Theoracy in Action
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47226
[excerpt]
WND Exclusive Commentary Jefferson goes before
Judiciary Committee
Posted: November 5, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
Senate Judiciary Committee Meeting, July 1809
Considering the nomination of former President Thomas Jefferson to the
Supreme Court:
Chairman: We're honored to have you to appear before us, Mr. Jeff ? I mean,
Mr. President. We thank you again for your outstanding service to our
country, especially as president of the United States for the last eight
years. We particularly honor you for originating the phrase "wall of
separation between Church and State." We on this committee are concerned
about giving any place to public displays of religiosity.
Jefferson: Thank you, gentlemen. Yes, I did coin the phrase you mention in
my personal letter, as president, to a little Baptist congregation in
Danbury, Conn. They had expressed concern that our government might
institute a preferred national religion, as had England, and I wrote to
assure them that the First Amendment to our Constitution had guaranteed the
federal government would keep its hands off individual and regional
expressions of faith.
Chairman: But sir, forgive me – all during your years as president, you
attended worship services, with many members of Congress and other
officials in our government, in the very chambers of Congress itself! It
would seem to some that government buildings were serving as churches
themselves – isn't that breaching "the wall"?
Jefferson: I'm afraid, sir, you are misunderstanding my intent with those
words. I was assuring the little Baptist congregation that our government
would keep its hands off the church – but not that church members could not
inform and influence government. Surely you are aware that all our
foundational documents reflect, and depend upon, our mutual recognition of
a Superintending Providence. Why shouldn't any available building, official
or otherwise, serve worshippers on Sunday? I see nothing wrong with that.
Chairman: Hmmm – but Mr. President, you went way beyond that, didn't you?
For instance, just three months after your now famous letter to the
Baptists about "the wall," you as president signed the enabling act for
Ohio to become a state, requiring the new state "not to be repugnant to the
Northwest Ordinance." Were you not aware, sir, that the Northwest Ordinance
states that "education shall be forever encouraged" for the explicit reason
that "religion, morality, and knowledge" are "necessary to good
government?" Do you now feel it is appropriate, even constitutional, for
the president to be endorsing religion so forcefully?
Jefferson: Mr. Chairman, I am surprised at your question. Do you not
remember the famous words of our first president, George Washington:
"Religion and morality are the twin pillars of freedom"? He went further,
saying, "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political
prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports." I,
personally, am not traditionally "religious," but I firmly believe in a
loving God and am convinced that we as a people are dependent on His
protection and blessing. As president I signed bills appropriating
financial support for chaplains in Congress and in the armed services, and
I explicitly urged all officers and soldiers to diligently attend divine
services. What is your concern?
Chairman: Well, er, uh, sir – we're here to consider your ability to serve
impartially on the Supreme Court. If you were confirmed to our highest
court, would your personal religious convictions influence your decisions?
Jefferson: How could they not, sir, although always within the dictates of
our Constitution? I remind you that our first chief justice, John Jay, with
whom I have had some differences but who is one of the chief architects of
the Constitution itself, said, "Providence has given to our people the
choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and
interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians for their
rulers." He did not intend, nor certainly would I, to impose personal
beliefs on fellow citizens – but what kind of faith would it be if it did
not at all influence our decisions? By the way, you didn't mention that in
1803, and later in 1806 and 1807, I initiated treaties with several Indian
tribes and obtained from Congress funds, out of the federal treasury, to
pay missionaries to promote Christianity among the Indians. Do you find
fault with that as well?
[end of excerpt]
*****************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
