratulating him on his new office and wishing him God’s blessing in that position. They then proceeded to express their grave concern regarding the “free exercise of religion” as found in the First Amendment to the Constitution. Quoting from their letter:
Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and the individual, 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, … herefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights.”1
The Danbury Baptists were concerned that because the “free exercise of religion” was in the Constitution that some, either now or in the future would consider this ‘free exercise’ to be a government-given right, as opposed to a God-given right, i.e. an inalienable right. They firmly believed this right to be inalienable; unless someone’s religious practice “caused him to work ill to his neighbor.”
Thomas Jefferson’s Perspective and Response
This was not a new issue for Thomas Jefferson, for he had written on the same issue on several other occasions. One example is this, “Our excellent Constitution ….has not placed our religious rights under the power of any public functionary.” 2
Jefferson’s concern over this issue came about because he had watched the unhealthy tendency of government to encroach upon free exercise of religion. In a letter to Noah Webster 3, he said, “purposes of society do not require a surrender of all our rights to our ordinary governors”. He also talked of fences that are put in place to protect the rights of the people, that these fences had been effective, but that the government always showed a tendency to weaken or remove them.
Thomas Jefferson’s reply to the Danbury Baptist Association included the following statements:
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between a 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.” 4
The reference to “natural rights” was an important phrase of the time that by definition included “that which the Books of the Law and the Gospel do contain”. So the natural rights are those inalienable rights given by God to people, and these rights violate no social duty. These inalienable rights are protected from federal regulation interference.
Common Understanding of Thomas Jefferson
The clear and only interpretation of this letter and other documents by Thomas Jefferson is that God is the author and source of our rights and that the government was to be prevented from interfering with those rights. The “fence” of the Noah 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.
The “wall of separation between Church and State” comes from Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists, and the context he used it in must be the final interpretation of its meaning.
The Congressional records covering June to September 1789 record the entire process of the ninety Founding Fathers as they created the First Amendment to the Constitution. In these Congressional records there is not one mention of the ‘wall’ phrase or even the concept. Thomas Jefferson was not part of this group. These men assumed the understanding of freedom of religion that Thomas Jefferson later put into words.
The Supreme Court in 1878 first used the Thomas Jefferson statement in the case of Reynolds vs. United States, a case dealing with the Mormon practice of polygamy. Regarding the use of this letter (from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association) in an official case, the Court said that the letter “may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the Amendment thus secured.” The Supreme Court made clear their understanding of the Thomas Jefferson position with these two statements:
“Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere [religious] opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.” 5
“The rightful purposes of civil government are for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order. In this … is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what belongs to the State.” 6
Supreme Court Breaks from Established Precedent (no stare decisis)
Jefferson’s views restated in the context of this 1878 court case remained the only legal interpretation of the First Amendment until 1947. In the Supreme Court case of Everson vs. Board of Education, a terrible decision was made. The Court yanked the eight words (“a wall of separation between church and state”) out of their long-standing context and derived a new interpretation. Furthermore, the court decided to ignore the previous Supreme Court interpretations and craft a new meaning that involved separation of basic religious principles from public life. In the 1962 case of Engel vs. Vitale, the Court redefined the word “church” to mean “a religious activity in public. These decisions have led to over 6000 court cases challenging religious expressions in public. So completely was the interpretation turned upside down that these court cases were doing exactly what Thomas Jefferson said should not happen – government controlling religious expression (an inalienable right) when there is no physical harm, corruption or ill-will involved. The other outcome of this wildly spinning apple cart is that so many lives have been impacted and through it all the general populace has come to understand this new and wrong interpretation.
Conclusion
In conclusion, there is one well-established and documented meaning to “a wall of separation between church and state”. Although originating in a personal letter, it was fully endorsed by the leaders of our country and eventually picked up by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court originally supported Thomas Jefferson’s position and in that manner used it to decide actual court cases. The intent of the wall was clearly to protect the God-given religious freedoms of the people – a freedom that includes public expression. Only when a person’s religious expression involved acting with ill will toward another, did the government have a right to cross the wall, and interfere.
The current understanding is essentially the opposite view. The ‘wall’ was never intended to protect government from the expression of an inalienable right. Now the wall has been turned upside down. Using the current interpretation, the government of the people has found authorization to inflict ill will against a religious person, even when that person’s public expression of religion is harming no one else.
The Supreme Court is not totally bound by precedents, so maybe someday the wrong interpretation that has been put upon the American people can be corrected.
1 Letter of October 7, 1801, from Danbury (CT) Baptist Association to Thomas Jefferson, from the Thomas Jefferson Papers Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.
2 Thomas Jefferson, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington D.C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. I, p. 379, March 4, 1805
3 Jefferson, Writings, Vol. III, pp.112-113, to Noah Webster on December 4, 1790.
4 Jefferson, Writings, Vol. XVI, pp.281-282, to the Danbury Baptist Association on January 1, 1802.
5 Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145,164 (1878)
6 Reynolds at 163.
Reference:
- Wall BuildersThe Free Man Alains Newsletter
