Separation of Church and State

The following is a collection of quotes from various writers on the topic of God, religion, and
separation of church and state in the colonial era and beginning of the new republic. The blocks
of quotes are left long to give the reader the benefit of a number of voices on the subject, from
which a more personal point of view may be drawn. These bodies of quoted material have been
tied together with historical data set off in italics to give continuity to the progression in history
leading up to the Separation of Church and State doctrine. An attempt is made as well to present
material that will aid the reader in understanding Thomas Jefferson’s views on this matter and
him as a person.
____________________________________________________
Part I: The Colonial Approach to God as War Loomed.

The Revolutionary Idea of Days of Fasting, Humiliation and Prayer

“In retrospect, John Adams identified 1760 to 1775 as the era of the true American Revolution.
The Revolution, Adams declared, ended before the fighting started, for it was “in the Minds of
the people,” involving not the actual wartime victory but a shift of allegiance from Britain to
America” (Norton, 107).

That revolt of the heart led colonials to act out, to form protests such as the burning of Stamp Act
paper, setting up of Liberty Trees, burning tax collectors in effigy-or tarring and feathering them
for real. One of the protests that most stands out in the American psyche is the so called Boston
Tea Party of December 16, 1773.To punish Massachusetts for the Tea Party, King George III
decided to destroy its economy by blockading Boston's harbor beginning on June 1, 1774. In
Virginia, when he heard of this impending closure,

Thomas Jefferson drafted a Resolution for a "Day of Fasting, Humiliation and Prayer" to be
observed the same day. It was introduced in the Virginia House of Burgesses May 24, 1774, by
Robert Carter Nicholas and supported by Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee and George Mason,
passing unanimously:

‘This House, being deeply impressed with apprehension of the great dangers, to be derived
to British America, from the hostile invasion of the City of Boston, in our sister Colony of
Massachusetts … deem it highly necessary that the said first day of June be set apart, by
the members of this House as a Day of Fasting, Humiliation and Prayer, devoutly to implore
the Divine interposition, for averting the heavy calamity which threatens destruction to our
civil rights. … Ordered, therefore that the Members of this House do attend … with the
Speaker, and the Mace, to the Church in this City, for the purposes aforesaid; and that the
Reverend Mr. Price be appointed to read prayers, and the Reverend Mr. Gwatkin, to preach a
sermon.

George Washington wrote in his diary, June 1, 1774: ‘Went to church, fasted all day’ (Federer).

1
It should be noted that colonial ‘days of fasting, humiliation and prayer’ were not declared as
part of Sunday observance, but were set for some other day of the week, as a day especially set
apart for that purpose alone. For example, June 1, 1774 was a Wednesday.

The idea of sovereigns being able to declare or the people to petition church or state for days of
fasting, humiliation and prayer is very old, being accepted by the early Universal or Catholic
church by the 400s AD. The observance of such days followed the various sects growing out of
the Protestant Reformation and went into many countries, England included. Thus, the practice
came to the Americas through European settlement. That the practice was used and well
respected by the colonists can be seen in the passages found on the next few pages. Concerning
the June 1 day of fasting and prayer in Virginia, Jefferson wrote in his autobiography,

"We were under conviction of the necessity of arousing our people from the lethargy into which
they had fallen as to passing events; and thought that the appointment of a day of general fasting
& prayer would be most likely to call up & alarm their attention" (Jefferson, in Federer).

Jefferson describes that solemn occasion thusly, ‘the effect of the day thro' the whole colony was
like a shock of electricity, arousing every man & placing him erect & solidly on his centre.’
(Jefferson, in Baker).

Lord Dunmore, Virginia's royal governor, saw this resolution as a veiled protest against King
George III and dissolved the House of Burgesses. This resulted in legislators meeting in Raleigh
Tavern where they conspired with other colonies to form the first Continental Congress.

On September 5, 1774, the First Continental Congress met at Carpenter Hall in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania; it remained in session until Oct 26. It faced three main tasks: 1) defining
American grievances with the crown, 2) developing a plan of resistance to oppressive royal
policies and, 3) articulating their constitutional relationship with Great Britain. The Congress
addressed the first and third ideas as best it could in a Declaration of Rights and Grievances,
which was sent to the King and Parliament. The other task was met by organizing themselves
into a Continental Association, bent on looking out for the common good of all the colonies. As
part of this conjoining, the colonies began to build up arms and supplies in case of confrontation
with the crown. The rift between Great Britain and her colonies would come to a head on April
19, 1775, when royal forces marched to Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts to confiscate
some of the colonial stockpiles of arms and ammunition.

On April 15, 1775, just four days before the Battle of Lexington, where was fired "the shot heard
'round the world," the Massachusetts Provincial Congress, led by John Hancock, declared:

"In circumstances dark as these, it becomes us, as men and Christians, to reflect that,
whilst every prudent measure should be taken to ward off the impending judgments … the
11th of May next be set apart as a Day of Public Humiliation, Fasting and Prayer … to
confess the sins … to implore the Forgiveness of all our Transgression."

On April 19, 1775, in a Proclamation of a Day of Fasting and Prayer, Connecticut Gov. Jonathan
Trumbull beseeched that:

2
 "God would graciously pour out His Holy Spirit on us to bring us to a thorough repentance
and effectual reformation that our iniquities may not be our ruin; that He would restore,
preserve and secure the liberties of this and all the other British American colonies, and
make the land a mountain of Holiness, and habitation of righteousness forever."

Hancock and Trumbull had no way of knowing what was going to happen on April 19, but rising
up out of their concerns for the situation generally, they sought reconciliation and
understanding with King and country by asking for intercession from their god through their
faith. The Colonials were successful on April 19 to drive the British out of Concord and back to
Boston, but all knew that the maw of war would now haunt them until a resolution could be had.
For the next year, the British army at Boston would remain under siege by colonial forces. Six
months before Lexington and Concord, during the First Continental Congress, May 10, 1775
had been designated as that date on which Congress would once again meet, and the Second
Continental Congress met on that day as prescribed. The siege of Boston was one-month old.

On June 12, 1775, the Continental Congress, under President John Hancock, declared:

"Congress … considering the present critical, alarming and calamitous state … do

earnestly recommend, that Thursday, the 12th of July next, be observed by the inhabitants
of all the English Colonies on this Continent, as a Day of Public Humiliation, Fasting and
Prayer, that we may with united hearts and voices, unfeignedly confess and deplore our
many sins and offer up our joint supplications to the Allwise, Omnipotent and merciful
Disposer of all Events, humbly beseeching Him to forgive our iniquities. … It is
recommended to Christians of all denominations to assemble for public worship and to
abstain from servile labor and recreations of said day."

On July 12, 1775, in a letter to his wife explaining the Continental Congress' decision to declare
a Day of Public Humiliation, Fasting and Prayer, John Adams wrote:

"We have appointed a Continental fast. Millions will be upon their knees at once before their
great Creator, imploring His forgiveness and blessing; His smiles on American Council and
arms" (Adams, in Federer).

The Colonies Stand Their Ground

George Washington was in Congress on the day that this July 12 fast was appointed, but within
just three days of that declaration he had been chosen Commander-in-Chief of all the colonial
forces. No sooner had he been appointed to that office than word came from Boston that on June
17, the British had tried to break the colonial siege by attacking patriot positions on Breed’s
(Bunker) Hill across the bay from Boston. The British managed at great cost to take that redoubt
but accomplished little else. Washington arrived two weeks later, July 3, 1775. While he worked
to train his rag-tag army, hostilities with the British hold up in Boston remained at a stalemate.
Washington did not have the means to drive the British out of Boston—namely, artillery.
However, early in 1776 colonials brought cannons from Ft. Ticonderoga, captured from the
British earlier the previous year. In a brilliant move on the night of March 5, 1776, Washington
set them up on Dorchester Heights overlooking Boston City and Boston Harbor where the
British fleet lay moored. The colonials could now cut off the British naval supply lines and level
3
the city at will, and Washington anticipated a huge military thrust on the part of the British to
remove him from this critically strategic position. When that assault failed, the British chose to
leave Boston, and sailed away on March 17, 1776.

On March 6, 1776, from his headquarters at Cambridge, Gen. Washington had ordered:

"Thursday, the 7th … being set apart … as a Day of Fasting, Prayer and Humiliation, 'to
implore the Lord and Giver of all victory to pardon our manifold sins and wickedness, and
that it would please Him to bless the Continental army with His divine favor and protection,'
all officers and soldiers are strictly enjoined to pay all due reverence and attention on that
day to the sacred duties at the Lord of hosts for His mercies already received, and for those
blessings which our holiness and uprightness of life can alone encourage us to hope
through His mercy to obtain."

On March 16, 1776, the Continental Congress passed without dissent a resolution presented by
General William Livingston declaring:

"The Congress … desirous … to have people of all ranks and degrees duly impressed with a
solemn sense of God's superintending providence, and of their duty, devoutly to rely … on
his aid and direction … We do earnestly recommend Friday, the 17th day of May be
observed by the colonies as a Day of Humiliation, Fasting and Prayer; that we may, with
united hearts, confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions, and, by sincere
repentance and amendment of life, appease God's righteous displeasure, and, through the
merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, obtain this pardon and forgiveness."

On May 15, 1776, Gen. George Washington ordered:

"The Continental Congress having ordered Friday the 17th instant to be observed as a Day of
Fasting, Humiliation and Prayer, humbly to supplicate the mercy of Almighty God, that it
would please Him to pardon all our manifold sins and transgressions, and to prosper the
arms of the United Colonies, and finally establish the peace and freedom of America upon a
solid and lasting foundation; the General commands all officers and soldiers to pay strict
obedience to the orders of the Continental Congress; that, by their unfeigned and pious
observance of their religious duties, they may incline the Lord and Giver of victory to prosper
our arms" (Federer).

All through the war, prayer and supplication to the Almighty remained paramount in the
colonial arsenal. Finally, In 1783, the Treaty of Paris officially ended the long, weary
Revolutionary War during which National Days of Prayer had been proclaimed every spring for
eight years.

4
____________________________________________________
Part II: God and Religion in the New Republic

Post-War Era Trust in God

Tired from war and anxious to get resettled, the new United States sought to govern themselves
under the Articles of Confederation, the body politic drawn up by the Confederated States during
the war. But the Articles were inadequate in any number of ways to lead such a diverse nation of
this size, and within just four years the states sought to “form a more perfect union;” they called
for a constitutional convention. The Constitutional Convention convened in Carpenter Hall, the
same place where Congress—eleven years before—had met and signed the Declaration of
Independence. They struggled at first, to write a constitution, arguing to no end for over a
month. Then, Benjamin Franklin, on June 28, 1787, stood before the convention and intoned
these words, taken down by James Madison. They speak to the then American process of
including providence in all political action.


"The small progress we have made after four or five weeks close attendance & continual
reasonings with each other---our different sentiments on almost every question, several of the
last producing as many noes as ays, is methinks a melancholy proof of the imperfection of the
Human Understanding. We indeed seem to feel our own want of political wisdom, since we have
been running about in search of it. We have gone back to ancient history for models of
Government, and examined the different forms of those Republics which having been formed
with the seeds of their own dissolution now no longer exist. And we have viewed Modern States
all round Europe, but find none of their Constitutions suitable to our circumstances.

In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce
able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto
once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? In the
beginning of the Contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily
prayer in this room for the divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, & they were
graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent
instances of a superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this
happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national
felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer
need his assistance?

I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proof I see of this truth
that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his
notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the
sacred writings, that "except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it." I firmly
believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political
building no better, than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local
interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye
word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate
instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and
conquest.
5
I therefore beg leave to move-that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its
blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to
business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that Service"
(US House).

Daily Prayers still are had in Congress to this day.

Due to a pivotal United States Supreme Court case in 1983, the constitutionality of
legislative prayers, at least for the federal Constitution, has been firmly established. In
Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983), the Court held that a state legislature’s practice of
opening each legislative day with a prayer performed by a state-selected and paid chaplain
did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. . . . In Utah, city council
prayers have been upheld under both the state and federal constitution (ACLU).

Once the Constitution was accepted on September 17, 1787, and ratified in June, 1788, it
became law. George Washington was then unanimously elected President and John Adams as
vice-president. At his inauguration on April 30, 1789, Washington asked that a Bible be brought
so that he could take the oath of office while placing his hand on the holy writ. At the
conclusion, Washington and the others went in procession to St. Paul’s Chapel, and there they
invoked the blessing of God upon the new government. In his inaugural address, Washington
spoke openly about the Almighty.

". . . it would be peculiarly improper to omit, in this first official act, my fervent
supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the
councils of nations and whose providential aide can supply every human defect, that His
benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States
a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes; and may enable every
instrument employed in its administration to execute with success, the functions allotted to
his charge” (Washington, in US Congress).

As always had been, in the new republic the inclusion of divine providence into matters of state
continued, being accepted by most as proper.

The Advent of Separation of Church and State

Article 6 of the United States Constitution provides that “no religious Test shall ever be required
as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” As part of promises
made in getting the Constitution past and ratified, it was agreed that a bill of rights would be
added just as soon as the new Constitutional Congress convened. The new Bill of Rights
contained ten amendments to the Constitution which were meant to give assurances to the
American people, including further protection for the right to worship. This was spelled out in
the First Amendment:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; . . . ”

6
While most Americans focused on the promise of the First Amendment not to prohibit the free
exercise of religion, others obsessed about the idea that “Congress shall make no law respecting
an establishment of religion.”

British North America had seen its share of state religion. Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay
Colonies, New Haven, and New Hampshire were founded by Puritan, Calvinist, Protestants.
New Netherlands was founded by Dutch Reformed Calvinists. New York, Virginia, North
Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia were officially Church of England. When New France
was transferred to Great Britain after the French and Indian War in 1763, and Spanish Florida
as well, the Roman Catholic Church remained. And Maryland already had a large Catholic
following. Additionally, one cannot forget the Quakers in Pennsylvania and West Jersey. In
most of these colonies one had to be a member in good standing with the Church to vote or hold
office, and these churches were often supported wholly or in part by tax dollars. Only Delaware
and Rhode Island did not have established churches. And while the First Amendment of the
Constitution did not allow for establishment of a national religion, most states continued on after
the fact with their existing state religions, carryovers from colonial days, some stretching into
the 1820s or 1830s. Religion was very important to citizens living in these states, but it was
quite often intolerant, narrow-minded and bigoted.

Differences borne out while arguing the articles of constitution had sown in the American
political psyche the latent seeds that shortly would become the party system. Those who had
favored the Constitution as written were known as Federalists, and those opposed were Anti-
Federalists. Anti-Federalists, like Thomas Jefferson and his followers, began calling themselves
“Republicans,” feeling that their perceived republic was the most correct. Among the general
public, “Democratic Societies” formed, and these—along with the Republicans—fought against
Federalist President Washington and his successor, John Adams. By 1800, the Republicans and
Democratic Societies joined to form the Democratic-Republican Party. Part of its agenda had to
do with religion in government, and it fought the idea in all forms, tradition notwithstanding.

“Washington had proclaimed a national thanksgiving in 1796 to commemorate . . . the

ratification of Jay’s Treaty that attempted to adjust outstanding differences with Great Britain.
Would Jefferson—the Federalists archly asked—not imitate the example of his illustrious
predecessor (Washington) and bid the nation to thank God for its delivery from danger by the
Treaty of Amiens? . . . The Boston Columbian Centinel cynically challenged Jefferson . . . “The
measure, it is hoped, will not be denounced by the Democrats as unconstitutional, as previous
Proclamations have been” (Hutson).

As he stepped down as president that same year, after two terms in office, Washington again
looked to Heaven for the answers to questions plaguing the new nation. In his Farewell Address,
he proclaimed:

“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 labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the
duties of men and citizens. . . . And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality
can be maintained without religion. . . reason and experience both forbid us to expect that
national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle” (Washington, Sept., 1796).
7
To Washington, religion is "the firmest foundation" and "indispensable support . . . of popular
government." Alexander Hamilton had scratched out the paragraph on religion when he edited
the final draft. Washington took almost all of Hamilton's suggestions, but not this one. Religion
went back in as "the great spring" of "patriotism" and "national morality." From the start,
Americans were wrestling with the proper connections between "private and public felicity"
(Morone).

Push Turns to Shove

During the Adams administration, Republicans organized street demonstrations against

presidential fast days, ridiculed them in the newspapers and boycotted them. . . . During the
presidential campaign of 1800, Jefferson had suffered in silence the relentless and deeply
offensive Federalist charges that he was an atheist (Hutson).


In a statement of faith, Jefferson wrote to Dr. Benjamin Rush: “I am a Christian, in the only
sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others.”
(Arnason).

On his inauguration day, Jefferson himself implored God:

"I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our fathers, as
Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the
necessaries and comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with His providence and our
riper years with His wisdom and power, and to whose goodness I ask you to join in
supplications with me that He will so enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their
councils, and prosper their measures that whatsoever they do shall result in your good, and
shall secure to you the peace, friendship, and approbation of all nations" (US Congress).

The angst that brought Jefferson to his now famous statement on Separation of Church and State
came not from some part of him that was atheist and therefore un-godly, but rather, it welled up
out of a sense for justice on behalf of a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut. This group
had long lived under the continuing auspice of what they perceived to be a Congregationalist
state, the very vision Jefferson had held all along as to why a separation between church and
state was needed. In part, the Danbury letter reads:

. . . . 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--that the legitimate power of civil
government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbors; But,
sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the law
made coincident therewith, were adopted as the basis of our government at the time of our
revolution; and such had been our laws and usages, and such still are; 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 acknowledgements as are
inconsistent with the rights of freemen . . . .
8
 Signed in behalf of the association, Nehemiah Dodge
Ephraim Robbins
Stephen S. Nelson

Jefferson now had a perfect example and prime vehicle that he could use in pushing his
separation ideas to the American populous, and his answer to the Danbury Baptists
would be published across the country.

__________________________________________________________________________
Part III: The Wall is Built, How Does it Stand?

9
Jefferson’s Wall

For Jefferson, the first line of the First Amendment to the Constitution answered this matter
of the Danbury Baptists: ‘Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of
religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’ He declared that this provision ‘buil[t] a
wall of separation between church and state.’ His letter to the clerics reads thus:

To messrs. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a

committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express
towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction.
my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in
proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them
becomes more and more pleasing. 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.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and
creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of
my high respect & esteem.

Th: Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

As president, Jefferson also broke with George Washington's practice and refused to call for
a national day of fasting and prayer. When a distinguished minister (and Princeton historian)
complained, Jefferson responded that the federal government had no business even
‘indirectly... recommend[ing] religious exercises’ (emphasis in original).

While the proscription against meddling with religion originally applied only to the national
government, the Fourteenth Amendment [1868] extended the Constitution—and, in theory,
Jefferson's wall—to the state governments (Marone).

The Supreme Court turned the spotlight on the “wall of separation” phrase in 1878 by declaring
in Reynolds v. United States “that it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of
the scope and effect of the [first] amendment” (Hutson).

10
Jefferson’s “wall” doctrine had now been codified, countenanced by the highest court in the
land.

How Firm the Wall?

It is interesting that even as the Separation of Church and State doctrine rose in prominence,
religious observance in some forms flowed through government like water through a sieve. The
idea of the nation coming together to entreat God remained important to the American people.
Only now, instead of declaring Days of Fasting, Humiliation and Prayer, gratitude for a great
country filled the hearts of Americans everywhere. The first national Day of Thanksgiving was
declared by the Continental Congress in 1777, right in the middle of the Revolutionary War.
Recognized as a religious observance, George Washington proclaimed two such days during his
administration, and Adams and Madison and other presidents after them did the same. It was
also common for state governors to call for Days of Thanksgiving, and many did. Finally, in
1863, President Abraham Lincoln declared a permanent Thanksgiving Day, and he and
presidents since have encourage observance, encouraging the American public to take time out
to go to church or to in whatever way give thanks to God for their many blessings. Religion
continues to permeate the constitutional influence on government to this day.

The Constitution [and its amendments] is just the start of the story. America's boisterous, protean
[diverse] religious life sends waves of fervor breaking against Jefferson's wall. Religion raises
two different kinds of challenges to the neat line between sacred and secular.

First, there is the question of what exactly the Constitution forbids. Prayer in schools, Ten
Commandments in the courthouse, and Christmas scenes in the park all provoke uproars over the
proper boundary between state and church. This is the American variation of an international
theme. Secularism in many nations is animated by an urge to stop powerful religions
(Catholicism in France, Islam in Turkey) from getting intertwined with state authority; in this
view, religions authority should not buttress the state and the state should not bolster religion.

However, religious influence on our political life is far more pervasive and subtle than these
pyrotechnics about the boundary suggest. America's restless faiths stimulate moral aspirations
that leak into every cranny of our politics. The issue is not just the religious-secular divide but all
the many ways that religion inflects political life. This expansive moralizing is distinctive among
wealthy nations and flows directly from the shape of American religion itself.

Most Americans believe in God; most join churches. . . .

This effervescent religious life complicates Jefferson's simple boundary in all kinds of ways.
Religion inspires great reform movements—to abolish slavery, forbid drink, win civil rights, or
stop abortions. It lends American politics a distinctly evangelical tone. It fosters a patriotic belief
that, as one longtime English observer glumly put it, "America... has been entrusted by God with
a mission of bringing light [or freedom or peace or democracy] to a darkling world" (Hodgson
94). And, most important, for [our] purposes, religious fervor provokes moralistic attitudes that
filter through American politics.

11
In a dynamic nation made by immigrants, marked by social mobility, and home to a thousand
religions, morality is always political dynamite. Religious ferment spins out moral hopes and
fears—visions of vice and virtue—that define the American community. They designate the
worthy "us" and the dangerous "them." Moral fevers unleash American witch hunts and racial
panics. But they also inspire the dreamers who have turned the nation upside down in the name
of social justice (Marone).

In 1802, President Thomas Jefferson replied to an address from a committee of the Danbury
Baptist Association. . . and used the opportunity to respond to longstanding Federalist and
ministerial attacks on his supposed atheism. Rather than express his own religious views,
historians generally argue, Jefferson’s response instead focused on the importance of protecting
religious freedom. From a political angle, this position strengthened the ties between New
England’s dissenters and Jefferson’s Republican Party. From an intellectual perspective, it
represented Jefferson’s own deep commitment to the separation of church and state. As he wrote
in his letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, the first amendment of the federal
constitution erected a ‘‘wall of separation between church and State.

In the twentieth century, ever since Justice Hugo Black invoked it in a majority opinion in the
1947 case of Everson v. Board of Education, which upheld the legitimacy of using public funds
for school buses for children attending Catholic schools, Jefferson’s Danbury address has
become a touchstone for how the first amendment should be interpreted. How to understand the
wall metaphor has thus become a major historical, political, and legal enterprise. It should not be
surprising, then, that tempers flared when James H. Hutson, the chief of the Manuscript Division
at the Library of Congress, chose to lower the Supreme Court’s wall in his reinterpretation of the
Danbury address as part of a Library of Congress 1998 exhibit. The ensuing debate focused on
the meaning of Jefferson’s wall. Hutson argues that historians and jurists are wrong to read the
wall metaphor literally. Instead, he suggests, the primary purpose of Jefferson’s letter was
political, a conclusion he drew after an FBI lab uncovered phrases Jefferson had deleted from his
original draft. The letter, Hutson writes, was an opportunity for Jefferson to publicly rebut his
critics and to shore up the allegiance of dissenting religious groups in New England. If the letter
was unreliable because of its political context, Hutson continues, perhaps we ought to look at
Jefferson’s practices as a statesman to understand how committed he was to the wall. Hutson
then points out that Jefferson continuously breached the wall as an elected officeholder. He
attended religious services in the U.S. House of Representatives while president and, following
retirement, felt no compunction about attending services in the Albemarle County Courthouse.
While president, he allowed various congregations to use federal office buildings to hold their
own services. Clearly, Hutson concludes, Jefferson’s wall was lower and more permeable than
the wall that the Supreme Court has constructed over the course of the twentieth century (Neem).

His outward participation in religious services aside, Jefferson held fast to the idea of separation
of church and state right up to his death, but he was no atheist.

Jefferson's public support for religion appears . . . to have been more than a [mere] political
gesture. Scholars have recently argued that in the 1790s Jefferson developed a more favorable
view of Christianity that led him to endorse the position of his fellow Founders, that religion was

12
necessary for the welfare of a republican government, that it was, as Washington proclaimed in
his Farewell Address, indispensable for the happiness and prosperity of the people (Hutson).

References

ACLU of Utah. Prayer Before City Council Meetings and Legislative Sessions, November 16, 2000.
http://www.acluutah.org/publicprayer.htm

Don Baker, Utah’s Republic, Day of Fasting and Prayer Petition. http://www.utahsrepublic.org/petition/day-of-
fasting-and-prayer-petition/

Hutson, James. 1998. “A Wall of Separation: FBI Helps Restore Jefferson's Obliterated Draft,” Library of Congress
Bulletin, June 1998 - Vol. 57, No. 6.

Neem, Johann N. 2007. "Beyond the Wall: Reinterpreting Jefferson's Danbury Address." Journal of the Early
Republic 27, no. 1: 139-154. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed July 20, 2010).

Norton, et. al., A People and a Nation.

Rev. Wayne B. Arnason. Jan 2003. “The Paradoxical Religion of Thomas Jefferson.”
www.wsuuc.org/sermons/o3archives/SER%20Thomas%Jefferson

United States Congress, http://www.house.gov/forbes/prayer/prayerincongress.htm

William J. Federer. “When our leaders used to call us to prayer and fasting.”
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=174133

13