In a few of my recent posts, I’ve written about how it was a particular blog post I wrote back in 2007 that led to my working for the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), where I’ve been for almost 18 years, fighting the ubiquitous rise of Christian nationalism in our military and defending the constitutionally guaranteed right of our service members and veterans to be free from religious coercion, discrimination, harassment, and worse.
As I wrote in my last post, “Mike Johnson turns decades-old Jefferson prayer lie into whole new Jefferson prayer lie!,” most newer people here probably know me only as the research director at MRFF. Those who have been around a long time, however, might remember that I got my start fighting the Christian nationalists by debunking their history lies, particularly those from the king of the Christian nationalist history revisionists, David Barton. It was my debunking of Barton’s lies, particularly one piece that I wrote back in 2007, that serendipitously led directly to my working for MRFF. I told the story of how this happened in some detail in a post I wrote back in 2022, but what I have never done here on Daily Kos is post the actual 2007 post that did it.
So, on this National Religious Freedom Day, I present to you my May 13, 2007 post from Talk To Action.
The Department of Defense — Bringing Historical Revisionism to a High School Near You
Originally published on talk2action.org, May 13, 2007
In his book What If America Were A Christian Nation Again?, D. James Kennedy presents the following inaccurate explanation of Thomas Jefferson’s famous “wall of separation” letter — an explanation concocted decades ago to make the reason for Jefferson’s letter fit the notion that what he meant by this phrase was a one-way wall to keep the government out of the church, but not the church out of the government, and that the only thing the Establishment Clause was intended to prevent was the establishment a national religion.
“…Late in 1801, while he was president, he received a letter from the Association of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut, who were concerned about the threat of the newly formed federal government. This ‘leviathan,’ they feared, could become a great danger to their Christian faith and to their churches.”
“…On the first day of the year 1802, Jefferson wrote back to the Danbury Baptists. In this letter, he said that he was greatly impressed that the American people, through the First Amendment had, in effect, erected a ‘wall of separation between the church and the state,’ so the Baptists didn’t need to fear that the federal government was going to intrude upon their religion or in any way disturb their faith.”
This sort of historical revisionism might be expected in homeschools and at Christian high schools, such as D. James Kennedy’s own Westminster Academy, and the spreading of it by these means is bad enough. But now, bit by bit, this same historical revisionism is making its way into our public schools. I’ve already written extensively about how this is being accomplished via the National Council On Bible Curriculum In Public Schools (NCBCPS) course. The NCBCPS, however, is not the only source of bad history in our public high schools. There is another, which, unlike the NCBCPS, is not produced by a private organization, but by the Department of Defense — for the JROTC program.
Unit 6 of the JROTC core curriculum is entitled Citizenship and American History. The following appears in Chapter 3 of this unit, “You the People — The Citizen Action Group Process,” a chapter designed to teach the cadets how to work as a group to make decisions and resolve issues by voting, reaching a consensus, deciding on a plan of action, etc., first in “small group meetings,” and then as part of a larger “representative group session.”
(I have not yet had an opportunity to view the video mentioned in this excerpt from the textbook, but will be doing so as soon as possible.)
YTP VIDEO
Before the first small group meeting, it is recommended that you view the You the People Video. It is a three part series on citizenship.
The video also contains segments that refer to the separation between church and state. Please review the following for one perspective on that topic.
(by Jim Rice as adapted from Separation of Church and State by David Barton)
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
The “separation of church and state” phrase was taken from an exchange of private letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, shortly after Jefferson became President. It is not found in any governmental American document.
The inclusion of protection for the “free exercise of religion” in the constitution suggested to the Danbury Baptists that the right of religious expression was government given and therefore the government might someday attempt to regulate religious expression. Jefferson shared their concern. He believed along with the other Founders, that the First Amendment had been enacted only to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination. He assured them that they need not fear; that the federal government would never interfere with the free exercise of religion.
In summary, the “separation” phrase so frequently invoked today was rarely mentioned by any of the Founders; and even Jefferson’s explanation of his phrase is diametrically opposed to the manner in which courts apply it today. “Separation of church and state” currently means almost exactly the opposite of what it originally meant.
Before even getting to the historical inaccuracy of the Barton explanation of Jefferson’s letter, and disregarding the disturbing fact that anything by Barton appears in an official Department of Defense history text being used in our high schools, I think an important question needs to be asked. Why is the issue of separation between church and state in this chapter in the first place? The lessons in this chapter teach the cadets to decide on a position on an issue by majority rule, and then form a plan to promote that position. This is appropriate for the other examples that follow in the textbook, such as whether or not the voting age should be lowered to sixteen, but to foster the notion that a fundamental principle like church/state separation is subject to majority rule is incredible. To present what is described as “one perspective” on this issue when that “perspective” is based on inaccurate history is beyond incredible.
My first post here at Talk To Action, which I wrote in February to mark the 60th anniversary of Everson v. Board of Education, the case that popularized the phrase “separation of church and state,” explained the real reason the Danbury Baptists wrote to Jefferson, a reason that, as mentioned at the beginning of this post, is changed in the religious right version of American history in order to fit the one-way wall idea.
The following is essentially a repeat of what I posted back in February, copied here for those who want to read the real story behind Jefferson’s letter and compare it to the version found in the JROTC text:
In order to understand Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists, it is essential to understand the letter he was replying to, and, in order to understand that letter, a little knowledge about history of the government of Connecticut is necessary, so that’s where I’m going to start.
Connecticut, nicknamed the Constitution State, was actually one of the last of the original thirteen states to adopt a state constitution — over forty years after declaring itself a state. What the nickname refers to is the Fundamental Orders of 1638-1639. Because this was the first document written in the colonies by a representative body to form a government, it is considered by many to be the first state constitution. The Fundamental Orders established a form of government for Connecticut that would continue with little change for the next 180 years.
In 1660, when news of the restoration of the monarchy in England reached the colonies, Connecticut’s General Court, aware that the new king, Charles II, was not a big fan of Congregationalists, became concerned about the fact that their colony had never been granted an official charter. A charter was quickly drafted, and the colony’s governor, John Winthrop, Jr., sailed to England to present it to the Privy Council. Winthrop’s mission was successful, and the charter was officially adopted by the General Court on October 9, 1662. Although this charter had almost no effect on the existing government of Connecticut, it is considered by some to be the state’s second constitution.
Around the time of the American Revolution, all of the states, with the exception of Connecticut and Rhode Island, adopted state constitutions. These constitutions, written at the suggestion of the Continental Congress, were necessary because these states would need new governments once they were independent from England. Connecticut and Rhode Island, however, both of which already had functioning governments that would not be affected when ties to England were severed, saw no need to write state constitutions at this time. In 1776, the Connecticut General Assembly (formerly the General Court) declared:
That the ancient form of civil government contained in the Charter from Charles the II, King of England, and adopted by the people of this state, shall be and remain the civil constitution of this state, under the sole authority of the people hereof, independent of any king or prince whatever.
So, with the exception of deleting any references to England in the Charter, there was no change to the government of Connecticut.
By 1800, all of the other states had made significant progress towards religious freedom. Not every state had the liberal freedom enjoyed in states like Pennsylvania and Virginia, but none had the degree of religious discrimination practiced in Connecticut. The Congregationalist government of Connecticut, established by the Fundamental Orders in 1638-1639, legitimized by the Charter of 1662, and left unchanged at the time of the Revolution, was the government that still existed on October 7, 1801, when the Danbury Baptist Association wrote the following letter to President Thomas Jefferson.
Sir, Among the many million in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration, to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief magistracy in the United States: And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe that none are more sincere.
Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty-that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals-that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions-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. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power and gain under the pretense of government and religion should reproach their fellow men-should reproach their order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ.
Sir, we are sensible that the president of the United States is not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each state; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved president, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these states and all the world, till hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more than thirty years we have reason to believe that America’s God has raised you up to fill the chair of state out of that goodwill which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for your arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you to sustain and support you enjoy administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to raise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.
And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his heavenly kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.
Signed in behalf of the association,
Nehemiah Dodge Ephraim Robbins Stephen S. Nelson
The biggest myth about this letter, the myth promoted in the JROTC curriculum, is that the Baptists wrote it because they feared that the federal government planned to establish a national religion, a notion that is ridiculous for several reasons. The most obvious of these is that the letter refers only to the problem in Connecticut — that the state was still governed by it’s “ancient charter” and the laws of their state’s established religion. The “degrading acknowledgements” referred to in the second paragraph of the letter, for example, were the certificates required to exempt those of other religions from paying taxes to support the Congregationalist church. By this time, Connecticut law did allow non-Congregationalists of certain denominations to have their religious taxes go to their own churches, but the process of obtaining and filing the necessary exemption certificate was made as difficult and demeaning as possible. The Baptists mention nothing whatsoever about a fear of the federal government establishing a national religion. The myth that they were writing to Jefferson for a reassurance that this couldn’t happen is clearly contradicted by the third paragraph of the letter. This paragraph clearly shows that the Baptists fully understood the First Amendment and the limitations of the federal government’s power. When they wrote “our constitution of government is not specific,” they were referring to their state’s constitution of government, not the federal Constitution. While they knew that Jefferson would be sympathetic to their situation, they also knew that he was powerless to do anything about it.
So, if the Baptists knew Jefferson had no power to help them, why did they even bother to mention the problem with their state government and its religious establishment? Jefferson’s election and the ousting of the Federalist administration on the national level had given the Baptists hope that change was also possible in their state. The Baptists as well as other minority denominations in Connecticut were growing in numbers. If all of these religious dissenters joined the Republicans in Connecticut, the combination might become a political force capable of overthrowing their state’s Federalist, Congregationalist government. While the religious dissenters and the Republicans had somewhat different priorities, they both had the same goals — a truly representative government and a real state constitution.
The following, dated January 1, 1802, was Jefferson’s reply to the Baptist Association’s letter:
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 and 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.
One of the biggest misconceptions promoted in religious right American history books is that Jefferson’s reply to the Baptists was a personal letter and/or a hastily scribbled note that he put little thought into. This is simply not true. The existing copy of the letter is actually Jefferson’s first draft, not the final letter. Just the fact that he wrote a first draft proves that this was not a hastily scribbled note. Jefferson then submitted his draft to two different New Englanders in his administration, Postmaster General Gideon Granger of Connecticut and Attorney General Levi Lincoln of Massachusetts, requesting their opinions on how it would be received in their states. Obviously, Jefferson did not consider this a personal letter to the Baptist Association. He was well aware of the likelihood that such a letter would be made public, and did not want to offend any New England political allies. On the advice of Levi Lincoln, Jefferson deleted a paragraph explaining his refusal to proclaim days of thanksgiving, writing the following reason in the margin.
paragraph was omitted on the suggestion that it might give uneasiness to some of our republican friends in the eastern states where the proclamation of thanksgivings etc. by their Executives is an antient habit & is respected.
A common question about Jefferson’s letter has to do with what government he was referring to. Was it the federal government or the state governments? The correct answer would have to be both. In his letter, Jefferson described the First Amendment’s establishment and free exercise clauses as an “expression of the supreme will of the nation,” clearly referring to the federal government. His next sentence, however, doesn’t make much sense unless he was referring to the “progress of those sentiments” in the individual states, especially given the fact that he was replying to a letter regarding the lack of religious freedom in one particular state. He couldn’t have been referring to the “progress of those sentiments” in the federal government because no progress was necessary there — the First Amendment had already taken care of that. While the federal government couldn’t do anything to speed up this progress in the states, Jefferson wrote that he would “”see with sincere satisfaction the progress” when it was made. In Connecticut, the kind of progress Jefferson was talking about would take another sixteen years.
Connecticut did eventually progress from almost complete intolerance to a degree of religious freedom on par with the other states. When the original commonwealth was formed in the 1630s, the law was simple - religions other than Congregationalism were just not allowed. In the early 1700s, it appeared that progress was being made. The law preventing Quakers from settling in Connecticut was repealed in 1702. In 1708, the General Assembly passed the Toleration Act, which allowed some privileges to certain government approved dissenting religions. These laws, however, were not were not a result of the Congregationalists becoming more tolerant, but the result of the Congregationalists’ fear of royal disfavor. England’s Parliament had passed an act of religious toleration in 1689, and, although the Charter of 1662 hadn’t changed the laws of the state, it did include a condition that Connecticut’s laws could not be in conflict with the laws of England. The General Assembly was aware that Queen Anne had received complaints of intolerance from the Quakers and, more importantly, the Connecticut Anglicans. Things started to change during the Great Awakening of the 1740s. Separatist Congregational churches began to split off from the established parish churches. This was seen as a such a tremendous threat that, in 1743, the General Assembly repealed the Toleration Act in an attempt to prevent these churches from organizing. This continued until the 1770s, when the separatists were granted a status similar to other government approved religions like the Baptists and the Quakers. This meant that worship in their churches was now considered to meet the legal requirement of attendance at a government recognized church. The separatists could no longer be fined for neglecting worship, but, like the Baptists, they had to pay taxes to the Congregational Church unless they filed an exemption certificate. Other denominations, such as the Anglicans and Episcopalians (the ones with money), had become somewhat more accepted, and had even gained a small representation in the government.
Prior to 1801, Federalist candidates in Connecticut were rarely contested. This was due, in large part, to the complete lack of secrecy in the voting process. Local elections, held at town meetings, pretty much forced the voters to vote for Federalist candidates or risk being branded troublemakers. Voters were given pieces of paper. One by one, the names of the candidates were read from a list. A voter would hand in one of their pieces of paper when the name of the candidate they wanted to vote for was called off. By always listing the Federalist candidates first, it was obvious that anyone still holding a piece of paper after all the Federalists’ names had been called hadn’t voted for a Federalist. In 1801, the first Republican candidates for Governor and Lieutenant Governor appeared on the ballot. The Republicans received only a small fraction of the vote, and only 33 of 200 seats in the Assembly, but the Federalists considered this enough of a threat to change the election process to further discourage Republican candidates. Up until this time, although the actual vote was far from secret, the nomination process had been done by secret ballot. In 1801 the law was changed to make nominations public as well.
The big campaign issue in the elections of the early 1800s was that Connecticut still did not have a constitution. As already mentioned, both the Republicans and the religious dissenters wanted a constitution, albeit for different reasons.The Republican priorities were separation of powers and expanded suffrage; the religious dissenters’ priority was disestablishment of the Congregational church. The Republicans gained even more support when the War of 1812 ended. Funds for the war had been raised through imposing internal taxes. When the conflict was over, the U.S. Treasury had a large surplus and returned this money to the states. By giving a disproportionately large amount of this money to the Congregationalists, and little or nothing to the other denominations, the General Assembly alienated the Episcopalians. The Republicans now had the support of this large minority, which then comprised about ten percent of the population. The potential of religious dissenters combining with Jefferson’s Republican party, which the Baptists had seen 16 years earlier, had became a reality. In 1817, with Oliver Wolcott running for Governor and Jonathan Ingersoll, an Episcopalian, for Lieutenant Governor, the Republicans narrowly defeated the Federalists. In the next election, the Federalists lost their majority in the Assembly. In August and September of 1818, Connecticut held its constitutional convention.
Although he was powerless to help the Connecticut Baptists in 1801, Thomas Jefferson did eventually “see with sincere satisfaction” the disestablishment of the Congregationalist Church. Upon hearing of the Republican victory in the Connecticut election of 1817, Jefferson expressed this satisfaction in a letter to John Adams.
I join you therefore in sincere congratulations that this den of the priesthood is at length broken up, and that a protestant popedom is no longer to disgrace the American history and character.
