Presented below is a fax message I sent to Mr. John Witte.

RE: Facts and Fictions of Separation of Church and State: There is No Wall by John Witte, Jr.

I have read your very fine essay and wish to inquire why the last eleven words of the seventh paragraph of Thomas Jefferson's Second Inaugural Address were altered and then presented in your work titled, "Facts and Fictions of Separation of Church and State: There is No Wall?" The original phrase from the Inaugural Address "the church or state authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies" was altered to read, "State or Church authorities.”

Respectfully.

Fred Slice

I have no respect for John Witte. He edited out Thomas Jefferson's words "acknowledged by the several religious societies" to make it appear that Jefferson believed that state authorities had legitimate jurisdiction over religion.

What Jefferson actually said was as follows:

In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the constitution independent of the power of the federal government. I have therefore undertaken, on no occasion, to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them, as the constitution found them, under the direction of state or church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies.
(Jefferson's Second Inaugural Address).

Jefferson is saying that religion should be left to the "religious societies" and the "state or church authorities" that they acknowledged.

In 1805, there were no religious societies in the United States that acknowledged State authority over religon; except for some of the religious societies in three New England States that acknowledged authory of the State over the duty to contribute to the financial support of religion.

The Danbury Baptists in Connecticut did not acknowledge the authory of the State of Connecticut over their duty to contribute to the financial support of religion. They wrote to President Jefferson in 1801 complaining about the Connectiuct Certificate Law of 1791 as "degrading Acknowledgements."

This message has been edited. Last edited by: FredFlash,

quote:

Originally posted by Francisco:
Below is George Washington's 1789 Thanksgiving Day Proclamation. The next time someone tells you that politicians shouldn't talk about religion, or the "Almighty God", just show them this:

Washington's 1789 Thanksgiving Day Proclamation:

President Washington should have kicked Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth out of his office and told them not to come back until they could show him where the new Constitution granted Congress or the President authority over the people's religion.

In 1798 it was customary for a Proclamation to set forth the source of legal authority for the Proclamation.

For example: President Washington's second Proclamation - Issued on August 14, 1790 - claims its legal authority from a Treaty with the Creek Nation and Article II Section 2 of the Constitution.

Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation of October 3, 1789 makes no claim to any legitimate legal authority from the Constitution because there was none.

FF

quote:

Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation of
October 3, 1789 makes no claim to any legitimate
legal authority from the Constitution because
there was none.

Ah, where to begin...I do hope you will give me the benefit of several days to address all of your arguments.

You have thrown out the other possibility, that
Washington made no claim to legal authority because it was unnecessary to justify the obvious. This agrees with my belief that Washington understood the US constitution better than many Supreme Court justices of the 20th century. But why would I hold such an absurd notion?

George Washington, in addition to being the first president, was also the Commander in Chief of the continental army, as well as president of the Constitutional Convention, the result of which was the piece of paper to which several amendments were made to ensure its ratification. It's only a hunch, but I highly doubt that Washington could be in any way ignorant of the ideas being debated when the first amendment was written, seeing as he had to sit and listen to every single argument brought before the convention (no days off when you're presiding over the assembly).

Well then, if Washington was not ignorant, maybe he was rebellious! His own actions during the war certainly demonstrate his devotion to his Creator. He perceived that he was taking on the most powerful military force in the world, and that nothing short of Divine Aid would offer even the faintest possibility of victory. Among the strict rules he established for the army was a statute that strictly forbade taking the name of the Lord in vain, for fear that God should look unfavorably on their actions (if you want a quote I'll find it). Then, of course, there is the famous painting of George Washington in prayer at Valley Forge. Unbeknownst to Washington, he had an observer, who was himself a Tory, who later lamented that the war was lost, for when a man prays like that there can only be one outcome.

But would a man who had risked and suffered so much, a man who refused his officer's wishes to instill him as King of the fledgling nation, really issue a Thanksgiving proclamation in an effort to subvert his own country's constitution? Let's get to the bottom of his views on Religion and Government:

"Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

~ Washington's Farewell address, par 27
http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/farewell/text.html

Realize that Washington is referring to the centerpoint of Western Civilization, Christianity (i.e. those who adhere to the teachings of Christ), when he references to religion.

quote:

quote:

If the Christian must be involved as a citizen in democracy, he cannot and should not leave his religious convictions and attitude behind.

A Christian politician will have no need for his convictions regarding the duty which we owe to the Creator, because the government does not take cognizance of the duty which we owe to our Creator.

I believe Julie articulated Washington's viewpoint rather nicely. As a thought experiment, try to envision what American politics of the sort you are advocating would
look like. If politicians do not base their actions one their own beliefs (Christian, Atheist, or otherwise), then what are they to base them on? What set of standards would you recommend fill the vacuum? You have repeated your phrase that "the government does not take cognizance of the duty which we owe to our Creator" several times, but that's just not the case, at least, not for the constitutional republic that the Founders envisioned. Oh sure, the appointment of this or that committee may be handled without referring to the Scriptures for guidance, but decisions of substance appeal to some standard of right and wrong. To say that they may be made on a pragmatic basis is only sidestepping the question, because the politician must have some reason for choosing the wisest course of action (unless he is concerned only with preserving his political power). If the right thing to do were common knowledge, there would be no need for politicians, as a few beurocrats would suffice to adapt to new situations.

It is worth noting that it is impossible to remain neutral on the subject of religion. Secular humanism makes as many claims regarding Theology (there is no God), Ethics (Tolerance is supreme), and the rest as does Christianity.

There are very few decisions that government can make without taking cognizance of religion. The question is, which religion does it recognize? This question becomes more obvious when examining court decisions regarding the separation of church and state over the past century. As Julie put it, these decisions are daily resulting in "a religiously unfree people," as we have been told that the only acceptable religion is that of Secular Humanism.

That is enough for one day, though I hope to post on the other points in question. I hope you three are still checking this board and that I am not too late in joining the discussion. Have a great week.

From your posts, FredFlash, I believe you would enjoy a read through Original Intent by David Barton. You can get it cheap on Amazon. I struggled through the work several years ago and it has been very useful to me. The book is chock full of very extensive quotes. Many are condensed, but he provides footnotes for every reference, and the ones that I have followed up on revealed no shady manipulation of context. Whether or not you agree with his conclusions, he gives you plenty of source material, a practice which might bore some, but for people like you and me, it's exciting.

Many of the reviews on Amazon were rather dissappointing, assuming an air of intellectual elitist snobbery. A few reviewers did good service in exposing the biased nature of some of the posts.

A quick synopsis: Barton uses the words and actions of the Founding Fathers to illustrate thier overwhealmingly, and by today's standards, overtly Christian beliefs and how these beliefs played out in their political actions. He spends a good deal of time on the controversy surroudning the First Amendment, specifically, the establishment clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Make it a great week.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Stephen,

quote:

Originally posted by Stephen:

quote:

Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation of
October 3, 1789 makes no claim to any legitimate
legal authority from the Constitution because
there was none.

Ah, where to begin...I do hope you will give me the benefit of several days to address all of your arguments.

You have thrown out the other possibility, that
Washington made no claim to legal authority because it was unnecessary to justify the obvious.

Where does the U. S. Constitution grant the President any "obvious" authority over the people's religion? All of President Washington's non-religious proclamations contain statements, sometimes rather long and detailed, regarding its source(s) of authority. Therefore, the most reasonable conclusion is that if President Washington had believed there was Constitutional authority for the Thanksgiving Proclamation, he would have say so.