Misunderstanding Jefferson

A proper explanation of the “wall of separation between Church and State”

With slight shades of difference, you have the same Religion, Manners, Habits & political Principles. - George Washington

We all know very well the claim so often heard of “separation of Church and State,” though many may not know the origin of the phrase. A group known as the Danbury Baptist Association wrote a letter in 1801 to Thomas Jefferson. In it, they expressed concern over religious liberty and the potential for government infringement upon it:

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 aught to suffer in Name, person or effects on account of his religious Opinions—That the legetimate Power of civil Goverment extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbour: But Sir, our constitution of goverment is not specific…It is not to be wondred at therefore; if those, who seek after power & gain under the pretence of goverment & Religion should reproach their fellow men—should reproach their chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion Law & good order because he will not, dares not assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-35-02-0331

In his response, Jefferson submitted the following statements:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & 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 & 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.

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-36-02-0152-0006

It is clear here that Jefferson intended to convey his belief that government should not interfere with religion, not that religion should not influence government. The reader should understand that Jefferson himself, though claiming to be Christian, was really a rationalistic theist (or some say he was a deist). Jefferson believed that what could be known of God could be discerned through rational thought. He rejected the Christian belief in the deity of Jesus, and much of the Bible itself, creating instead for himself what is now known as The Jefferson Bible, though he titled it otherwise:

I too have made a wee little book, from the same materials, which I call the Philosophy of Jesus. it is a paradigma of his doctrines, made by cutting the texts out of the book, and arranging them on the pages of a blank book, in a certain order of time or subject. a more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen. it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel, and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what it’s Author never said nor saw.

- Thomas Jefferson to Charles Thomson, Jan. 9, 1816

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-09-02-0216

Jefferson compiled a collection of verses lifted, literally, from the Bible, by cutting them out and pasting them in chronological order onto the pages of his book, excluding most mention of supernatural events and miracles. He did this because, despite his rejection of the deity of Jesus, he believed Jesus’ teachings to be of the utmost moral value:

…I concur with the author in considering the moral precepts of Jesus, as more pure, correct, & sublime than those of the antient philosophers…I give them their just due, & yet maintain that the morality of Jesus, as taught by himself & freed from the corruptions of later times, is far superior.

- Thomas Jefferson to Edward Dowse, April 19, 1803

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-40-02-0168

He, as other of the founding fathers, many of whom were Christian, understood that our country could only function properly and be maintained if the citizens were held to such objective moral standards as taught by Jesus. If he was intending to infer that the people’s religion should not influence their governance, it would, at the least, stand in stark contrast to John Adams’ statements in his letter to the Massachusetts Militia that:

We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition and Revenge or Galantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-3102

The founding fathers saw not only religion as necessary to governing and being governable, but morality as well, and they believed religion was the underpinning of objective morality. Thus, they insisted people must be free to worship according to their conscience. They expected America to be populated by a moral and religious people. This is why Adams’ words do not apply only to the governed, but those governing. After all, those elected representatives from which the government would be formed would come from the people - that same “moral and religious People” to which Adams referred.

Some might be tempted at this point to pull their hair and scream, “but the Constitution expressly states there shall be no religious test for office!” This is true. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution avers that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” The reason this is in the Constitution is that, at the time the Constitution was penned, each state already had its own government. Each state also generally had a population that was largely united under a single Christian denomination. The denominations varied from state to state, and having a religious test to hold office in the central government could disqualify some from any given state depending upon the test imposed; therefore, requiring adherence to a particular sect’s sacred statements would be anathema to the concept of freedom of religion.

It is true, also, that the founders did not promote a government run by the Church. Though they all held Christianity in the highest esteem, even those who would not be considered Christians, they believed religion to be a matter of individual conscience. They had concern that, as in England which many had departed due to religious persecution, dominance by one sect could result in similar persecution. According to the UK Parliament website, “During the 16th and 17th centuries Parliament, guided by the bishops in the House of Lords, took a hard line against the Church's opponents, and passed many laws denying basic rights to Catholics and nonconformists.” The Church of England’s website further elaborates:

In the 17th century continuing tensions within the Church of England over theological and liturgical issues were among the reasons that led to the English Civil War. The Church was associated with the losing Royalist side and during the period of the Commonwealth from 1649-1660 its bishops were abolished and its prayer book, the Book of Common Prayer, was banned. With the restoration of the monarchy in 1660 this situation was reversed and in 1662 those clergy who could not accept this were forced to leave their posts. These clergy and their congregations were then persecuted until 1689 when the Toleration Act gave legal existence to those Protestant groups outside the Church of England who accepted the doctrine of the Trinity.

The founding fathers certainly did not wish to institute in America that in England which they specifically fled. Therefore, no one denomination was to be elevated above another nor to have inordinate power over government. This is not to say that those in government were not to legislate according to their religious morals and conscience. We are rather to infer from this that the church itself, regardless of denomination, was not to be part of the government.

Joseph Story, a Supreme Court Justice from 1812 - 1845, wrote quite a bit about the Constitution and the establishment of the United States. He was the youngest man appointed to the Supreme Court, and he took his seat while James Madison, who wrote several of the Federalist Papers, was president. He lived and served during a time when many of the founders were still alive and several, such as Madison, still active in government. The First Amendment Foundation says of Story that he “was one of the most renowned constitutional scholars in American history and arguably the greatest scholar ever to serve on the Supreme Court.” Considering the proximity of his life to the beginnings of the union and those who signed the documents creating that union, he would certainly possess pertinent insight.

In his book “Familiar Exposition of the Constitution,” Story wrote:

The promulgation of the great doctrines of religion, the being, and attributes, and providence of one Almighty God; the responsibility to Him for all our actions, founded upon moral accountability; a future state of rewards and punishments; the cultivation of all the personal, social, and benevolent virtues;—these never can be a matter of indifference in any well-ordered community. It is, indeed, difficult to conceive, how any civilized society can well exist without them. And, at all events, it is impossible for those, who believe in the truth of Christianity, as a Divine revelation, to doubt, that it is the especial duty of government to foster, and encourage it among all the citizens and subjects.

…

§444. Probably, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the State, so far as such encouragement was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.

Story, Joseph A.. Familiar Exposition of the Constitution . Packard Technologies. Kindle Edition. 

Story believed the government should encourage Christianity, and that it was likely the intent of the founders. As with Adams, Story understood that the morality that arose from the Christian religion was necessary to maintain civil order, to restrain those who would be elected to government from avarice and power-lust, and to prevent the desolation that was occurring elsewhere in the world at the time of America’s founding.

Herein lies the problem today. America has lost its way from its original moral establishment. The constraints that bound elected officials to adhere to the Constitution have been broken. It requires no argumentation to understand that what a person believes will also drive that person’s actions and decisions. When moral rectitude is abandoned, no piece of paper will stand in the way of personal ambition. Whether driven by power, greed, both, or otherwise, those who cast off the restraint of religion will not be checked by a two-hundred year old piece of parchment.

The founding fathers desired to protect the right of people to practice their religion freely, to not have government dictate their conscience. This is the freedom of religion they preferred; this stands in stark contrast to the freedom from religion that so many seek today. The architects of this great republic envisaged a country led by moral, upright, religious citizens who were elected by moral, upright, religious citizens. They wholly anticipated the religion of those elected to influence their political decisions. To think one could separate their political inclinations from their religious beliefs would have been inconceivable. Beliefs are what guide us. Beliefs are what motivate us. Beliefs are what drive us. Beliefs determine our actions and our decisions, both personal and political. Without objective moral guidance, we are left awash like a ship at sea in a raging storm, tossed by tumultuous waves, without an anchor to steady us or a lighthouse to guide us.

I have often wondered, if Jefferson had reversed the order of his words and instead written that we must build “a wall of separation between State and Church,” if that would have changed our modern perception of his letter. Would it have clarified that he meant the state should not interfere with religious matters, that it should not impose its will on the people contrary to their religious belief? Since most people never see the full context of the statement, nor the letter to which Jefferson was responding, I think that simple alteration would have had a profound effect on our modern comprehension.

I will conclude with a paragraph from George Washington’s September 1796 farewell address:

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 labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men & citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man ought to respect & to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private & 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 & experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-20-02-0440-0002

If there is any question as to why America’s political prosperity is waning, the answer is simple: we have lost the religion and morality upon which the country was founded. No longer are “moral and religious People” elected to public office. Instead, they have been replaced by those who think that rejecting religion will bring progress. Such are blind and fail to see that refusal of religious morality brings only transgression. Jefferson posited a “wall of separation between Church and State,” but his clear intent was more of a semi-permeable membrane. The State was to encourage religion in general (Christianity specifically), and to be governed by those who were morally led by their religion (Christian morals, which Jefferson viewed as unassailable). If we are to rescue the republic from ruin, we must regain the Christian principles and morality upon which America was founded. We must once again become “a moral and religious People.”