God & Country

Thomas Jefferson on White House Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships

By

February 11, 2009 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (6)

Related Articles

By Dan Gilgoff, God & Country

Responding to my piece on how President Obama might make White House faith-based initiatives stronger than they were under George W. Bush, reader Joseph Cassles excerpts Thomas Jefferson's 1808 "Letter to Virginia Baptists": 

"Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the, "wall of separation of church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society."

A few thoughts.

First, defenders of religion's role in politics note that Jefferson's "wall of separation" formulation appeared in his personal correspondence, not in an official government document, let alone one of the founding documents.

Second, when Jefferson decries religious institutions using government power to force their views on persons of other faiths, how would that apply to the faith-fueled Northern abolitionist churches clamoring for emancipation before and during the Civil War? To black churches and faith-based leaders like the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., clamoring for equal rights during the 1960s? Were these instances of religious institutions using government power to force their views on persons of other faiths?

Lastly, the second part of Jefferson's argument is almost totally ignored in the current debate over the propriety of blending church and state through programs like Obama's White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships: "State support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people and leads to corruption within religion itself."

It's one reason that lots of black churches declined to participate in faith-based initiatives under Bush; they didn't want to risk being co-opted. As Mark Silk notes, it's amazing that religious organizations are silent about that danger today.

Tags:
Obama administration,
religion

Reader Comments Read all comments (6)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

It's not a Jefferson quote, it was a summary by Eyler Robert Coates, Sr.

Ed of FL 9:00AM July 03, 2012

There are a couple ways to know more about what Jefferson meant by his "separation" phrase.

1) His actions. He attended Christian worship services in the U.S. Capitol Building. He declared a state day of fasting and prayer as governor of Virginia. On three separate occasions President Jefferson signed into law extensions of the land grant the federal government had given especially to promote education and proselytism among the Indians. (http://churchvstate.blogspot.com/2008/01/jeffersons-actions-speak-louder-than.html)

2) His other words. Jefferson spoke many times on the need for a Bill of Rights. The University of Virginia compiled quotes from Jefferson about the reason for the Bill of Rights. In that collection you find six references to "freedom of religion" and not even one to "separation of church and state." (http://churchvstate.blogspot.com/2008/11/thomas-jefferson-meaning-of-bill-of.html)

Those are not things we typically hear about in the news today (or even in history books).

David Beiderbecke of MN 11:08PM February 13, 2009

You said: “…Jefferson's 'wall of separation' formulation appeared in his personal correspondence, not in an official government document,… “.

I fail to see how this is of any consequence. Even if your assertion that “…defenders of religion's role in politics note…“ is accepted as being true by those staunch defenders, it implies a certain hypocriticality (I know it's not a word, but it ought to be. Maybe it is now?) in Mr. Jefferson’s make up that, as far as I know, isn’t supported by history (even in the face of his slave holdings).

Would any person of conscience formulate a governmental policy in direct contravention to the dictates of that conscience? Emphasis on the word “conscience”.

Not knowing you or your writing, I won’t insist that your second point (…how would that apply to the faith-fueled Northern abolitionist churches clamoring for emancipation before and during the Civil War?) is disingenuous.

But I will say that it blatantly ignores the obvious difference between (as alluded to by Asinus Gravis in the third comment) pushing for governmental adherence to the humanist ideals spelled out in the constitution (and incorporated by JC in his message), on the one hand, and pushing government to incorporate some sect specific dogma into its structure and day-to-day operation, on the other.

And, as to your last point, one gets the impression that the concepts contained in my response to your second point may be completely alien.

Now, we all know that “black churches” (I’d wager they’re all painted white, BTW. Or were you referring to some sort of “stealth” religio-technology?) don’t have a corner on the market of piety, integrity or non-hypocriticality (it’s a slippery slope when you start down it, isn’t it?).

But these churches worrying, on the earlier hand, about being “co-opted” by a, seemingly, “godless” administration bent on control of all aspects of the public discourse and, on the other,later hand trying to help another, new (and, seemingly, moral) administration push forward the precepts of freedom of/from religion which, I feel confident in my heart would be supported by JC, himself.

Conversely, those “churches” which so vigorously championed incorporation of religion into the American political structure seemed, near as I remember, quite satisfied in helping that administration gain that afore mentioned control (it DID benefit them and their power/control, after all). And, subsequently, it seems they want nothing to do with the humanist aspects of JC’s religion which seem to be the cornerstone of this new administration.

So, to summarize, it seems that the argument you try to make is hobbled by either a lack of ability to critically examine the core precepts being put forth or a lack of desire to do so. I hope I’ve misread your intent and, by doing so, missed the point of your piece but I fear not.

Bill Key of AL 1:00PM February 12, 2009

God & Country

Dan Gilgoff covers religion for U.S. News & World Report. He is the author of The Jesus Machine: How James Dobson, Focus on the Family, and Evangelical America are Winning the Culture War, and is a former politics editor at beliefnet. E-mail Dan at godandcountry@usnews.com.

advertisement