Romney’s Speech at the Al Smith Dinner 2012

Obama’s Speech at the Al Smith Dinner 2012

My Notes

The letter below from James Madison, 4th Presidents of the United States, is an excellent treatise on Separation of Church and State.

Mr. Madison starts by expressing his approbation of Congress appointing chaplains, “to be paid from the national treasury.” He says it would have been better if they had paid for the chaplains “from their own pockets.” He was not against chaplains but against public funds being used to pay them.

He also laments there is “another deviation from the strict principle in the executive proclamations of fasts and festivals.” We have seen a recent example of this in a Proclamation by Rick Perry, the governor of Texas.

Mr. Madison says about is own presidential administration, “I found it necessary on more than one occasion to follow the example of predecessors. But I was always careful to make the proclamations absolutely indiscriminate, and merely recommendatory.”

Mr. Madison makes reference to examples of Separation and State from Holland and more recent examples from the United States. Here is where he makes the statement, “religion and government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together. It was the belief of all sects at one time that the establishment of religion by law was right and necessary; that the true religion ought to be established in exclusion of every other; and that the only question to be decided was, which was the true religion.”

Religion and government are strong and can flourish in the United States but neither must rule the other. Madison says, “religion flourishes in greater purity without than with, the aid of government.”

Quotes from

CIVIL GOVERNMENT AND RELIGION
WRITTEN BY JAMES MADISON TO EDWARD LIVINGSTON

MONTPELIER, July 1O, 1822.    

    DEAR SIR: . . . I observe with particular pleasure the view you have taken of the immunity of religion from civil jurisdiction, in every case where it does not trespass on private rights or the public peace. This has always been a favorite principle with me; and it was not with my approbation that the deviation from it took place in Congress, when they appointed chaplains, to be paid from the national treasury. It would have been a much better proof to their constituents of their pious feeling if the members had contributed for the purpose a pittance from their own pockets. As the precedent is not likely to be rescinded, the best that can now be done may be to apply to the Constitution the maxim of the law, de minimus non curat[(The law does not concern itself with things of little value or importance)].

    There has been another deviation from the strict principle in the executive proclamations of fasts and festivals, so far, at least, as they have spoken the language of injunction, or have lost sight of the equality of all religious sects in the eye of the Constitution. Whilst I was honored with the executive trust, I found it necessary on more than one occasion to follow the example of predecessors. But I was always careful to make the proclamations absolutely indiscriminate, and merely recommendatory; or, rather, mere designations of a day on which all who thought proper might unite in consecrating it to religious purposes, according to their own faith and forms. In this sense, I presume, you reserve to the government a right to appoint particular days for religious worship. I know not what may be the way of thinking on this subject in Louisiana. I should suppose the Catholic portion of the people, at least, as a small and even unpopular sect in the United States, would rally, as they did in Virginia when religious liberty was a legislative topic, to its broadest principle. Notwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favor of this branch of liberty, and the full establishment of it in some parts of our country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between government and religion, neither can be duly supported. Such, indeed, is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded against. And in a government of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together. It was the belief of all sects at one time that the establishment of religion by law was right and necessary; that the true religion ought to be established in exclusion of every other; and that the only question to be decided was, which was the true religion. The example of Holland proved that a toleration of sects dissenting from the established sect was safe, and even useful. The example of the colonies, now States, which rejected religious establishments altogether, proved that all sects might be safely and advantageously put on a footing of equal and entire freedom; and a continuance of their example since the Declaration of Independence has shown that its success in colonies was not to be ascribed to their connection with the parent country. If a further confirmation of the truth could be wanted, it is to be found in the examples furnished by the States which have abolished their religious establishments. I cannot speak particularly of any of the cases excepting that of Virginia, where it is impossible to deny that religion prevails with more zeal and a more exemplary priesthood than it ever did when established and patronized by public authority. We are teaching the world the great truth that governments do better without kings than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that religion flourishes in greater purity without than with, the aid of government.

    My pen, I perceive has rambled into reflections for which it was taken up. I recall it to the proper object, of thanking you for your very interesting pamphlet, and of tendering you my respects and good wishes.

William Addison Blakely. American state papers bearing on Sunday legislation. The National Religious Liberty Assoc., 1891

Brief Biography of James Madison

From the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress

James Madison, Jr., a Delegate and a Representative from Virginia and 4th President of the United States; born in Port Conway, King George County, Va., March 16, 1751; studied under private tutors and graduated from the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University) in 1771; member of the committee of safety from Orange County in 1774; delegate in the Williamsburg (Va.) convention of May 1776; member of the First General Assembly of Virginia in 1776 and was unanimously elected a member of the executive council in 1778; Member of the Continental Congress 1780-1783 and 1787-1788; delegate in the Federal Constitutional Convention at Philadelphia, Pa., in 1787; elected to as an Anti-Administration candidate to the First Congress, Second and Third Congresses and reelected as a Republican to the Fourth Congress (March 4, 1789-March 3, 1797); declined the mission to France, tendered by President Washington in 1794, and also the position of Secretary of State, tendered the same year; again a member of the Virginia Assembly from Orange County in 1799; appointed by President Jefferson as Secretary of State on March 5, 1801; entered upon the duties of that office May 2, 1801, and served until March 4, 1809; elected President of the United States in 1808; reelected in 1812 and served from March 4, 1809, to March 3, 1817; retired to his estate, ”Montpelier,” Orange County, Va.; delegate in the Virginia constitutional convention of 1829; rector of the University of Virginia at Charlottesville and visitor to the College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Va.; died at Montpelier on June 28, 1836; interment in the private cemetery of Montpelier.

Each candidate had their own criticisms of the plan. Some called it an affront on the lowest income Americans while others declared the plan to be an oversimplification of a very complex problem. Yet, it’s the 9-9-9 plan that can be credited with skyrocketing Cain to the top of the pack. A CNN poll found Cain to be nearly tied with Romney for the front-runner position.

So what exactly is the 9-9-9 plan? And is it the life-saving antidote that the U.S. economy so desperately needs or should it have us dialing 9-1-1 instead?

Cain outlines his 9-9-9 plan on his campaign website. His plan calls for a 9% business flat tax, 9% individual flat tax, and 9% national sales tax. The details of the plan are very minimal on Cain’s website, but it boasts large gains. For example, ‘[T]he 9-9-9 Plan will expand GDP by $2 trillion, create 6 million new jobs, increase business investment by one third, and increase wages by 10%.’

Despite these impressive statistics, the plan has faced much scrutiny. One of the points of contention is that Cain’s 9% national sales tax would be applied to food and clothing, barring the purchase of used goods. This is where critics point to when suggesting that the lower class is going to be hurt by tax increases under the 9-9-9 plan. NPR reports, ‘Economists say generally people who make less money spend a larger share of their income on food and other essentials. Cain suggests that even if this is true, they can change their behavior and purchase more used items.’

Obviously the situation is complex, and the solution may not be as simple as Herman Cain or anyone would hope. Check out this overview of the Las Vegas debate to hear the criticisms of Cain’s fellow GOP candidates. Then watch the video below to hear Cain explain the plan in his own words.

In short, Herman Cain was born into a working class family, and grew up in Atlanta, Georgia. He holds a Masters degree in Computer Science from Purdue University. Cain is a successful businessman. He worked for well-known companies Coca-Cola and Burger King before becoming CEO of Godfather’s Pizza. He is also known for hosting a radio talk show out of Atlanta.

Notice any holes in his biography? Herman Cain has never held a public office. In fact, he is the only Republican primary candidate in the running that has not held a public office.

This lack of political experience could go either way for him. If Cain continues to gain popularity, his inexperience is a glaring weakness for opponents to point out. However, career politicians leave a bad taste in the mouths of many voters who are fed up with politics as usual.

Cain is the opposite of an Establishment candidate.  He is not polished and primed with stock responses that are as smooth as silk, but have no substance. He is forthright and outspoken. This is a refreshing change for many who are tired of the back and forth banter between Mitt Romney and Rick Perry that has come to characterize recent Republican debates.

Cain’s straw poll win in Florida comes after many missteps by Rick Perry on the campaign trail and in debate rounds.  Cain captured 37.1 percent of the vote at Florida’s straw poll. Rick Perry came in second with 15.4 percent of the vote. The win seems impressive for a practically unknown candidate, but what do straw polls really tell us?

There have been four straw polls since Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann won the Ames Straw Poll in Iowa on August 13. Each straw poll has been won by a different candidate.

Cain won in Florida, Mitt Romney won in Michigan, Ron Paul won in California and Rick Santorum won in Pennsylvania.

One name absent from the list of winners is supposed frontrunner Rick Perry. Is Herman Cain’s win in Florida a game-changer in the Republican primaries? Only time will tell. Right now it is just a waiting game to see whether or not ‘The Herman Cain train is picking up speed.’

Rick Perry comes from modest upbringings. Perry was born into a financially modest farming family and attended Texas A&M.

This stands in stark contrast to George Bush’s wealthy upbringing in a politically active family and his Ivy League education. Bush attended both Yale and Harvard.

Not only are the two men from separate streams when it comes to upbringing, their approach to politics is markedly different. Bush campaigned as the ‘compassionate conservative’.  He was known for working across the aisle both as Texas Governor and as President.

On the contrary, compassionate is not included in any conversation concerning Rick Perry. He is very forward and blunt in his political opinions.

In a sense, while Bush would extend a hand to his opponents in the name of compromise, Perry just goes for the throat.  This is seen in Perry’s statement in June, ‘The political left are never going to like us, so let’s stop trying to curry favor with them’.

Rick Perry’s ideological stances, which leave no room for negotiation or compromise, make him far more conservative than George W. Bush.  In a USA Today opinion column Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, wrote, “Perry is more conservative than Bush. He would be the most conservative president since Calvin Coolidge, both fiscally and in foreign policy.”

Setting all of the peripheral similarities aside, these men are two very different politicians. They come from the same side of the aisle, but their modes of operation are from opposite ends of the spectrum.

Whether Rick Perry’s hard-nosed conservatism and refusal to compromise will gain him favor with voters or prove him to be unelectable remains to be seen.  What is blatantly obvious is that a Rick Perry presidency will not be ‘Bush, continued’.

From his trademark Texas swagger to his unmistakable southern drawl, current Republican frontrunner Rick Perry is making waves in the polls and in the press.

Over the past weeks Perry has garnered media attention for a variety of reasons, the most entertaining of which has been his portrayal as a George W. Bush clone.

Some of these similarities include:

That is about where the comparisons stop.

What do these similarities add up too? A lot of hype and a few laughs.

Comedian Conan O’Brien tweeted on the social networking site Twitter ‘Rick Perry is a religious, right-wing conservative who’s a former pilot and the governor of Texas. Finally! One of those!’

All joking aside, the media whirlwind that the Bush/Perry comparisons have sparked is blown out of proportion. The similarities exist, but they are more ironic and laughable than indicative of a potential sequel to the Bush presidency.

These two Texans may look alike and sound alike, but when it comes to issues of importance (i.e. political positions and voting records) George W. Bush and Rick Perry are not as similar as it seems.

In my next post I will cover some of the differences between Perry and Bush. For now, enjoy the following video on their similarities:

My Notes

Below is a letter from Thomas Lynch Jr. to George Washington. Lynch writes to let Washington know that additional pay has been approved for his officers.

Lynch cannot “think with Patience” about some officers who made petty or unnecessary objections, “cavilling“, about serving with General Washington. He calls them “pityfull wretches”. I love his statement, “it woud be a Capital Point to convince the World that it is not necessary to have bad Officers of that Country in order to raise men there. I can scarce bear their Tyranny.”

Lynch goes on to write, “the destruction of the [British] Parliamentary Army in America will certainly produce Peace.” In reference to this statement, Lynch goes on to say, “I have no doubt America stands now indebted to her General for the One.”

This is November of 1775 and Lynch believed that General Washington was succeeding against the British. He approved of Washington’s design to “hover like an Eagle over your Prey, always ready to Pounce it when the proper Time comes.”

Lynch confirms that the “Articles of War has all the Amendments we reported.” He encourages the General to “enforce them.” Speaking again of the officers he says, “in short being now paid they must do their Duty and look as well as act like Gentlemen.”

Lynch concludes by telling Washington to “depend on every Support of your Friends here.” He lets the General know that he has troops ready to support his as needed.

Quotes I like from Thomas Lynch Jr.

Thomas Lynch to George Washington

Phila, Nov. 13, 1775    

My dear Sir
    . . . . I am happy to inform you that Congress has agreed to every Recommendation of the Committee and have gone beyond it in allowing the additional pay to the Officers. I rejoice at this but cant think with Patience, that pityfull wretches who stood cavilling with you when entreated to serve the next Campaign should reap the Benefit of this addition, they will now be ready enough, but hope you will be able to refuse them with the Contempt they deserve and to find better in their room. Coud not some of the Gentlemen at Camp enlist the New England men who have been persuaded to leave you. Frazier told me he coud. it woud be a Capital Point to convince the World that it is not necessary to have bad Officers of that Country in order to raise men there. I can scarce bear their Tyranny.
    I have a Letter from undoubted Authority that assures me that the destruction of the Parliamentary Army in America will certainly produce Peace and by another that the seizing Quebec will produce the same Effect. I have no doubt America stands now indebted to her General for the One and will before the Return of Spring for the other. mistake me not,— I have not altered my mind a jot since I left you. I mean not to anticipate your Determinations, but only to approve your Design to hover like an Eagle over your Prey, always ready to Pounce it when the proper Time comes. I have not forgot your Proposition relative to that City; I try to pave the way for it, and wait for the Season as you do.
    The Articles of War has all the Amendments we reported. You will enforce them. you will not now suffer your Officers to sweep the Parade [with] the skirts of their Coats or bottoms of their Trowsers, to cheat or to mess with their Men, to skulk in battle or sneak in Quarters, in short being now paid they must do their Duty and look as well as act like Gentlemen. Do not bate them an Ace, my Dear General, but depend on every Support of your Friends here. I have strove to keep two Battalions now raising in the Jersey’s and one here quite disengaged that they may be ready, on a call to join you, shoud those you have desert you. I have not been quite unsuccessful. The Winter, is our own. Boston will not during that season be reenforcd at least we have reason to think so.
    I want the Return I desired from Gates exceedingly. Compnts. to him Lee, Putnam, Mifflin etc. ‘Tis so dark I can’t read this Letter over or I woud save you the trouble of deciphering it.

Dear Sir your most obedt Serv.            
Tho. Lynch    

Edmund Cody Burnett. Letters of members of the Continental Congress, Volume 1. The Carnegie Institution of Washington. 1921

Brief Biography

Thomas Lynch Jr., (son of Thomas Lynch [1727-1776]), a Delegate from South Carolina; born in Prince George’s Parish, Winyah, S.C., August 5, 1749; educated at Eton and Cambridge, England, and studied law at the Middle Temple in London, 1764-1772; returned to America in 1772; became a planter on the North Santee River; member of the First and Second Provincial Congresses of South Carolina 1774-1776; member of the constitutional committee in 1776; member of the State general assembly in 1776; served as a captain in the First South Carolina Regiment, subsequently of the Continental Line, in the Revolutionary War from June 1775 until his election as a Delegate to the Continental Congress on February 1, 1776, and served in 1776; signer of the Declaration of Independence; did not seek reelection to the Continental Congress owing to ill health; embarked on an ocean voyage to France in 1779 and was lost at sea in that year.

My Notes

Below is a letter from George Wythe, co-written with Silas Deane and John Adams. They write to James Warren stating that a “just Account of the Hostilities committed” must be recorded.

Looking at the biography of George Wythe, you can see that he was a lawyer. He is clear that “proper Evidence of the Facts” must be collected. He also wants “every Fact [to be] be supported by Affidavits, authenticated by the highest Authority.”

Mr. Wythe, along with Mr. Deane and Mr. Adams, feel that “little need be said to sh[o]w the Utility of this Measure.” The feel these facts may “be necessary for our Justification, in the Judgment of the People of Great Britain, and foreign Nations.”

This reminds me of the opening of the Declaration of Independence. The last line in the first paragraph states, “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

The founding fathers knew that revolution could not be taken on lightly. They must show and give evidence for justification of the cause.

Quotes from

Silas Deane, John Adams, and George Wythe
to James Warren

Philadelphia, Octr. 24, 1775    

    Sir, — The Congress has resolved, that a just Account of the Hostilities committed by the ministerial Army and Navy, in America, since the month of March last, be collected, with proper Evidence of the Facts; the Number and Value of the Buildings destroyed, the Vessells whether inward or outward bound, seized or captivated and the Stock of all kinds, plundered, in any Part of the Continent, as you will see by an authenticated Copy of the Resolution, here inclosed.
    It is apprehended that little need be said to shew the Utility of this Measure. It may be necessary for our Justification, in the Judgment of the People of Great Britain, and foreign Nations; the Information of the Colonies and the Use of History, not to mention any other Purpose.
    Our Distance here from the Scenes of Violence makes it necessary for us to apply to several Assemblies, as well as private Gentlemen for Assistance; and from your Character it is presumed, you will chearfully yield us all the Aid in your Power.
    It will be requisite that every Fact be supported by Affidavits, authenticated by the highest Authority of the Place, where they shall be taken.
    Our Apology for giving you this Trouble, is the manifest Utility of it, to the common Cause of the Colonies, in these Times of public Distress and Danger. We Subscribe ourselves, with great Respect, Sir, your most obedient and very humble Servants,

Silas Deane    
John Adams    
George Wythe    

Massachusetts Historical Society. Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Volume 1. The Society. 1917

Brief Biography

George Wythe, a Delegate from Virginia; born near Back River, Elizabeth City County, Va., in 1726; privately instructed by his mother and attended the College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Va.; studied law; was admitted to the bar in 1746 and commenced practice in Elizabeth City County in 1755; moved to Williamsburg about 1755; member of the house of burgesses 1758-1768; appointed a member of the committee of correspondence in 1759; moved to his estate in Elizabeth City County in 1763 and returned to Williamsburg in 1768; clerk of the house of burgesses 1768-1775; Member of the Continental Congress 1775-1776; a signer of the Declaration of Independence; speaker of the house of delegates in 1777; judge of the Virginia Chancery Court in 1777; appointed sole chancellor of Virginia in 1778; professor of law at the College of William and Mary from 1779 to 1791, when he resigned and moved to Richmond, Va.; conducted a private school in Richmond and continued teaching until his death; delegate to the Federal Convention at Philadelphia, Pa., in 1787; a member of the State ratification convention in 1788; died in Richmond, Va., June 8, 1806; interment in St. John’s Churchyard.

My Notes

Below are several snippets of letters from Oliver Wolcott.

The first is to Samuel Lyman in February of 1776. Mr. Wolcott writes that Congress has resolved to no longer make trade with England and its allies. His hope is that the ladies “will still make themselves Contented to live without Tea, for the good of their Country.”

Mr. Wolcott passionately writes, “I hope I shall do my duty, and have satisfaction in doing it.” He expresses that the “peace and security [of the colonies] will require great deliberation.” He goes on to say, “I know of no time which can be more necessary and seasonable than the present, to conclude this mighty affair.”

In May of 1776 Mr. Wolcott again writes to Samuel Lyman and to his wife, “Mrs Wolcott.” He writes to then both that “A Revolution in Gover[n]ment … is about to take Effect.”

In both the February letter and the May letter, Mr. Wolcott writes strongly about the “Rights of the People.” He says, “To give up any of our rights will never I hope be done.” In his June 1776 letter to his wife he says, “Every Thing is leading to the lasting Independancy of these Colonies.”

Writing about the Declaration of Independence, Mr. Wolcott says, “If this Recommendation takes effect which undouptedly it will, There will be an instance Real not implyed or Ideal of a Goverment founded in Compacet Express and Clear Made in its Principles by the People at large.” He saw that this would be a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Quotes from Oliver Wolcott

Oliver Wolcott to Samuel Lyman

Philidelphia 3d Febry 1776    

Sir,
    . . . . The Congress have Resolved that after the first of next March they will carry on Trade with every Nation and People, except England, Ireland, the british West India; etc. under the Regulation of the association, and Subject to such other Regulations as Congress shall Ordain who probably will not alter the Association but in some very few particulars. The Ladys I hope will still make themselves Contented to live without Tea, for the good of their Country. . . . . If you should ask me how I like attending Congress, I must tell you I cannot answer that question yet. I hope I shall do my duty, and have satisfaction in doing it. I believe there will be no Recess of Congress till spring, and then it will depend upon circumstances. . . . . The Union of the Colonies, I trust may be relied upon, but the establishment of those Colonies in peace and security will require great deliberation. But I know of no time which can be more necessary and seasonable than the present, to conclude this mighty affair. To give up any of our rights will never I hope be done; and I imagine Great Britain will never settle with us upon the terms of Enjoying them, what consequences those contrarient and fixed claims must produce, will be easily conceived. . . . .

Oliver Wolcott to Samuel Lyman

Philidelpa 16 May 1776    

Sir,
    . . . . The News is inclosed. A Revolution in Goverment you will perceive is about to take Effect. May God grant a happy Establishment of it, and secuerety to the Rights of the People. If this Recommendation takes effect which undouptedly it will, There will be an instance Real not implyed or Ideal of a Goverment founded in Compacet Express and Clear Made in its Principles by the People at large.
    A strange Infatuation has possessd the british Councills to drive Matters to the lengtth they have gone. every Thing convinces me that the Abilities of a Child might have governed this Country, so strong has been their Attachment to Britain. May the supreme Ruler of the Universe carry us thro the hardy Conflict to Liberty safety and Peace. . . . .

Oliver Wolcott to Mrs Wolcott

Philadelpa 1 6th May 1776    

My Dear,
    . . . . By the Enclosed you will perceive that a Revolution in Goverment is recommended:— to swear allegiance and act under an Authority which had not only cast us out of its Protection but for so long a Time has been carrying on the Most cruel War against us, was tho’t not only absurd but impious. . . . .

Oliver Wolcott to Mrs Wolcott

Philadelpa 15 June 1776    

My Dear,
    . . . . We seem at present to be in the Midst of a great Revolution, which will probably be attended with most important Consequences. Every Thing is leading to the lasting Independancy of these Colonies. . . . .

Edmund Cody Burnett. Letters of members of the Continental Congress, Volume 1. The Carnegie Institution of Washington. 1921

Brief Biography

Oliver Wolcott, a Delegate from Connecticut; born in Windsor, Conn., November 20, 1726; was graduated from Yale College in 1747; commissioned a captain by the Governor of New York in 1747; raised a company of Volunteers and served on the northwestern frontier until the peace of Aix-la-Chapelle; returned to Connecticut and settled in Litchfield; studied medicine, but did not practice; elected sheriff of the newly organized county of Litchfield, Conn., in 1751; member of the State council 1774-1786 and at the same time judge of the county court of common pleas; judge of probate for the Litchfield district many years; major general of militia; appointed by the Continental Congress in 1775 as one of the commissioners of Indian affairs for the northern department, intrusted with the task of inducing the Iroquois Indians to remain neutral; Member of the Continental Congress 1776-1778 and 1780-1783; a signer of the Declaration of Independence; commander of the fourteen Connecticut regiments sent for the defense of New York in 1776, and divided his time between Army service and service in Congress; commanded a brigade of militia which took part in the defeat of General Burgoyne in 1777; Lieutenant Governor of Connecticut 1786-1796; elected Governor in 1796 and served until his death in Litchfield, Conn., December 1, 1797; interment in the East Cemetery.

To the right is an image of the letter from the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut to Thomas Jefferson. Below is the text which is much easier to read.

The Association starts their letter with admiration toward the newly inaugurated President. Their letter may be “less courtly and pompous” than others but they express that, “none is more sincere.”

The Association jumps right into the point of why they are writing. They are “uniformly on the side of religious liberty.”

They make some great statements on the limitation of government in regard to religious liberty:

• “Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals”
• “No man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions”
• “The legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor”

In Thomas Jefferson’s letter of reply to the Danbury Baptist’s, he affirms these ideas. Jefferson wants “to restore to man all his natural rights.”

The Baptist Association is concerned that the “constitution of government is not specific” in regard to religion. They are happy for the religious liberty they enjoy and the feel this is due to the fact that “Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation”, namely, the First Amendment to the Constitution.

The Association’s worry is that “those who seek after power and gain, under the pretense of government and Religion, should reproach their fellow men.” And that someone in power would “assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.”

Jefferson’s letter of reply points out that the First Amendment builds a “wall of separation between Church & State.” He reassures the Baptists that the federal government will “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Read both letters and then leave a comment and let me know your thoughts on Separation of Church and State.

Danbury Baptist Association Letter to Thomas Jefferson

Letter from the Danbury Baptists:

The address of the Danbury Baptist Association in the State of Connecticut, assembled October 7, 1801.
To Thomas Jefferson, Esq., President of the United States of America

Sir,
Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office, we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration , to express our great satisfaction in your appointment to the Chief Magistracy in the Unite States. And though the mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe, that none is more sincere.

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 ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter, together with the laws made coincident therewith, were adapted as the basis of our government at the time of our revolution. And such has been our laws and usages, and such still are, [so] that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation, and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. And these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgments, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore, if those who seek after power and gain, under the pretense of government and Religion, should reproach their fellow men, [or] should reproach their Chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dares not, assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.

Sir, we are sensible that the President of the United States is not the National Legislator and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each State, but our hopes are strong that the sentiment of our beloved President, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these States–and all the world–until hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and goodwill shining forth in a course of more than thirty years, we have reason to believe that America’s God has raised you up to fill the Chair of State out of that goodwill which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you–to sustain and support you and your Administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to rise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.

And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.

Signed in behalf of the Association,

Neh,h Dodge }
Eph’m Robbins } The Committee
Stephen S. Nelson }

http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=65

Brief Biography