|
JEFFERSON
TO THE DANBURY BAPTISTS, 1802
In
Everson v. Bd. of Educ., 330 U.S. 1 (1947), the
U.S. Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether
a local law pursuant to a New Jersey statute authorizing
the use of public funds to reimburse parents for money
spent by them for the public bus transportation of their
children to Catholic parochial schools violated the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In laying
the foundation for its decision, the Court examined
the meaning of the Establishment Clause in its historical
context. Reasoning that the most influential movement
for religious liberty prior to the Bill of Rights took
place in Virginia, the Court examined the writings of
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, who lead the fight
for religious liberty in that state. The Court ultimately
concluded that the Establishment Clause was intended
to erect "a wall of separation between church and state."
This phrase was excerpted from a letter written by Thomas
Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association. Since
its pronouncement in Everson, this phrase has
become the popular standard for examining whether government
actions violate the Establishment Clause.
In
spite of the popularity of this phrase, it is quite
likely that the Court's reading of the Danbury letter
was incorrect. Although Jefferson penned this phrase,
most likely he did not intend "building a wall of separation
between church and state" to mean complete independence
of religion and government. First, Jefferson was writing
to a Baptist Association who firmly believed in church
autonomy. The ideas which lead to this oft-cited phrase
came from a sermon given by Baptist Roger Williams,
entitled "The Garden in the Wilderness," in which Williams
explains that the purpose of civil government is to
allow religion to flourish, not to be regulated. Thus,
Jefferson's use of the phrase "a wall of separation"
was an idiom with a particular meaning to the Baptists
to whom the letter was addressed.
The
"wall of separation" referred to limitations on federal
power. In fact, the "act of the whole American people"
is the ratification of the First Amendment. At the time
of this letter, the Establishment Clause only applied
to the federal government. The First Amendment did not
create a wall of separation in any state jurisdiction.
In fact, the Supreme Court in Everson correctly
points out that many states continued various activities
for nearly 50 years after the ratification of the First
Amendment that would clearly have violated it had it
applied to state actions. However, the Supreme Court
incorrectly assumes that because the First Amendment
now applies to the states, Jefferson's comments in this
letter must also be read as if applicable to the states
as well. This is inaccurate history. Thus, the Court's
interpretation that Jefferson's "separation" statement
was intended for the whole federal and state political
system is misleading.
In
addition, even if the "wall of separation" were meant to
be applied to the states, what exactly did Jefferson mean?
The Court suggests the phrase is absolute. According to
the Court, "that wall must be kept high and impregnable.
We could not approve of the slightest breach." Everson,
330 U.S. at 18. Jefferson's actions as President of the
United States are important guidelines in understanding
what he meant by the "wall of separation." In 1803, one
year after the Danbury letter, Jefferson made a treaty with
the Kaskaskia Indians, wherein he pledged money to build
them a Roman Catholic Church and to support their priests
— all from federal funds. Jefferson apparently saw no conflict
between asking Congress to implement the treaty's provisions
by appropriating funds, and the prohibition that "Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . ."
In addition, Jefferson signed three extensions of "An act
regulating the grants of land appropriated for Military
Services, and for the Society of the United Brethren for
propagating the Gospel among the Heathen." This act granted
free of charge titles to sections of land to the United
Brethren. In addition to holding the land in trust for Indians
who were already Christians, the United Brethren used resources
derived from cultivating and leasing the land to send out
missionaries to proselyte among the non-Christian Indians.
Once again, had Jefferson been an absolutist, as the Everson
Court suggests, he would have vetoed not one, but all three
extensions of this act. Thus, the Danbury letter is significant
because when taken out of context, it provides the foundation
for an absolute separation of church and state. Not only
was Jefferson referring to the federal government, but his
activities while in office also indicate that he was not
an absolutist.
In
addition to putting a modern gloss on Jefferson's letter
to the Danbury Baptist Association, the Supreme Court most
likely erred in using Jefferson as a primary example of
legislative history surrounding the enactment of the Bill
of Rights. Although Jefferson ardently supported the freedom
of religion and disestablishment, Jefferson's thoughts and
actions, which were somewhat more conservative than his
contemporaries, may not be an accurate reflection of legislative
history. Throughout the time of the debates surrounding
the Bill of Rights and the movement for religious freedom,
Jefferson was serving as Ambassador to France. His only
knowledge and understanding of the debates came through
correspondence from men like James Madison. In fact, the
Danbury Baptist letter was written more than a decade following
the ratification of the Bill of Rights.
RJ&L
Religious Institutions Group
MESSRS.
NEHEMIAH DODGE, EPHRAIM ROBBINS, AND STEPHEN S. NELSON,
A COMMITTEE OF THE DANBURY BAPTIST ASSOCIATION, IN THE STATE
OF CONNECTICUT.
January
1, 1802.
GENTLEMEN,--The affectionate sentiments 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 should
"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.
Source:
VIII The Writings of Thomas Jefferson: Being His Autobiography,
Correspondence, Reports, Messages, Addresses, and Other
Writings, Official and Private 113-14 (H.A. Washington ed.,
1854).
|
