I would suggest you read what President Thomas Jefferson actually said about a ‘Separation of Church and State’. It was meant to keep the State out of religious affairs, not to keep religion out of the State’s affairs.
Who cares what Jefferson had to say about church-state separation? Sure, we got that particular wording from a letter he wrote in the 1810's, but so what? Why not go the his life-long friend, James Madison, who not only wrote a pamphlet,
Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments in 1785, about 30 years,
three full decades, before Jefferson's letter, but then a few years later he up and went and wrote the Bill of Rights, including
The First Amendment. Gee, you think maybe what
Madison was thinking on the subject when he drafted
The First Amendment just might possibly have some bearing on the matter?
You can Google for the text. The first hit was from virginia.edu, but that page was not accessible, so I went with the second hit, which was
Amendment I (Religion): James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments (the third was for atheism.about.com, which I figured would have caused you fits; pick whichever hit comes up -- I would navely assume that no right-wing or fundamentalist site would change the text, but you might still want to compare whichever page you choose with others, just to be sure).
OK, Jefferson might have given us the wording, but
three decades prior Madison described the concept (my emphasis added):
quote:
2. Because if Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.
Do, do, do, do
please read the entire document.
It is your patriotic duty! Paragraph 1 establishes "rights of conscience", in which":
quote:
Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "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." [Virginia Declaration of Rights, art. 16] The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate.
He develops it further to conclude (again, my emphasis added):
quote:
We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no mans right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.
The second paragraph establishes that what cannot be coerced by Civil Society also cannot be coerced by the Legislature. Of course, as you have already seen, it presents the concept of the "wall of separation" in the most original form that I am personally aware. It then states in no uncertain terms:
quote:
The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.
OBTW, do you know what Madison was remonstrating against? Oh, this could have been pulled out of the past few decades. The Good Citizens of the State of Virginia were concerned with the general decline of the morals of the people of their state. So they asked Patrick Henry for state legislature to provide tax money to support Christian ministers, the named "teachers of the Christian religion." Jefferson was able to postpone the Legislature's vote on Henry's bill until it reconvened. Then he talked his friend James Madison into writing a pamphlet remonstrating against Henry's bill, which was distributed state-wide and generated so much public sentiment against Henry's bill for providing public tax monies to Christian ministers that in the Legislature's next session, not only did Henry's bill die without ever even coming to a vote, but Jefferson's own bill on religious liberty got passed.
The third paragraph starts with a statement that must burn in every single patriot's heart, regardless of which century/centuries he lives:
quote:
3. Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties.
quote:
Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?
What part of that [i]do you not understand?[/]
The fourth paragraph questions how one group could deny the religious liberties of any other group (yet again, quoted only in part, so then frakin' go and
read the original already!):
quote:
Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered. As the Bill violates equality by subjecting some to peculiar burdens, so it violates the same principle, by granting to others peculiar exemptions.
quote:
5. Because the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation.
At this point, it is way too late (0100 hours) and my own words completely pale to Madison's. Follow my link or find your own, but
read Madison's Remonstrance and Memorial for yourself.
If you are an actual American. If you are instead some religionist anti-American subversive, then frak you!
Paragraph 6 states that not only is government support of Christianity necessary, but it is also
"a contradiction to the Christian Religion itself".
Paragraph 7 (quoted in very small part):
quote:
7. Because experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation.
Paragraph 8 states that a religious establishment is not necessary for the support of Civil Goverment. The observed effects in both clergy and laity are detrimental:
quote:
What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not. Such a Government will be best supported by protecting every Citizen in the enjoyment of his Religion with the same equal hand which protects his person and his property; by neither invading the equal rights of any Sect, nor suffering any Sect to invade those of another.
At the time of its authorance and even woven deeply within the mythology of America even unto this very day, the idea of America serving as a haven for those religious factions who face only persecution on their native shores runs very deep. Even in 1785 James Madison saw very clearly how that iconic American promise was being made to ring so hollow:
quote:
9. Because the proposed establishment is a departure from that generous policy, which, offering an Asylum to the persecuted and oppressed of every Nation and Religion, promised a lustre to our country, and an accession to the number of its citizens. What a melancholy mark is the Bill of sudden degeneracy? Instead of holding forth an Asylum to the persecuted, it is itself a signal of persecution. It degrades from the equal rank of Citizens all those whose opinions in Religion do not bend to those of the Legislative authority. Distant as it may be in its present form from the Inquisition, it differs from it only in degree. The one is the first step, the other the last in the career of intolerance. The magnanimous sufferer under this cruel scourge in foreign Regions, must view the Bill as a Beacon on our Coast, warning him to seek some other haven, where liberty and philanthrophy in their due extent, may offer a more certain repose from his Troubles.
In this case, I have quoted the 9th paragraph fully, because there is no point where I could have possibly editted it. Excuse me, but
do you have any possible conception of the Inquisition? The Spanish Inquisition started circa 1492. In that year, the Islamic Moors were finally expelled from Spain. That freed up Christian Spanish interests to finance Christopho Columbo's expedition to the Americas (though he earnestly thought, through erroneous geographical calculations, that he was reaching the Indies). That year (or there abouts) marked the Expulsion of the Jews (up to this point, Spain as the "Kingdom of Three Crowns", Christian, Islamic, and Jewish). The Christian Spanish atrocities against the Jews rival Nazi Germany only in the sheer scale and efficiency -- after the Expulsion Act in Spain, those Jews being expatriated from Spain were summarily dumped at sea, to be drowned. Then those Jews who converted to Christianity were ever thereafter suspected of continuing to harbor secret Jewish beliefs, which in all reality lead directly to the Spanish Inquisition, which lasted from circa 1942 to mid 1830's. The only way a Jew could have remained in Spain was to have converted to Christianity, but then every single Jew who so converted was immediately suspected of having converted falsely, which directly sparked the Spanish Inquisition.
My ex-wife is Mexican. Even though she was not in any measure observant in her Catholic duties (she used to routinely play hooky from her Catholic classes, such that when the final ceremony finally came down, she had absolutely no idea what all the frakn' Latin was about).
Paragraph 10 tells us that
quote:
10. Because it will have a like tendency to banish our Citizens. The allurements presented by other situations are every day thinning their number. To superadd a fresh motive to emigration by revoking the liberty which they now enjoy, would be the same species of folly which has dishonoured and depopulated flourishing kingdoms.
quote:
11. Because it will destroy that moderation and harmony which the forbearance of our laws to intermeddle with Religion has produced among its several sects. Torrents of blood have been spilt in the old world, by vain attempts of the secular arm, to extinguish Religious discord, by proscribing all difference in Religious opinion. Time has at length revealed the true remedy. Every relaxation of narrow and rigorous policy, wherever it has been tried, has been found to assuage the disease. The American Theatre has exhibited proofs that equal and compleat liberty, if it does not wholly eradicate it, sufficiently destroys its malignant influence on the health and prosperity of the State. If with the salutary effects of this system under our own eyes, we begin to contract the bounds of Religious freedom, we know no name that will too severely reproach our folly. At least let warning be taken at the first fruits of the threatened innovation. The very appearance of the Bill has transformed "that Christian forbearance, love and charity," [Virginia Declaration of Rights, art. 16] which of late mutually prevailed, into animosities and jealousies, which may not soon be appeased. What mischiefs may not be dreaded, should this enemy to the public quiet be armed with the force of a law?
Paragraph 12 questions whether the proposed bill will lead all to 'the light". The answer is, No.
Paragraph 13:
quote:
13. Because attempts to enforce by legal sanctions, acts obnoxious to so great a proportion of Citizens, tend to enervate the laws in general, and to slacken the bands of Society. If it be difficult to execute any law which is not generally deemed necessary or salutary, what must be the case, where it is deemed invalid and dangerous? And what may be the effect of so striking an example of impotency in the Government, on its general authority?
quote:
14. Because a measure of such singular magnitude and delicacy ought not to be imposed, without the clearest evidence that it is called for by a majority of citizens, and no satisfactory method is yet proposed by which the voice of the majority in this case may be determined, or its influence secured. "The people of the respective counties are indeed requested to signify their opinion respecting the adoption of the Bill to the next Session of Assembly." But the representation must be made equal, before the voice either of the Representatives or of the Counties will be that of the people. Our hope is that neither of the former will, after due consideration, espouse the dangerous principle of the Bill. Should the event disappoint us, it will still leave us in full confidence, that a fair appeal to the latter will reverse the sentence against our liberties.
quote:
15. Because finally, "the equal right of every citizen to the free exercise of his Religion according to the dictates of conscience" is held by the same tenure with all our other rights. If we recur to its origin, it is equally the gift of nature; if we weigh its importance, it cannot be less dear to us; if we consult the "Declaration of those rights which pertain to the good people of Virginia, as the basis and foundation of Government," it is enumerated with equal solemnity, or rather studied emphasis. Either then, we must say, that the Will of the Legislature is the only measure of their authority; and that in the plenitude of this authority, they may sweep away all our fundamental rights; or, that they are bound to leave this particular right untouched and sacred: Either we must say, that they may controul the freedom of the press, may abolish the Trial by Jury, may swallow up the Executive and Judiciary Powers of the State; nay that they may despoil us of our very right of suffrage, and erect themselves into an independent and hereditary Assembly or, we must say, that they have no authority to enact into law the Bill under consideration. We the Subscribers say, that the General Assembly of this Commonwealth have no such authority: And that no effort may be omitted on our part against so dangerous an usurpation, we oppose to it, this remonstrance; earnestly praying, as we are in duty bound, that the Supreme Lawgiver of the Universe, by illuminating those to whom it is addressed, may on the one hand, turn their Councils from every act which would affront his holy prerogative, or violate the trust committed to them: and on the other, guide them into every measure which may be worthy of his blessing, may redound to their own praise, and may establish more firmly the liberties, the prosperity and the happiness of the Commonwealth.
™ Version 4.2
