"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
:|cpt banjo had nothing to do with this post although he brought up the
:|problem with using taxpayer's money for religious things which is a
:|good point.
:|
:|What the politically correct but unconstitutional interpretations of
:|the 1st, 10th and 14th concerning freedom of religious expression boil
:|down to is the problem of using taxpayer money to pay for religious
:|things. The Reynolds opinion noted problems with unfair religious
:|taxes in the original colonies. Jefferson had also reflected on the
:|problem:
:|
:|"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation
:|of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical."
:|--Thomas Jefferson: Bill for Religious Freedom, 1779. Papers 2:545
:|
:|But also note Jefferson's remark concerning religious instruction in
:|public schools:
:|
:|"Thus we have teachers of languages, teachers of mathematics, of
:|natural philosophy, of chemistry, of medicine, of law, of history, of
:|government, etc. Religion, too, is a separate department, and happens
:|to be the only one deemed requisite for all men, however high or low."
:|-- Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815.
#1
First of all dude, you have to show that "public schools" were wide spread
in 1815. (Hint, they weren't yet.)
#2
Next can you say CONTEXT:
This is a larger portion of the letter providing context which you didn't
provide:
All this Mr. McLeod has well proved, and from these sources of argument
particularly which belong to his profession. On one question only I differ
from him, and it is that which constitutes the subject of his first
discourse, the right of discussing public affairs in the pulpit. I add the
last words, because I admit the right in general conversation and in
writing; in which last form it has been exercised in the valuable book you
have now favored me with.
The mass of human concerns, moral and physical, is so vast, the field of
knowledge requisite for man to conduct them to the best advantage is so
extensive, that no human being can acquire the whole himself, and much less
in that degree necessary for the instruction of others. It has of
necessity, then, been distributed into different departments, each of
which, singly, may give occupation enough to the whole time and attention
of a single individual. Thus we have teachers of languages, teachers of
mathematics, of natural philosophy, of chemistry, of medicine, of law, of
history, of government, etc. Religion, too, is a separate department, and
happens to be the only one deemed requisite for all men, however high or
low.
Collections of men associate together, under the name of congregations, and
employ a religious teacher of the particular sect of opinions of which they
happen to be, and contribute to make up a stipend as a compensation for the
trouble of delivering them, at such periods as they agree on, lessons in
the religion they profess. If they want instruction in other sciences or
arts, they apply to other instructors; and this is generally the business
of early life. But I suppose there is not an instance of a single
congregation which has employed their preacher for the mixed purposes of
lecturing them from the pulpit in chemistry, in medicine, in law, in the
science and principles of government, or in anything but religion
exclusively. Whenever, therefore, preachers, instead of a lesson in
religion, put them off with a discourse on the Copernican system, on
chemical affinities, on the construction of government, or the characters
or conduct of those administering it, it is a breach of contract, depriving
their audience of the kind of service for which they are salaried, and
giving them, instead of it, what they did not want, or, if wanted, would
rather seek from better sources in that particular art or science. In
choosing our pastor we look to his religious qualifications, without
inquiring into his physical or political dogmas, with which we mean to have
nothing to do. I am aware that arguments may be found which may twist a
thread of politics into the cord of religious duties. So may they for every
other branch of human art or science.
Thus, for example, it is a religious duty to obey the laws of our country;
the teacher of religion, therefore, must instruct us in those laws, that we
may know how to obey them. It is a religious duty to assist our sick
neighbors; the preacher must, therefore, teach us medicine, that we may do
it understandingly. It is a religious duty to preserve our own health; our
religious teacher, then, must tell us what dishes are wholesome, and give
us recipes in cookery, that we may learn how to prepare them. And so,
ingenuity, by generalizing more and more, may amalgamate all the branches
of science into any one of them, and the physician who is paid to visit the
sick may give a sermon instead of medicine, and the merchant to whom money
is sent for a hat may send a handkerchief instead of it.
But notwithstanding this possible confusion of all sciences into one,
common sense draws lines between them sufficiently distinct for the general
purposes of life, and no one is at a loss to understand that a recipe in
medicine or cookery, or a demonstration in geometry is not a lesson in
religion. I do not deny that a congregation may, if they please, agree with
their preacher that he shall instruct them in medicine also, or law, or
politics. Then, lectures in these, from the pulpit, become not only a
matter of right, but of duty also. But this must be with the consent of
every individual; because the association being voluntary, the mere
majority has no right to apply the contributions of the minority to
purposes unspecified in the agreement of the congregation.
I agree, too, that on all other occasions, the preacher has the right,
equally with every other citizen, to express his sentiments, in speaking or
writing, on the subjects of medicine, law, politics, etc., his leisure time
being his own, and his congregation not obliged to listen to his
conversation or to read his writings; and no one would have regretted more
than myself, had any scruple as to this right withheld from us the valuable
discourses which have led to the expression of an opinion as to the true
limits of the right. I feel my portion of indebtedness to the reverend
author for the distinguished learning, the logic, and the eloquence with
which he has proved that religion, as well as reason, confirms the
soundness of those principles on which our government has been founded and
its rights asserted.
These are my views on this question. They are in opposition to those of the
highly respected and able preacher, and are, therefore, the more doubtingly
offered. Difference of opinion leads to inquiry, and inquiry to truth; and
that, I am sure, is the ultimate and sincere object of us both. We both
value too much the freedom of opinion sanctioned by our Constitution not to
cherish its exercise even where in opposition to ourselves.
Unaccustomed to reserve or mystery in the expression of my opinions, I have
opened myself frankly on a question suggested by your letter and present.
And although I have not the honor of your acquaintance, this mark of
attention, and still more the sentiments of esteem so kindly expressed in
your letter, are entitled to a confidence that observations not intended
for the public will not be ushered to their notice, as has happened to me
sometimes. Tranquillity, at my age, is the balm of life. While I know I am
safe in the honor and charity of a McLeod, I do not wish to be cast forth
to the Marats, the Dantons, and the Robespierres of the priesthood; I mean
the Parishes, the Ogdens, and the Gardiners of Massachusetts.
I pray you to accept the assurances of my esteem and respect.
Source: Memoirs, Correspondence, and Private Papers of Thomas Jefferson,
vol. 4, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, ed., 1829, pp. 259-262.
Thomas Jefferson: The Sphere of Religion - written to P. H. Wendover on
March 13, 1815,
http://search.eb.com.au/elections/pri/Q00074.html
#3
(a) More Jefferson:
"I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil
magistrate to direct its exercises, its discipline, or its doctrines; nor
of the religious societies, that the General Government should be invested
with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them.
Fasting and prayer are religious exercises. The enjoining them, an act of
discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the
times for these exercises and the objects proper for them according to
their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in
their own hands where the Constitution has deposited it... Everyone must
act according to the dictates of his own reason, and mine tells me that
civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States,
and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents."
--Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:429
"To suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of
opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on
supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once
destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that
tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve or condemn
the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his
own." --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:302,
Papers 2: 546
"It is... proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe, a day of fasting
and prayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the United States
an authority over religious exercises which the Constitution has directly
precluded them from. It must be meant, too, that this recommendation is to
carry some authority and to be sanctioned by some penalty on those who
disregard it; not indeed of fine and imprisonment, but of some degree of
proscription, perhaps in public opinion. And does the change in the nature
of the penalty make the recommendation less a law of conduct for those to
whom it is directed?... Civil powers alone have been given to the President
of the United States, and no authority to direct the religious exercises of
his constituents." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:428
[Which leads one to ask - if the President of the United States claims he'd
be wrong to even recommend fasting and prayer, doesn't that suggest that he
feels that public school teachers are equally bound to keep the heck out of
the prayer business?]
"Whenever... preachers, instead of a lesson in religion, put [their
congregation] off with a discourse on the Copernican system, on chemical
affinities, on the construction of government, or the characters or conduct
of those administering it, it is a breach of contract, depriving their
audience of the kind of service for which they are salaried, and giving
them, instead of it, what they did not want, or, if wanted, would rather
seek from better sources in that particular art of science." --Thomas
Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815. ME 14:281
"No religious reading, instruction or exercise, shall be prescribed or
practiced [in the elementary schools] inconsistent with the tenets of any
religious sect or denomination." --Thomas Jefferson: Elementary School Act,
1817. ME 17:425
**************************************************************
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
****************************************************************
.
|
