TCUnation
social network for conservatives
Separating The Myth From The Truth:
Separating The Myth From The Truth:
Jefferson Did Not Abolish Religion In America
By Lisa Richards
January 1, 2010
“I am a Christian, that is to say, I am a follower of Jesus Christ”
Thomas Jefferson
Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States, or the Declaration of Independence, will the words “wall of separation of church and state be found.” There is only one place those written words can be found and one reason why; the words are in a personal letter to the pastor of the Danbury Baptists. The reason for Jefferson’s “wall of separation” metaphor—and it is just that, a metaphor—was securing “freedom of religion,” not from it. It was a promise that government cannot remove God from government or state, nor can government force a state religion upon the people, who, at that time, feared such tyranny and the removal of religious practices in each state.
On October 7, 1801, the Danbury Baptists wrote President Jefferson, asking for an actual definition of the First Amendment’s “Freedom of Religion,” stating:
"Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that religion andplaces is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals…But sir, our Constitution of government is not specific…And such has been our laws…that religion is considered as the first object of Legislation, and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy…we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights…as are consistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered…if those who seek after power and gain, under the pretense of Religion, should reproach their fellow men…as an enemy of religion, law, or good order, because he will 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 that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each state…"
Reading carefully, one can easily notice concern that America might fall under a tyrannical government in which state religion would become the hierarchy as was in England, that the right to worship Christ would be removed and forbidden. In England, those who did not follow the Church of England were condemned. The Danbury Baptists wanted proof they indeed had “Freedom of Religion.” They also wanted to know if it applied to individual states, rights to practice the faith of their choosing, or would legislature, or worse, the president, step in and forcibly render Christian religion unlawful?
Jefferson’s January 1, 1802 response does not take an education in law or Political Science to understand he never removed God or religion from government or public:
"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 (government has no right to interfere with Christianity as it is doing today), I contemplate with sovereign reverence (supreme ruler, worship and awe) that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature would “make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.
“Wall of separation” is, as mentioned above, a metaphor, not law. But the metaphor has been grossly distorted by Atheists and secularists determined to outlaw God and Christianity in America.
Jefferson’s letter explained that the Signers and Framers promised freedom to practice religion without Legislature, Executive, and courts, interfering and removing natural rights Jefferson believed came from God, whom faith is owed.
The metaphor “wall of separation” simply means government can’t impose its will upon Christians as King George had by the divine right of kings. The First Amendment places boundaries between man and government, government cannot break. It guarantees freedom to worship God without penalty and imprisonment, something the first Americans faced in Holland before sailing to America.
Jefferson promised he would secure the rights of Christians and protect religious practice from laws that would seek to undo “natural rights:” belief in God.
Is Religion and God Illegal Under Constitution Law?
Today Americans are in a battle to secure natural rights Jefferson felt should be protected by a “wall” legislators have no right to tear down. Nowhere in the Constitution does it state we lack rights to erect religious symbols in public places. If that were true, the entire Capital city of D.C. would not serve as a monument to Christ. But the ACLU is fighting to remove every Christian symbol from the Capital and President Obama will not stand with the people and fight the ACLU to save our Christian heritage.
Jefferson would be appalled to know his metaphorical abstract has been misused to run out of America. For it was Jefferson who wrote to Dr. Benjamin Rush on April 21, 1803 in a letter titled “The Morals Of Jesus,” stating he wanted to clarify people’s opinions of his personal belief in God, he considered “…very different from the anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions.” Jefferson further stated he felt some had abused God’s message, something he was against: “To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts (teachings and principles) of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attracted to his doctrines, in preference to all others…”
Ironically, Jefferson wrote to Rush that “…in confiding to you, I know it (my Christian beliefs) will not be exposed to the malignant perversions of those who make every word from me a text for new misrepresentations & calamities.”
How ominous those words are 200 years later: Atheists have twisted and perverted Jefferson’s words, his beliefs, and love of Christ, whom he did not want, separated from America.
On January 23, 1808, Jefferson told Reverend Samuel Miller in a letter titled “Religious Freedom” that “every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for” religious practices, “and this right can never be safer than in their (the people) own hands, where the constitution has deposited it.”
Thomas Jefferson’s words have not disappeared, they exist in the books Jefferson’s Writings. It is America’s educational system and government that ignore Jefferson’s words, because, to open them and read them proves America was indeed founded on God by Godly men whose intentions was a nation built on God’s natural laws, not those of men.
Lisa Richards Copyright ©™ January 1, 2009 All Rights Reserved
www.lisa-richards.com ©™
Jefferson Did Not Abolish Religion In America
By Lisa Richards
January 1, 2010
“I am a Christian, that is to say, I am a follower of Jesus Christ”
Thomas Jefferson
Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States, or the Declaration of Independence, will the words “wall of separation of church and state be found.” There is only one place those written words can be found and one reason why; the words are in a personal letter to the pastor of the Danbury Baptists. The reason for Jefferson’s “wall of separation” metaphor—and it is just that, a metaphor—was securing “freedom of religion,” not from it. It was a promise that government cannot remove God from government or state, nor can government force a state religion upon the people, who, at that time, feared such tyranny and the removal of religious practices in each state.
On October 7, 1801, the Danbury Baptists wrote President Jefferson, asking for an actual definition of the First Amendment’s “Freedom of Religion,” stating:
"Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that religion andplaces is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals…But sir, our Constitution of government is not specific…And such has been our laws…that religion is considered as the first object of Legislation, and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy…we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights…as are consistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered…if those who seek after power and gain, under the pretense of Religion, should reproach their fellow men…as an enemy of religion, law, or good order, because he will 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 that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each state…"
Reading carefully, one can easily notice concern that America might fall under a tyrannical government in which state religion would become the hierarchy as was in England, that the right to worship Christ would be removed and forbidden. In England, those who did not follow the Church of England were condemned. The Danbury Baptists wanted proof they indeed had “Freedom of Religion.” They also wanted to know if it applied to individual states, rights to practice the faith of their choosing, or would legislature, or worse, the president, step in and forcibly render Christian religion unlawful?
Jefferson’s January 1, 1802 response does not take an education in law or Political Science to understand he never removed God or religion from government or public:
"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 (government has no right to interfere with Christianity as it is doing today), I contemplate with sovereign reverence (supreme ruler, worship and awe) that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature would “make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.
“Wall of separation” is, as mentioned above, a metaphor, not law. But the metaphor has been grossly distorted by Atheists and secularists determined to outlaw God and Christianity in America.
Jefferson’s letter explained that the Signers and Framers promised freedom to practice religion without Legislature, Executive, and courts, interfering and removing natural rights Jefferson believed came from God, whom faith is owed.
The metaphor “wall of separation” simply means government can’t impose its will upon Christians as King George had by the divine right of kings. The First Amendment places boundaries between man and government, government cannot break. It guarantees freedom to worship God without penalty and imprisonment, something the first Americans faced in Holland before sailing to America.
Jefferson promised he would secure the rights of Christians and protect religious practice from laws that would seek to undo “natural rights:” belief in God.
Is Religion and God Illegal Under Constitution Law?
Today Americans are in a battle to secure natural rights Jefferson felt should be protected by a “wall” legislators have no right to tear down. Nowhere in the Constitution does it state we lack rights to erect religious symbols in public places. If that were true, the entire Capital city of D.C. would not serve as a monument to Christ. But the ACLU is fighting to remove every Christian symbol from the Capital and President Obama will not stand with the people and fight the ACLU to save our Christian heritage.
Jefferson would be appalled to know his metaphorical abstract has been misused to run out of America. For it was Jefferson who wrote to Dr. Benjamin Rush on April 21, 1803 in a letter titled “The Morals Of Jesus,” stating he wanted to clarify people’s opinions of his personal belief in God, he considered “…very different from the anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions.” Jefferson further stated he felt some had abused God’s message, something he was against: “To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts (teachings and principles) of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attracted to his doctrines, in preference to all others…”
Ironically, Jefferson wrote to Rush that “…in confiding to you, I know it (my Christian beliefs) will not be exposed to the malignant perversions of those who make every word from me a text for new misrepresentations & calamities.”
How ominous those words are 200 years later: Atheists have twisted and perverted Jefferson’s words, his beliefs, and love of Christ, whom he did not want, separated from America.
On January 23, 1808, Jefferson told Reverend Samuel Miller in a letter titled “Religious Freedom” that “every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for” religious practices, “and this right can never be safer than in their (the people) own hands, where the constitution has deposited it.”
Thomas Jefferson’s words have not disappeared, they exist in the books Jefferson’s Writings. It is America’s educational system and government that ignore Jefferson’s words, because, to open them and read them proves America was indeed founded on God by Godly men whose intentions was a nation built on God’s natural laws, not those of men.
Lisa Richards Copyright ©™ January 1, 2009 All Rights Reserved
www.lisa-richards.com ©™
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Bill Downs on -
Well said, Lisa! This subject has been on my mind for some time...actually, ever since a long weekend spent sight-seeing in D.C. (prior to the travesty which occurred last November, so I felt pretty good about being there).
While there, I had occasion to read the text of Abraham Lincoln's second Inaugural Address. I was struck by the depth of thought and feeling that this genuinely good and decent man shared publicly. He spoke with absolute conviction, certainty and courage. If you have never read it before you might want to take a minute to do so now....it is printed in its entirety below.
While reading Lincoln’s Address, consider the 1st amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It continually amazes, irritates and enrages me how so many small minded people in this country pervert, twist and misconstrue the text of this amendment to imply that "freedom OF religion" should guarantee them "freedom FROM exposure To religion". I firmly believe that few people have ever actually read this amendment and fewer still have actually ever pondered its meaning or intent. SHAME on US for allowing OUR RIGHTS to SPEAK FREELY and to OPENLY PRACTICE OUR RELIGION to be challenged, inhibited and condemned by a Godless political fringe.
Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Now, on to Lincoln…beginning approximately halfway through President Lincoln's address, one can not help but notice that the President frames all of his observations in the context of our relationship to God and our religious beliefs. Perhaps the religious nature of these comments leaps off the page in the current day because we have become so accustomed to the "separation of church and state" environment which the anti-religion minority has so sucsessfully forced upon us, the heretofore silent Christian majority.
Had Lincoln been president in today's environment, would he have had the courage to speak in such a way? Would he have had the fortitude to face the condemnation he experienced and to endure the personal jeopardy his beliefs placed him in? Could anyone in those days have had the courage to abolish slavery in this country without the firm conviction of the rightness of that action before God?
The text below is inscribed on the interior North wall of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C. As you read these words, imagine workmen with chisels literally chipping away at them...removing these words from the monument wall as well as from our nation’s consciousness simply because some misguided people find the repeated references to God offensive.
That is where I fear this Nation is headed if we don't take it back from the socialists, tyrants, and PC Police.
Abraham Lincoln's second Inaugural Address:
Fellow-Countrymen,
At this second appearing to take the oath of the Presidential office there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement somewhat in detail of a course to be pursued seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself, and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured. On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, urgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came. One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether." With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations. -
-
Permalink Reply by Lisa Richards on
-
Yes, Bill, I think he would have the courage.
Though I do not agree with Bush on his lack of border control, spending and lack of, well no, vetoing, he was open about being a Born Again Christian, had hands laid on him at his inauguration, and on Laura--remember that? and it made liberals go crazy instantaniously! They went nuts, but Bush never backed down.
He called Iran part of an axis of evil, said you had to cut the head of the snake and told o ne Islamic leader, Musharif, you kill a rabid dog.
His openess about Christ got him hated with venom. Had he never done that, he would be disliked, but not as hated.
Notice Bush bombed Afghanistan and was evil, Obama, who caters to Islam is doing it and is loved. Why; he's not a Christian.
Lisa Richards -
-
Permalink Reply by Laura Eide on -
Hi Bill, thank you for this reminder in the words of Abraham Lincoln, that we are indeed a nation under God and that our greatness has come only through his power and that we must pray for the binding up of wounds and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.
-
© 2013 Created by Earl B.
