Letter from the Danbury (CT) Baptists to Thomas Jefferson 10/7/1801 - Page 1

Most people are familiar with Jefferson's response, denying that it's got anything to do with the 1st Amendment.  But most don't read the letter from the DBA, which more clearly illustrates the reason for it.  And this is coming from Christians, a crystal clear explanation, in full support of Secularism.  Not as much to save themselves from society at large, but to protect society at large from the oppression that is typically a the inevitable results of a Theocracy.

The address of the Danbury Baptist Association in the State of Connecticut, assembled October 7, 1801.
To Thomas Jefferson, Esq., President of the United States of America

Sir,
Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office, we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration , to express our great satisfaction in your appointment to the Chief Magistracy in the Unite States. And though the mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe, that none is more sincere.

Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, 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, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter, together with the laws made coincident therewith, were adapted as the basis of our government at the time of our revolution. And such has been our laws and usages, and such still are, [so] that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation, and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. And these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgments, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore, if those who seek after power and gain, under the pretense of government and Religion, should reproach their fellow men, [or] should reproach their Chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dares not, assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.

Sir, we are sensible that the President of the United States is not the National Legislator and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each State, but our hopes are strong that the sentiment of our beloved President, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these States--and all the world--until hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and goodwill shining forth in a course of more than thirty years, we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the Chair of State out of that goodwill which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you--to sustain and support you and your Administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to rise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.

And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.

Signed in behalf of the Association,

Neh,h Dodge }
Eph'm Robbins } The Committee
Stephen S. Nelson }

*A cite for this letter could read:

Letter of Oct. 7, 1801 from Danbury (CT) Baptist Assoc. to Thomas Jefferson,
Thomas Jefferson Papers, Manuscript Division, 
Library of Congress, Wash. D.C. 
 

---

President Jefferson's Reply:

Messrs. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, and Stephen s. Nelson
A Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, in the State of Connecticut.

Washington, January 1, 1802

Gentlemen,--The affectionate sentiment 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. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

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 would "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.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802

* A cite for this letter could read:
Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert E. Bergh, ed. (Washington, D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association of the United States, 1904), Vol. XVI, pp. 281-282.

Bug detector.  I'm getting a sytax error when I try to edit my typo.  

that is typically a the inevitable results of a Theocracy.

As it should be. The endeavor was far simpler before the era of federalism and beyond, however.

Travels I believe your point here is that both sides were in favor of Secularism.

They were, but in the following sense:

Our separation of church and state entails the rejection of an official, government-sanctioned creed rather than the obligatory erasure of references to God in civic life.

These early settlers were religiously persecuted in their old country and they didn’t want the Government telling them who and how to religiously worship.





 

So I guess you skipped over:
Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, 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.

and...
Our ancient charter, together with the laws made coincident therewith, were adapted as the basis of our government at the time of our revolution. And such has been our laws and usages, and such still are, [so] that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation, and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights.

and then this...
And these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgments, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen.It is not to be wondered at therefore, if those who seek after power and gain, under the pretense of government and Religion, should reproach their fellow men, [or] should reproach their Chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dares not, assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.


 

I've got a busy day ahead, I won't be back until tonight.  Ta ta!

I didn't skip over anything. I just told you the truth.

God was part of their everyday life, God was put on currency, the president and all witnesses are sworn in on the "Bible" etc, I could go on and on with God in their life but you should get the point by now. So once again my dear here is what they meant.

Our separation of church and state entails the rejection of an official, government-sanctioned creed rather than the obligatory erasure of references to God in civic life.




 

During, and prior to that time, theirs was a largley homogonous society with a governmental framework based upon the Christian, Classical, and Enlightenment traditions as passed down primarily through English Common Law precedent. This is not to say that their religous affiliations were the only game in town, rather, that the original intent within the Continental Convention and the DOI was such that the natural rights of man was presupposed to be applicable to the proper English Gentleman of the day.  Dating back to the Mayflower Compact (the first of our foundational documents), the structure employed a seperation, wherein authority flowed from God to the people, who then measured to civil government the amount of power necessary for proper facilitation. It would not be until after federalism and the reinterpretation of the application of the natural rights of man (catalyzed in large part by slavery and the civil war). Over time (and the inevitable, given the melting-pot dynamic at work in the US), this came to mean that rights were now extended to every citizen, including that of religious right. For a civil government to directly or indirectly, or intentionally or inadvertently endorse a particular faith orientation is to at the same to infringe upon the rights of those who do not subscribe. Neither the colonists, nor the founders anticipated the future.  The reason why this becomes an even more polarizing issue after federalism has to do with the concept and interpretation of "public funds", much of which the modern conservative describes as confiscatory taxation.  These funds may then be diverted to fund those projects which may be seen to conflict with the faith, dogma, and principles of a group of constituents.  The fact remains, that in order for any one group to enjoy even theoretical freedom of religion, all religious affiliations must be afforded equal voice. 

As a side note, by the time the DOI and Constitution were drafted, the individuals within the power centers of US politics were far from the warm, cozy, and pious ideal they are often romantically painted in.  Many of these men were deists at best, valuing and embracing the tradition and ceremony of a passing era.  This conglomerate of "christian" rationalists, included men such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, who would scoff at the idea of an immiment God, or authoritative scripture.