Hi Guys,
It has been my experience that the majority of Americans have never read the actual letters that were exchanged between the Danbury Baptist Association and President Thomas Jefferson and that the only portion they are familiar with are the four words "separation of church and state" devoid of any of their original context (witness the title of this thread). Therefore, here are the original documents, along with some further context and perhaps a brief comment or two, which is perhaps necessary because as a culture we have become a good deal more unenlightened than the civilization we sprang from.
Regarding the DBA letter to Jefferson: The Danbury baptists are concerned that under the ancient British laws, the practice of religion was considered something circumscribed by the government (a position supported by the idea that the King was the head of the church) and therefore that the government had the right to enforce uniformity of religious belief and practice . Under the British system therefore, the rights of religious expression are alienable. They contend that they believe that these rights are God-given and thus inalienable and that no civil magistrate has the right to assume the governance of the Kingdom of God (this belief, that the spheres of the civil government and the church were separate and that each had power delegated by God, rather than absolutely joined and acting directly for God as the Anglicans and Roman Catholic had taught, was a fundamental tennet of Reformation Christianity and a principle that informed the framers of the Constitution).
Jefferson writes to assure them that this is his understanding as well, which is not surprising, as the Virginia declaration of rights which George Mason wrote for Jefferson's beloved Virginia and which Jefferson himself endorsed states:
"That Religion, or the duty which we owe to our CREATOR, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience, and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity, towards each other."
The letter of the DBA therefore is concerned more with fears that the government might once again conclude that the right of religious expression is a favor granted by the state, and not an inalienable right granted by God, and that the civil magistrate might seek to rule and judge concerning what men believe and say concerning religion, rather than simply judging their actions according to an equitable and impartial law.
[Please note also that Jefferson was not the author of the constitution, that was James Madison.]
Anyway here are the letters.
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.
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.
--------------------
One final thought: the Danbury Baptists were partly concerned that the Government might usurp the perogative of God and seek to modify the laws and doctrines of the church by judging certain kinds of religious thought and speech to be unlawful. I have similar fears due to the increasing establishment of secular humanism as the religion of the state and the increasing tendency to judge certain kinds of teaching "unlawful hate speech" because incompatible with the presuppositions of the dominant religion of the day. Thus I fear that as in Canada, Christians might be in danger of being indicted, not for what they have done (for instance, if a Christian were to kill a homosexual) but for what they have preached (that homosexual sex is a sin).
- SEAGOON
