O'Reilly ignored First Amendment, misrepresented Jefferson's position
In his December 14 nationally syndicated column, " 'Tis the Season," Bill O'Reilly wrote that the "separation of church and state argument" is "bogus" because it "does not appear anywhere in the Constitution." O'Reilly continued, baselessly asserting that "[i]f Thomas Jefferson were alive today, he would mock these secular fools and then retire to his Virginia estate for Christmas dinner." In fact, Jefferson wrote a famous letter in 1802 in which he declared his support for "a wall of eternal separation between Church & State" and expressed his "reverence" for the First Amendment to the Constitution, which mandates that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Additionally, Jefferson made numerous other statements of support for the principle of the separation of church and state. For example:
- In a letter to Samuel Miller, Jefferson wrote: "I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government."
- Also to Miller, Jefferson wrote: "I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct its exercises, its discipline, or its doctrines; nor of the religious societies, that the General Government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them. Fasting and prayer are religious exercises. The enjoining them, an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises and the objects proper for them according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands where the Constitution has deposited it. ... Everyone must act according to the dictates of his own reason, and mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States, and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents."
- Jefferson also believed in keeping religion out of public schools, as noted in his statements during the passage of the Elementary School Act of 1817: "Ministers of the Gospel are excluded [from serving as Visitors of the county Elementary Schools] to avoid jealousy from the other sects, were the public education committed to the ministers of a particular one; and with more reason than in the case of their exclusion from the legislative and executive functions. ... No religious reading, instruction or exercise, shall be prescribed or practiced [in the elementary schools] inconsistent with the tenets of any religious sect or denomination."
From O'Reilly's December 14 column:
Well, the Supreme Court punted. The justices were supposed to decide weeks ago whether or not to hear a blatant example of anti-Christian bias in New York City. But still no decision.
The case concerns a policy by the New York City public schools to allow displays of the Star and Crescent flag for Ramadan and the Menorah for Hanukkah, but to ban the Nativity scene at Christmas time. The decision makes no legal sense, as the federal courts have previously ruled that so-called "religious" displays can appear on public property, as long as there is no preference given to one religion over another.
[...]
But no, the Supreme Court justices are now on their Christmas break, and have left the country adrift once again. The anti-Christmas forces are still clinging to the bogus separation of church and state argument that does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. If Thomas Jefferson were alive today, he would mock these secular fools and then retire to his Virginia estate for Christmas dinner.
what the problem would be if all where displayed.
any of the pathologies
O'Reilly is right here. He maintains that those who want the nativity scene removed are using the separation of church and state as their argument behind it....and that is bogus.
There is nothing that violates the first amendment by displaying the nativity scene, which is a federal holiday, on public property. It does nothing to establish any religion whatsoever. It merely shows respect to a Federal Holiday.
If you're offended by it, so be it. The Constitution doesn't protect you from that.
I'm about as secular as they come, and I am neither offended nor threatened by public Christmas displays. There are a few lefties who take it too far, trying to stop Christmas parades, etc., but I also believe the Right Wing professional liars blow these rare cases way out of proportion to make it look like a national trend, and they do this to rile up their political base.
The whole thing is a tempest in a teapot, on both sides.
We are in total agreement Nerzog. There is no war on Christmas. It's all right wing talk show hysteria to generate ratings and get the ire up of their loyal koolaid drinking listeners.
It's ridiculous. Christmas is alive and well for those that wish to celebrate it. It is not now, nor will it ever be threatened, for anyone.
I agree with you on xmas displays in general. It is a federal holiday, and I personally am glad that I have off for it. That said, I do not like the government-funded displays of religious symbols, such as the nativity scene. I love the trees, the wreaths, the nutcracker men, the stockings, etc. but leave the nativity scene in the closet. If a church, or any other private entity, wants to stress the "real meaning of xmas", that is fine with me. I just think that the government is not in the business of pushing the real meaning of xmas on me, because I personally believe that it is a beautiful holiday where family and friends can get together, have parties, give gifts, and generally enjoy the elevated sense of joy and charity that abounds.
There is nothing that violates the first amendment by displaying the nativity scene, which is a federal holiday, on public property.
I'm sorry, Tommy, but you're wrong again. It is a well-established, well-accepted legal principle that displaying religious iconography of any sort on public property can reasonably be viewed as an official endorsement of that religion - and that does violate the First Amendment. This simply is not in dispute.
If that seems unclear, consider driving down a street and seeing a house with a large crèche on the front lawn. Wouldn't you very reasonably assume that the owner of that house was Christian? The same applies to the government in regard to such a scene on public property.
On a different note, I did get a chuckle out of your insistence that's it all about respecting "a federal holiday." I find it intriguing how often of late those who push for public expressions of religion do so by denying the expressions are religious. It's an interesting tactic but it ain't flyin'.
"It is a well-established, well-accepted legal principle that displaying religious iconography of any sort on public property can reasonably be viewed as an official endorsement of that religion - and that does violate the First Amendment. This simply is not in dispute. " - Larrye
Wrong Larrye:
These words from Leviticus 25:10 are inscribed on the Liberty Bell: "Proclaim liberty throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof. LEV. XXV X"
If you take the elevator to the top of the Washington monument you can see, at different intervals, inscriptions such as a prayer offered by the City of Baltimore, a memorial presented by some Chinese Christians, a presentation made by Sunday School children from New York and Philadelphia quoting Proverbs 10:7, Luke 18:16 and Proverbs 22:6. Among the many objects placed in a recess of the cornerstone of this same monument on July 4, 1848 are a copy of the Declaration of Independence and the Holy Bible. On the East side of the capstone on the monument are the words "Laus Deo" or "Praise be to God."
These are just a few examples. There are many more. If you want to twist the First Amendment to suit your agenda, that's one thing. But try as you might, you'll never change the history of America.
No matter how hard you try you can't change the actual history. Reference Article 11 of the Barbary Treeties of 1796.
[link to www.yale.edu]
"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
Yes, the Yuletide may well be a Federal holiday, but it by no means entitles one religion for force it's religious iconography upon the rest of the society.
As always, it is also worth pointing out taht the Pilgrims, and several modern sects of the Protestant ranb of Christianity, believed that Christmas was a Pagan religion and not to be celebrated by good Christians.
And please, before you make mention the Founding Fathers being Christian again, don't. All that wold make me have to do is reference their writtings where they question the divinity of Christ, or his position as the son of god. The FF's were Diests almost to a man. Not Christians.
Seems rather a religious observation to me, little though I know about such: which of the world's religions DON'T consider the birth in the manger, central to their tenets?
And, of course, that cast of angels overseeing the event are universal in ALL those religions?
First, use of public property for religious purposes, is questionable at best. It does present an appearance of acceptance of the government supporting a religion. I always love the Christian argument that they are being persecuted when they are free to worship, display whatever they want on private property, own tv stations, print op-ed pieces, etc. Yet, they insist on trying to get some sort of government "approval" through the use of public lands, money or whatever else.
I don't even care if you want to use the "cultural" aspect. That America is predominantly Christian nation and therefore is entitled to having their culture dominant. In a country based on secular rule of law, they rights of the minority are not trumped by the tyranny of the majority.
Those who wish to argue that this should not be so... that is part of the problem in Iraq right now... the fear of the minority (based on ethnicity or religion) that their rights will be lost to the Shiites. But hey, who cares about that? Who cares about the rights and the persecution of Christians in countries where the majority doesn't wish to accommodate or allow their freedom. After all, they are Muslim nations, or they can always just pull out the "culture" card.
Just like the misleading bumper stickers that say "MAKE PRAYER IN SCHOOL LEGAL". It always has been legal. A student may pray all they want. They cannot disrupt the function of the class, nor ask the teacher to cater to their prayers in some way.
At least I now know where that garbage about the, separation of church and state is not in the Constitution, came from. Anyone relying on O'Reilly to present them with factual arguments is going to be sadly disappointed.
"does nothing to establish any religion" let me explain, tommy, my gullible one. the christian religion is based on the belief that god sent his son to be born of a virgin, to save us all from "original sin", and the four books of the new testament all attest to that. if you think a nativity scene has nothing to do with religion, i'm still running that special on swampland. christmas trees? no. they have as much to do with religion as the easter bunny.
There are quite a bit more than four books in the New Testament. You're thinking of the four Gospels.
Not that the people pushing the "War on Christmas" storyline actually read the New Testament, of course. They're all too busy reading Leviticus, apparently. Or at least parts of Leviticus.
The "War on Christmas" stupidity is back. I guess with the crown jewel of their president's foreign policy becoming an embarrassment, they have to latch onto something to keep their drooling, knuckledragging Christofascist base from turning on them.
No, the words "Separation of Church and State" do not appear in the Constitution. Neither do the words "Separation of powers" or "checks and balances".
More bogus crap from the non-thinking half of the country.
Forget about government corruption, healthcare, our veterans, our dying soldiers. The righties have much more important things to worry about, like Scrooges in isolated pockets of America who don't like Christmas.
"the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"
Right there, in black and white. Spin THAT, Bill.
"If religionists better understood the concept of separation of Church & State, they would realize that the wall of separation actually protects their religion. Our secular government allows the free expression of religion and non religion. Today, religions flourish in America; we have more churches than 7-11s."
link
Nice quote. You are 100% correct... the government is not founded on the Christian religion. But America as a country was. The founding fathers were extremely religious yet recognized that they could not let the Government dictate or prevent religious freedom.
As shown in their speeches and writings, the most influential of the founding fathers, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Adams, Washington, were all thouroughly non-Christian and had a deep suspicion of Christianity.
Jefferson and several others, including probably Washington (but he never said so directly) were Deists. Franklin was intentionally vague about exactly what he believed, but always very respectful of the beliefs of others and never dissed Christianity--also true of Washington. Adams was a Christian, a New England Congregationalist.
Attempts to make the religious beliefs and preferences of the Founding Fathers fit any contemporary political agenda can only be achieved by falsifying them. That goes for those who would make them all devout Southern Baptists, and those who would make them modern techno-geeks too sophisticated to be religious believers at all.
see deeznuts link black and white above, is that it was passed unanimously by the senate and signed by president john adams. why important? because we constantly hear that "the founding fathers" formed this as a christian nation. no, those people in 1796 were the founding fathers.
John Jay was one of the 3 authors of The Federalist Papers. George Washington chose him to be the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Jay also served as president of the Continental Congress. Here's what he said: "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians as their rulers." - From "The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, 1794-1826", Henry P. Johnston, ed.
Let's see...Who do I believe, Deeznuts or John Jay? Hmmm...
to believe him. he provided a link to the treaty of tripoli in which the senate voted to approve an amendment to it that we are not a christian nation. obviously, you have no answer to that.
The Constitution says directly there can be NO religious test to hold office period.
..."As to Jesus, I have some doubt as to his divinity"
.... birds of a feather.
I know that asking BO to read Thomas Jefferson - In His Own Words would be asking too much.
After all, to express his views, Jefferson had a habit of using really big words in ungodly long sentences.
Besides, rather than learning Jefferson's actual views, BO's probably much happier pulling the facts he needs from his ass.
Did you skip over the part where Jefferson called church and state, "a loathsome combination" ??? Church is seperated from state by its exclusion as a branch of government. But when one writes books that read like a 4th grader wrote them, some tolerances should be made.
Don't get me wrong, fellow posters. I enjoy a well done nativity scene as much as the next person. The plastic light up ones on people's lawns look tacky, but hey, its not my lawn.
I am upset with MMFA for not including in the text the specific sentence to the Danbury Baptist Association. It is the most important argument against those bogus claims about seperation not being in the constitution. Here is the sentence:
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, and 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 and state
This is so important because Jefferson uses the exact phrase that was used to begin the bill of rights, and it is immediately followed by the seperation phrase.
Anyone who uses that tired argument, such as BOR, have absolutely no concept of American history.
The Establishment Clause was intended to prohibit the Federal government from (1) declaring and financially supporting a national religion, and (2) ensures that any citizen can practice any religion he wants without fear of governmental persecution. The wall blocks federal dollars from sponsoring/endorsing a religion (in reaction to the rulers in Europe at the time). The wall also blocks government enforces from prevening citizens from any form of worship.
THIS is the wall between the two. It does not anywhere specify that governments cannot display religious symbols, documents or displays. YES, the Constitution protects religion. But it also protects those that are obsessed with removing religion from schools and public places.
After all, the very same First Congress that proposed the Bill of Rights also opened its legislative day with prayer. Could the founding fathers have possibly intended for its writings to be interpreted as they are today? I seriously doubt they expected future citizens to even consider the 'negative' impact of prayer in school. I'm sure they are rolling in their graves at the bastardization of their ingenious work.
"I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct its exercises, its discipline, or its doctrines; nor of the religious societies, that the General Government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them. Fasting and prayer are religious exercises. The enjoining them, an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises and the objects proper for them according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands where the Constitution has deposited it... Everyone must act according to the dictates of his own reason, and mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States, and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:429
“Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. I had hoped that liberal and enlightened thought would have reconciled the Christians so that their [not our?] religious fights would not endanger the peace of Society.” (George Washington, Letter to Sir Edward Newenham, June 22, 1792)
“Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion.” “It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service [formation of the American governments] had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven...” John Adams
“Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U.S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taqxes.” “The establishment of the chaplainship to Cong[res]s is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority] shut the door of worship agst the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority.” James Madison
And my personal favorite:
“But besides the danger of a direct mixture of Religion & the civil Government, there is an evil which ought to be guarded agst in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by ecclesiastical corporations. The power of all coprporations , ought to be limited in this respect. The growing wealth acuired by them never fails to be a source of abuses.” James Madison
The most influential founding fathers were not Christians, and they specifically denounced any religious tests or practices directed or enforced by the government. This not only includes things like prayer in schools, but puts it at the top of the list. The quote by James Madison specifically addresses the issue of Congressional Chaplains, which he denounced as unconstitutional (I agree with him).
That arguments is ludicrous and has been completely debunked at least 100 times. IF the purpose of the 1st amendment had been to stop our government only from establishing a national religion it would read no establishment of *A* religion not no establishment of religion. See the A isnt in there. That is because the intent is to keep government from any establishment of religion whatsoever. Anyone with a level of reading comprehension above that of a gerbil can see that. The founding fathers didnt trust any church state intertwining at all they didnt want the Church within a country mile of government OR the government within a country mile of the Church. Jefferson once said he knew of no example of a priest ridden people remaining free. THAT is the point.
You're wrong (Surprise!) again, Solon. This came from the same link that MMFA provided except it's under the subject of "Publicly Supported Education" under the subtitle "Religion":
"After stating the constitutional reasons against a public establishment of any religious instruction, we suggest the expediency of encouraging the different religious sects to establish, each for itself, a professorship of their own tenets on the confines of the university, so near as that their students may attend the lectures there and have the free use of our library and every other accommodation we can give them; preserving, however, their independence of us and of each other. This fills the chasm objected to ours, as a defect in an institution professing to give instruction in all useful sciences... And by bringing the sects together, and mixing them with the mass of other students, we shall soften their asperities, liberalize and neutralize their prejudices, and make the general religion a religion of peace, reason, and morality." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1822. ME 15:405
You ought to follow your own advice and get a little bit of education on early American history. Why don't you start with a study of the Northwest Ordinance and then try repeating the lie that our founders wanted religion out of education? I just know you can do it.
So Jefferson advised allowing different religions ACCESS not paid for or supported by the government of different religions to universities? Not sure myself that would be ok according to the establishment clause but its on the line. It in no way addresses the POINT. IF all the founders wanted to do was prevent the establisment of A NATIONAL RELIGION then why doesnt it SAY A religion or A NATIONAL religion. No it says NO ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION PERIOD. So no I am not wrong. The Supreme Court obviously agrees with me as every single time they rule on this they rule the same way and never ONCE said well this establishment of religion is ok as long as we dont establish a NATIONAL RELIGION. A decent try though.
So Jefferson, after "stating the constitutional reasons against a public establishment of any religious instruction," suggested the "expediency" of "encouraging the different religious sects" to set up, at their own expense and independent "of us and of each other," their own schools with the understanding that those students would be able to access public facilities on an equal basis with everyone else. And he did this expressly as a means of "fill[ing] the chasm objected to ours" - that is, as a means of neutralizing criticisms of establishing publicly-funded, secular institutions of higher learning.
And this program of secular public institutions and religious private institutions is supposed to stand as evidence in favor of religious displays on public property?
Wow.
"...they didnt want the Church within a country mile of government OR the government within a country mile of the Church."
I'd the Church being on campus is a little closer than "a country mile."
Now, about that pesky little Northwest Ordinance...
What about the northwest ordinance are you trying to highlight? I just read it, and find nothing pesky.
It's "pesky" to those who wish to claim (falsely) that America's founders wanted to keep "religion" out of "education".
There is no attempt to keep religion out of schools. You can take a bible to school anytime you want. I saw plenty of them in my high school many schools have comparative religion CLASSES. That is still a country mile from Government ADVOCATING or ESTABLISHING religion in school or government. No one is trying to pretend there is no such thing as religion. Just to keep their functions seperate. Now if Jefferson advocated PAYING for say Catholic or Islamic or Baptists teaching THEIR religion in the classroom we would be inside that country mile. That is clearly prohibited get over it. Allowing access for VOLUNTARY access of students to different religions doesnt bother me in the least. I am not sure it would be kosher, but I dont see a problem with it.
Was to keep religious INDOCTRINATION out of education. There has never been an attempt to keep religion out of schools. The ACLU went to court to protect the right of a teacher to wear a religious, that is Christian in this specific case, symbol to school when an overzealous administrator, like you was confused about this distinction.
on campus after classes bible study. no problem. no one has to attend, no one is prevented from doing so.
in early America used the Bible and Watts Hymnal as reading texts IN THE CLASSROOM (long after the adoption of the First Amendment). Prayer was also routine in America's schools until the early 20th century when the Radicals in Robes decided that they new better than our Founding Fathers what the First Amendment really said. Sad but true.
so you want to bring back prayer in the schools? in the classroom as a daily exercise? as an official part of the agenda?
I'm just pointing out the direction we've gone as a country. The First Amendment has been bastardized to the point that the Founders wouldn't recognize its current interpretation.
i asked a direct question. the fact that you won't say, says a lot.
I think the men who said the things I cited above or
[link to www.infidels.org]
James Madison (1751-1836; principal author, U. S. Constitution and Bill of Rights; 4th U.S. President, 1809-1817)
Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize [sic], every expanded prospect. (James Madison, in a letter to William Bradford, April 1, 1774, as quoted by Edwin S. Gaustad, Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New Nation, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987, p. 37.)
"Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative.
"Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative.
John Adams (1735-1826; major leader at Constitutional Convention in 1787; 2nd U.S. President , 1797-1801)
Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind. (John Adams, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" [1787-1788]; from Adrienne Koch, ed., The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of the American Experiment and a Free Society, New York: George Braziller, 1965, p. 258.)
Let the human mind loose. It must be loose. It will be loose. Superstition and Dogmatism cannot confine it. (John Adams, letter to John Quincy Adams, November 13, 1816. From Edwin S. Gaustad, Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New Nation, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987, p. 88.)
Thomas Paine
The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries that have afflicted the human race have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion. It has been the most dishonorable belief against the character of the Divinity, the most destructive to morality and the peace and happiness of man, that ever was propagated since man began to exist. (Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason, 1794-1795. From Gorton Carruth and Eugene Ehrlich, eds., The Harper Book of American Quotations, New York: Harper & Row, 1988, p. 494.)
Benjamin Franklin once said lighthouses are more useful than churches. Keep deluding yourself that you can read the minds of the founding fathers, their words are clear and they certainly were against mixing religion and government OR government establishment of religion period
[link to candst.tripod.com]
The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man (Letter to J. Moor, 1800). The clergy...believe that any portion of power confided to me [as President] will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion (Letter to Benjamin Rush, 1800). History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes (Letter to von Humboldt, 1813). In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own (Letter to H. Spafford, 1814).
[link to thinkexist.com]
“The authors of the gospels were unlettered and ignorant men and the teachings of Jesus have come to us mutilated, misstated and unintelligible”
“Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man”
“Religions are all alike -- founded upon fables and mythologies”
[link to nobeliefs.com]
Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom
Oh yeah, really looks like what Jefferson REALLY wanted was religious indoctrination in schools.
Where does O'Reilly get this from. It's like he's reading from a very poorly written novel. We have real problems in this country that have nothing to do with Christmas. Nothing to do with animated, dancing penguins. Let's cut and run away from this nonsense and put sane people at the helm of the ship. Then maybe we won't drift off the edge of reason.
It's about deflecting attention from the Iraq war, the war in Afghanistan, the erosion of civil liberties, the war on the constitution, the Jewish lobby, the war on drugs, the war on the middle class, the war on illegal aliens, and the end of the Pax Americana. Besides, we're tired of hearing about Natalie Holloway, they had to think of something they could talk about. There was nothing else left, they can't rehash old stuff forever.
Jefferson wrote the letter about the wall of seperation to allieviate fears the members of the church had about the government coming in a meddling with the affairs of the church, not for the government to be completly steril of anything having to with religion what so ever. The quotes to author used to "refute" O'Reilly actualy support this also. I'm not stating Jefferson would have supported prayer in schools or that churches should run government but he certainly would not be in an uproar if some town wants to put up a nativity scene in front of the city hall or school.
Jefferson et al advocated the separation of the 'institutions' of government from the 'institutions' of religion; i.e. government should not establish an institution-of-religion as the official/exclusive religion of the state, and no institution-of-religion should attempt to establish itself as the official-religion of the government.
The founders did not separate values systems, regardless of their source, from the values argued for in the administration of government; for examples see the preamble of the Declaration of Independence, and the 1st Amendment.
The 1st amendment includes protecting the expression of values anywhere, including within the government and within our laws under the constitution.
Jefferson protected the right to argue for values, religious or otherwise, and argue for those values expressed within the government's laws and administration. Two simple powerful examples from Jefferson's writings include the following:
1) "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." Preamble to the Declaration of Independence. [Note that in the Preamble Thomas Jefferson established "Nature's God", the "Creator", as the source and authority of our rights to declare our independence.]
2) "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?" Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XVIII, 1782. ME 2:227
"Good luck" to those atheist revisionists who are looking for some other interpretation to fit their presuppositions so that they can enforce their bias on others. But misrepresenting Thomas Jefferson won't help their cause.
However it was in no way in the context of church/state rather it was in a letter arguing against slavery which he thought violated a mans God given freedom. This is not an exhortation that calls on the US to mix religion and politics. Keep trying all you want its clearly written in the Constitution itself that is the first amendment that government will not establish religion.
The US Constitution is not simply a summary of Jeffersons letters. Its apparent the term " Separation of Church and State" had been used by Jefferson and was not adapted into the Constitution. Was it rejected by others? Did Jefferson change his mind? Bottom line is, we are ruled by the US Constitution . Not Jeffersons letters. Founders intent was to prevent a " Anglican Church of England " situation. Not to deny Christmas Trees at the White House.
The bible speaks directly against this traditional worship of Sylvan. At this point completely divorced of this its little more than a cultural not religious icon. However Jefferson CLEARLY was against the mixing of Church and state, he said so directly and often.
When I seek scholarly commentary on the First Amendment, I always look to O'Reilly first.