Thomas Jefferson: What he meant by 'Wall of Separation'

The statement "wall of separation between Church & State" is a vastly repeated statement by those who believe the federal government should have no influence over religion. These words by Thomas Jefferson are taken out of context more so than any other words by a founding father.
Jefferson became our third president in March 1801, following one of the dirtiest presidential campaigns in American history. Among others, he was called a weakling, a libertine, a coward, an infidel, a deist and an atheist. The later two probably stemmed from his own words, such as ones he wrote to his nephew Peter Car in 1787:

"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."

Jefferson was brought up as an Anglican, which was a Christian religion associated with the Church of England.  He was later influenced by men like Bolingbroke and Shaftesbury, who were deists. They believed that God created the earth and that evidence of this can be found by reason alone, not by supernatural events.

Jefferson was also a strong supporter of the French Revolution, and reports made their way to American homes that the French were violently disrespecting religious structures and symbols. So when word got out that Jefferson was "an atheist," many housewives "were seen burying family Bibles in their gardens or hiding them in wells because they expected the Holy Scriptures to be confiscated and burned by the new Administration in Washington," said Daniel L. Dreisbach of the American Heritage.

Dreisbach explains that New England politics in 1800 were generally dominated by Federalists.  However, New England Baptists tended to support Jefferson, making them a minority political and religious faction in New England.

In October of 1801, the Baptist Association at Danbury wrote a letter to Thomas Jefferson Congratulating him on his victory and letting him know that they shared his ideas of religious liberty, and criticized those who called him an atheist for his views.  They said he was not, as his enemies said, "an enemy of religion... because he will not, dares not assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ."

So, on January 1, 1802, it only made sense that Jefferson would sit down and write a return letter to them. He wrote, in part:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & 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.

In essence, the letter from Jefferson was meant to affirm that he supported the Constitution, and would not push for laws that would take away Bibles and Churches.  In essence, his letter was meant to allay fears that the government planned to interfere with how the Baptist Church went about its business.

He essentially reaffirms the first amendment.  It is often referred to as the establishment clause, whereas Congress shall make no law...

• Respecting an establishment of religion
• Impeding the free exercise of religion
• Infringing on the freedom of speech
• Infringing on the freedom of the press
• Interfering with the right to peaceably assemble
• Interfering or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

Basically, the establishment clause prevents the government from denying the natural right of practicing faith, speaking out against the government, writing about the government, assembling in protest against the government, and petitioning the government.

This is important, because in Britain the Government had forced people to be a part of certain religions, such as the Church of England, and punished those who did not do as they were told. The people of the young nation feared that their new government leaders might take actions that would deny their natural right to worship as they chose, and this explained the fear of a Jefferson Presidency among the Baptist community.

So Jefferson's "Wall of Separation Letter" was nothing more than an affirmation of the establishment clause, and nothing more. And the establishment clause says the government cannot endorse a religion, it does not say that people working for the government (i.e. teachers, legislators, judges, etc. ) can't endorse a religion. It does not say that schools and teachers cannot endorse religion.

Further reading:

• The Heritage Foundation: The Mythical "Wall of Separation": How a Misused Metaphor Changed Church–State Law, Policy, and Discourse
• The Jefferson Monticello:  Jefferson's Religious Beliefs
• CNN: Founding Father's Dirty Campaign
• U.S. Constitution Online: Jefferson's Wall of Separation Letter

Conservative media is good for free speech

I went to college at Ferris State University.  Most of my friends were from Detroit, and were hardcore liberal democrats. When we debated they would use the Detroit Free Press as evidence to support their ideas. They'd say, "See, right there!"  As a conservative, I didn't have this. That's why it was so great when Rush Limbaugh came along.

I grew up in the eighties under Reagan and became aware of the misinformation and lies that the liberal media was putting forth, particularly Reagan economics,, which logically made sense, but also the Soviet Union, Communism, and so forth. They said Reagan's tax cuts were not working, and that all his military spending did was add to the national debt, instead of giving people a reason not to mess with us.

A quote by Rush Limbaugh

You know, I always figured the purpose of building a strong military, a strong nuclear program, and stealth bombers, was so we didn't have to use them. You know, people know we have them so they won't mess with us.

I could never explain that to my friends.  They would just pick up the latest edition of the Free Press and point to their evidence. If I wanted to get evidence I had to go out of my way and go to the library and do some research, which was impossible given that I had all sorts of homework and studying that had to be done. Actually, they didn't need evidence. Sometimes they would just look at each other and laugh when I opposed them. I was backwoods.  I had these outdated, controversial ideas.

When I tried to explain to them that the Iraq War was good, they mocked me. When I tried to explain that Sam Donaldson, Peter Jennings, and Dan Rather were all in the tank for democrats and were trying to make Reagan and Bush look bad, my friends mocked me. "It's the news!" they'd say, laughing. "It's the facts as they happen.  How could you oppose facts?"

Well, I knew it wasn't the facts what I was hearing, but I just learned to keep my mouth shut.  The only vindication I got was that the opposing voices in the media, all their attempts at destroying Reagan and Bush, didn't work, as Reagan won in two landslide elections, and Bush also won in 1988.  So there were obviously many people who were thinking the same as me, only if you watched the media you wouldn't know it.

So I was so thankful when conservative media, beginning with Rush Limbaugh, came along to give me some credibility and not let me feel so isolated anymore.  I do not get most of my ideas from Rush, it's just that he sort of vindicates what I'm thinking as I read the news. Of course now theirs National Review, and even Fox News to some extend, although I think Fox is far from a conservative media outlet.  It does, however, seem to be fair to both sides, actually giving traditional Americans (conservatives) a platform.

Yet there are some who don't like all these voices being heard.  They don't like that the Internet, a.m. radio and books give voices to people with differing opinions on the facts to be heard.  They don't like Rush Limbaugh, and would prefer that he not have a voice.

A good example is yesterday when I read that Mitt Romney was saying that he thought American was a better place before conservative media came along.  He thought America was a better place before Rush Limbaugh came along, because all this did was create a partisan divide where people could just listen to people they agree with all day long, rather than everyone getting all the same facts from the same sources every day.

What makes this so naive is that it sort of feeds into what liberals and democrats have always said about Rush, that he hives people ideas and tells people how to think.  That's not how it is at all.  All he does is make free thinkers like myself feel less isolated in a world surrounded by liberal media.

You see, I didn't think I was getting the facts when I watched Dan Rather.  I didn't agree with the editorials in the Detroit Free Press that my college buddies were quoting from.  Conservative media made me realize that I was not alone in doubting the "facts" doled out by the media and my liberal buddies.

Granted, we did not have many political debates, as we were more interested in studying, doing homework, but mainly in having fun. Still, it's something I think about once in a while.  I simply don't understand why anyone would want to stop voices from being heard.  There's nothing better, in my mind, for free speech than a free Internet.  It allows people to get their news from all sorts of media outlets, both left, right, independent, and so forth. It's simply a great thing.

Further Reading:

• Rush Limbaugh: Debunking the mind numbed robot