05/05/2004 - Testimony of Ron Calzone before House Judiciary committee on HR 1564
Representing: Missouri First, Inc., a not for profit organization dedicated to defending the appropriate sovereignty of
Missourians.
1. The irony of this issue is that principles of the U.S. Constitution have been turned exactly 180 degrees around –
upside-down!
a) The very provisions intended to limit Federal authority in matters of religion have been used to empower the
courts in matters of religious expression in the states.
 The constitution was drafted by delegates, or representatives of thirteen free and sovereign states.
 It was their intent to ensure that as much of that sovereignty, or independence, was maintained while
enjoying the advantages that a union with the other states would provide.
 The founder went to great effort to make sure the new union only affected them in areas in which they
had common interest – things that affected the “general welfare” of all the states.
b) In order to protect the independence they fought so hard for, the representatives of the several states
specifically enumerated the responsibilities of each branch of the new “general' or “federal”
government they were creating.
 Out of concern that these enumerations, or limitations, would be ignored and the tail might end up
wagging the dog (or dogs), they crated the Bill of Rights.
 The crowning jewel of the Bill of Rights:
th
 9 : The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or
disparage others retained by the people.
th
 10 : The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to
the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Jefferson:

"My general plan would be, to make the States one as to everything connected with foreign
nations, and several as to everything purely domestic." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward
Carrington, 1787. ME 6:227

"Our citizens have wisely formed themselves into one nation as to others and several States as
among themselves. To the united nation belong our external and mutual relations; to each
State, severally, the care of our persons, our property, our reputation and religious freedom." -Thomas Jefferson: To Rhode Island Assembly, 1801. ME 10:262

The founding fathers did not trust the federal government with our religious freedom!
c) Other constitutional principle violated (what this body should be particularly concerned about):

The state legislatures have been relegated to second class status, when they should actually be the
closest and most intimate – and most powerful – advocates of the people. (The people from whom
all the power of government is derived.)
 The twisting and distorting of the constitution by all three branches of federal government –
especially the courts - has made the state house nothing more than a “farm league” for the selfproclaimed “major league” in Washington!
-1-

The relation between the states used to be understood by Americans and only misunderstood by
foreigners:

"It is a fatal heresy to suppose that either our State governments are superior to the Federal or the
Federal to the States. The people, to whom all authority belongs, have divided the powers of
government into two distinct departments, the leading characters of which are foreign and domestic; and
they have appointed for each a distinct set of functionaries. These they have made coordinate, checking
and balancing each other like the three cardinal departments in the individual States; each equally
supreme as to the powers delegated to itself, and neither authorized ultimately to decide what belongs
to itself or to its coparcener in government. As independent, in fact, as different nations." --Thomas
Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1821. ME 15:328

Since the General Assembly is my voice and my defender, I'm hopping mad at the thought
that the courts have squelched me by “dissing” your authority!
 The people of Missouri really need for you to stand up and defend them against
encroachments on their rights by federal courts!
2. A look at what the constitution really says
a) AMENDMENT I.
 Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

b) AMENDMENT XIV.
 SECTION. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or
enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor
shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny
to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
c) AMENDMENT IX.
 The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage
others retained by the people.
d) AMENDMENT X.
 The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States,
are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
-2-
Evolution of misapplication of the 14th amendment
U.S. Supreme Court
PATTERSON v. COLORADO, 205 U.S. 454 (1907)
“We leave undecided the question whether there is to be found in the 14th Amendment a prohibition similar to that in the 1st.
But even if we were to assume that freedom of speech and freedom of the press were protected from abridgments on the part
not only of the United States but also of the states, still we should be far from the conclusion that the plaintiff in error would
have us reach.”
U.S. Supreme Court
PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. OF AMERICA v. CHEEK, 259 U.S. 530 (1922)
“But, as we have stated, neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor any other provision of the Constitution of the United States
imposes upon the states any restrictions about 'freedom of speech' or the 'liberty of silence'; nor, we may add, does it confer
any right of privacy upon either persons or corporations.”
U.S. Supreme Court
JONES v. CITY OF OPELIKA, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)
“It is only in recent years that the freedoms of the First Amendment have been recognized as among the fundamental
personal rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the states. 11 Until then these liberties were not
deemed to be guarded from state action by the Federal Constitution. 12 The states placed [319 U.S. 105, 127] restraints
upon themselves in their own constitutions in order to protect their people in the exercise of the freedoms of speech and of
religion.”
It was not until 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education, that the Supreme Court declared, “The First
Amendment has erected a wall between church and state.
Even humanists, the primary opponents to public religious expression, admit that the 1st amendment alone does not prohibit
such expression by the states. Here is what the humanist's say about the 14th amendment when we claim the 1st amendment
does not apply to the states: (From www.humanists.net)
Tim Gordinier, PhD
Public Policy, Institute for Humanist Studies
(Our Claim) The Establishment Clause only restricted government action on the federal level. The states and localities
initially were free to do whatever they wanted regarding religion.
(Their response) This is true. Originally, the bill of rights only applied to the federal government. Until the 14th amendment
passed after the Civil War, states were free to follow their own constitutions and bills of rights.
AMENDMENT I.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a
redress of grievances.
AMENDMENT IX.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
people.
AMENDMENT X.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.
AMENDMENT XIV.
SECTION. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges
or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
-3-
process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Some Select
Jefferson Quotes
"My general plan would be, to make the States one as to everything connected with foreign nations, and
several as to everything purely domestic." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787. ME 6:227
"Our citizens have wisely formed themselves into one nation as to others and several States as among
themselves. To the united nation belong our external and mutual relations; to each State, severally, the care
of our persons, our property, our reputation and religious freedom." --Thomas Jefferson: To Rhode Island
Assembly, 1801. ME 10:262
"It is a fatal heresy to suppose that either our State governments are superior to the Federal or the Federal
to the States. The people, to whom all authority belongs, have divided the powers of government into two
distinct departments, the leading characters of which are foreign and domestic; and they have appointed for
each a distinct set of functionaries. These they have made coordinate, checking and balancing each other
like the three cardinal departments in the individual States; each equally supreme as to the powers
delegated to itself, and neither authorized ultimately to decide what belongs to itself or to its coparcener in
government. As independent, in fact, as different nations." --Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1821. ME
15:328
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. . . . Believing with
you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other
for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, 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. 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 and blessing of the
common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association
assurances of my high respect and esteem. -- Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802
[N]o power over the freedom of religion . . . [is] delegated to the United States by the Constitution. Kentucky
Resolution, 1879 3
In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of
the powers of the general [federal] government. Second Inaugural Address, 1805 4
[O]ur excellent Constitution . . . has not placed our religious rights under the power of any public functionary.
Letter to the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1808 5
I consider the government of the United States as interdicted [prohibited] by the Constitution from
intermeddling with religious institutions . . . or exercises. Letter to Samuel Millar, 1808 6From:
http://www.humanists.net/cdhs/recap-2003-05-11-Gordinier.html
Preaching Heresy: A Different View of the Church/State Separation Controversy
by
Tim Gordinier, PhD
Public Policy, Institute for Humanist Studies
-4-
This is the recap of a talk given at the May 11, 2003 CDHS monthly meeting.
"The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple" – Oscar Wilde.
Tim Gordinier, PhD, Director of Public Policy and Education, Institute for Humanist Studies, spoke with us on "Preaching
Heresy: A Different View of the Church/State Separation Controversy." Not surprisingly, he argues that the proper
relationship of government and religion is one of separation. What may come as a surprise is the complex history and
underlying motivations of separation. By describing the relevant ideas and the constitutional history of church/state
separation, Gordinier illustrated how gradual a process it really was. It was not always the dominant view and opponents did
have lawful positions. He also discussed some arguments against separation and his response to them.
Some definitions:
Ceremonial Deisms. Vague references to God, lacking theological dogma, made in official acts of government (In God We
Trust, Under God, congressional chaplains).
Separation Doctrine. Government cannot support the religious message of any religious group. It must otherwise treat them
as any other private organization.
Bill of Rights. First ten amendments to the constitution guaranteeing individual liberty. The first amendment provides
freedom of religion.
The Establishment Clause. One of two religion clauses found in the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…."
Five arguments against church/state separation and responses to them:
1. The Framers were Christians. They wanted to promote religion in the public sphere.
2.
Most were not Christians, but Deists (belief in the existence of a supreme being arising from reason rather than revelation –
no theological dogma). Jefferson, Payne, Morris, Wilson, Franklin, etc. Washington was probably a Deist but went to church
for social respectability. They engaged in god talk for political reasons, as often occurs today. Gordinier observed, it’s "not
smart to diss the deity if you want to get elected."
2. The Establishment Clause only restricted government action on the federal level. The states and localities initially were
free to do whatever they wanted regarding religion.
3.
This is true. Originally, the bill of rights only applied to the federal government. Until the 14th amendment passed
after the Civil War, states were free to follow their own constitutions and bills of rights. Many states had no
Establishment Clause. This meant they could force their residents to support a church. There were blasphemy laws,
blue laws and compulsory church attendance. Some states gave nondiscriminatory aid to churches (if they were
Protestant), while four states had separation: Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware and Pennsylvania. However, even
before the 14th amendment, the other states gradually began to separate church and state on their own. The last state
to disestablish was Massachusetts in 1833. As Gordinier pointed out, the 14th amendment, by universalizing the bill of
rights, kept states "from backsliding on the progress they had already made on their own." [The 14th amendment,
Section 1, includes the following: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States…" And Section 5 provides that "The congress shall have power to enforce,
by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."]
3. Even on the federal level, the Establishment Clause only prohibited a national church.
Debate often centers on whether the Establishment Clause prohibits favoritism only or also require government neutrality
between the religious and nonreligious.
Do congressional chaplains, the motto "In God We Trust," and national days of prayer serve as evidence that the
Establishment Clause should be interpreted narrowly? Ceremonial deism is often viewed as acceptable because of tradition
and lack of religious dogma. However, the tradition in not as old as many assume. "In God We Trust" first appeared on
money during the Civil War and "Under God" was added to the pledge during the McCarthy era of the 1950s. Besides
-5-
discriminating against nonbelievers, it promotes monotheism over polytheism. The phrase "So help me God" is not a
requirement in the oath of office. Washington simply added the phrase (again, don't diss the deity!). Government chaplains
have existed since the beginning, but the practice faced criticism even then. They are unconstitutional and clearly violate the
nondiscriminatory criteria. Gordinier said, "apart from these minor glitches, the federal government has been pretty
consistent when it comes to adhering to the doctrine of separation of church and state." For example, the federal government
has never passed blasphemy laws, blue laws, compulsory church attendance, or religious oath requirements.
Gordinier observed that "the most ardent theocrats of the 18th century wanted separation of church and state on the
federal level so that they could enjoy nonseparation on the state level. That is why they included the Establishment
Clause. These early states rights advocates did not know that their insistence on federal noninterference would come
back to bite them in the end (the 14th amendment)." However, the 14th amendment wasn't the only force responsible
for the states' move toward separation. They were moving in that direction even before it was mandatory. Besides
Rationalists and Deists, separation attracted Evangelicals and Baptists, who felt pressured by other religious groups.
James Madison supported a bill in Virginia in 1777 to make even nondiscriminatory aid to religion illegal in Virginia.
This provision, supported by both religious and nonreligious groups, became the basis for the Establishment Clause
of the First Amendment. Said Madison: "A true religion does not need the support of the law. No person, either
believer or unbeliever should be taxed to support a religious institution of any kind."
If there was separation of church and state, it was meant to protect the church from the state, not the state from the church.
4.
Humanists value separation doctrine for the protection it affords when religion becomes a dangerous irrational force. But
there were many who viewed government as the oppressor of religion. Each view is valid. However, regarding protection of
the church from the state:
a) It shouldn't mean having your cake and eating it too. If religious groups want tax breaks, funding for social programs, etc.,
they should to adhere to the same requirements (health, safety, nondiscrimination, etc.) that other organizations do.
b) It shouldn't mean that government noninterference with religion is total. Religious exemptions are not a constitutional
right. They can be granted by the legislature unless they become an exclusive religious privilege unavailable to others. For
example, an exemption from military service should be available to others who hold pacifist beliefs, not just specific
religious groups. Another example would be that religious groups do not have the right to practice human sacrifice. They
have to obey the same laws against murder that everyone else does.
It shouldn't mean the two views are not compatible. If you protect the church from the state, the converse is also true.
c)
Gordinier describes a view of church/state separation that is comprehensive; it protects government, religion and the
nonreligious as well.
5. There was separation of church and state, but it was usually driven by hostility toward religion, not by an attempt to set up
a neutral zone.
6.
Hostility toward religion has sometimes fueled separation. In early America, people with a religious agenda clearly found
church/state separation to be as attractive a solution as nonbelievers did. It was sometimes motivated by power struggles
between denominations, rather than a desire to create a neutral zone (Blaine amendment). Fundamentalist Christians favored
separation until the 1950s. This was because, before that, all the religious schools were Catholic.
Gordinier concluded with these observations: It is important to acknowledge there has always been a rival tradition opposing
separation. Many States did not practice separation and were not required to. Instead, separation gradually evolved. While we
view separation as the stronger tradition, we cannot rely solely on the Framer's intent. The Founders clearly had their share of
flaws (bigoted, sexist, slave owners). Because of this we need to look at the benefits of separation rather than focus entirely
on the founders’ words. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment originally gave African Americans equal
rights, but has since expanded to include other nationalities and women. Examples like this describe the Constitution as an
evolving document that benefits from continuous reinterpretation.
-6-
(intentionally left blank)The Separation of Church and State
by David Barton
In 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared, “The First Amendment has erected a
wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest
breach.” The “separation of church and state” phrase which they invoked, and which has today become so familiar, was
taken from an exchange of letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury,
Connecticut, shortly after Jefferson became President.
The election of Jefferson-America’s first Anti-Federalist President-elated many Baptists since that denomination, byand-large, was also strongly Anti-Federalist. This political disposition of the Baptists was understandable, for from the
early settlement of Rhode Island in the 1630s to the time of the federal Constitution in the 1780s, the Baptists had often
found themselves suffering from the centralization of power.
Consequently, now having a President who not only had championed the rights of Baptists in Virginia but who also had
advocated clear limits on the centralization of government powers, the Danbury Baptists wrote Jefferson a letter of
praise on October 7, 1801, telling him:
Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office, we embrace the
first opportunity . . . to express our great satisfaction in your appointment to the Chief Magistracy in
the United States. . . . [W]e 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 the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you. . . .
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.1
However, in that same letter of congratulations, the Baptists also expressed to Jefferson their grave concern over the
entire concept of the First Amendment, including of its guarantee for “the free exercise of religion”:
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, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to
punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. . .
. [T]herefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors
granted, and not as inalienable rights. 2
In short, 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 (thus alienable) rather than God-given (hence
inalienable), and that therefore the government might someday attempt to regulate religious expression. This was a
possibility to which they strenuously objected-unless, as they had explained, someone’s religious practice caused him
to “work ill to his neighbor.”
Jefferson understood their concern; it was also his own. In fact, he made numerous declarations about the constitutional
inability of the federal government to regulate, restrict, or interfere with religious expression. For example:
[N]o power over the freedom of religion . . . [is] delegated to the United States by the
Constitution.Kentucky Resolution, 1798 3
In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent
of the powers of the general [federal] government. Second Inaugural Address, 1805 4
-7-
[O]ur excellent Constitution . . . has not placed our religious rights under the power of any public
functionary. Letter to the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1808 5
I consider the government of the United States as interdicted [prohibited] by the Constitution from
intermeddling with religious institutions . . . or exercises. Letter to Samuel Millar, 1808 6
Jefferson believed that the government was to be powerless to interfere with religious expressions for a very simple
reason: he had long witnessed the unhealthy tendency of government to encroach upon the free exercise of religion. As
he explained to Noah Webster:
It had become an universal and almost uncontroverted position in the several States that the purposes
of society do not require a surrender of all our rights to our ordinary governors . . . and which
experience has nevertheless proved they [the government] will be constantly encroaching on if
submitted to them; that there are also certain fences which experience has proved peculiarly
efficacious [effective] against wrong and rarely obstructive of right, which yet the governing powers
have ever shown a disposition to weaken and remove. Of the first kind, for instance, is freedom of
religion. 7
Thomas Jefferson had no intention of allowing the government to limit, restrict, regulate, or interfere with public
religious practices. He believed, along with the other Founders, that the First Amendment had been enacted only to
prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination-a fact he made clear in a letter to fellow-signer of the
Declaration of Independence Benjamin Rush:
[T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of
religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of
Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps
hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our
country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be
exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly. 8
Jefferson had committed himself as President to pursuing the purpose of the First Amendment: preventing the
“establishment of a particular form of Christianity” by the Episcopalians, Congregationalists, or any other
denomination.
Since this was Jefferson’s view concerning religious expression, in his short and polite reply to the Danbury Baptists on
January 1, 1802, he assured them that they need not fear; that the free exercise of religion would never be interfered
with by the federal government. As he explained:
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. . . . Believing
with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to
none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only
and not opinions, 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.
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 and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you
for yourselves and your religious association assurances of my high respect and esteem. 9
-8-
Jefferson’s reference to “natural rights” invoked an important legal phrase which was part of the rhetoric of that day
and which reaffirmed his belief that religious liberties were inalienable rights. While the phrase “natural rights”
communicated much to people then, to most citizens today those words mean little.
By definition, “natural rights” included “that which the Books of the Law and the Gospel do contain.” 10 That is,
“natural rights” incorporated what God Himself had guaranteed to man in the Scriptures. Thus, when Jefferson assured
the Baptists that by following their “natural rights” they would violate no social duty, he was affirming to them that the
free exercise of religion was their inalienable God-given right and therefore was protected from federal regulation or
interference.
So clearly did Jefferson understand the Source of America’s inalienable rights that he even doubted whether America
could survive if we ever lost that knowledge. He queried:
And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in
the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with
His wrath? 11
Jefferson believed that God, not government, was the Author and Source of our rights and that the government,
therefore, was to be prevented from interference with those rights. Very simply, the “fence” of the Webster letter and
the “wall” of the Danbury letter were not to limit religious activities in public; rather they were to limit the power of the
government to prohibit or interfere with those expressions.
Earlier courts long understood Jefferson’s intent. In fact, when Jefferson’s letter was invoked by the Supreme Court
(only once prior to the 1947 Everson case-the Reynolds v. United States case in 1878), unlike today’s Courts which
publish only his eight-word separation phrase, that earlier Court published Jefferson’s entire letter and then concluded:
Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it [Jefferson’s
letter] may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the
Amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere [religious]
opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of
good order. (emphasis added) 12
That Court then succinctly summarized Jefferson’s intent for “separation of church and state”:
[T]he rightful purposes of civil government are for its officers to interfere when principles break out
into overt acts against peace and good order. In th[is] . . . is found the true distinction between what
properly belongs to the church and what to the State. 13
With this even the Baptists had agreed; for while wanting to see the government prohibited from interfering with or
limiting religious activities, they also had declared it a legitimate function of government “to punish the man who
works ill to his neighbor.”
That Court, therefore, and others (for example, Commonwealth v. Nesbit and Lindenmuller v. The People ), identified
actions into which-if perpetrated in the name of religion-the government did have legitimate reason to intrude. Those
activities included human sacrifice, polygamy, bigamy, concubinage, incest, infanticide, parricide, advocation and
promotion of immorality, etc.
Such acts, even if perpetrated in the name of religion, would be stopped by the government since, as the Court had
explained, they were “subversive of good order” and were “overt acts against peace.” However, the government was
never to interfere with traditional religious practices outlined in “the Books of the Law and the Gospel”-whether public
prayer, the use of the Scriptures, public acknowledgements of God, etc.
Therefore, if Jefferson’s letter is to be used today, let its context be clearly given-as in previous years. Furthermore,
earlier Courts had always viewed Jefferson’s Danbury letter for just what it was: a personal, private letter to a specific
-9-
group. There is probably no other instance in America’s history where words spoken by a single individual in a private
letter-words clearly divorced from their context-have become the sole authorization for a national policy. Finally,
Jefferson’s Danbury letter should never be invoked as a stand-alone document. A proper analysis of Jefferson’s views
must include his numerous other statements on the First Amendment.
For example, in addition to his other statements previously noted, Jefferson also declared that the “power to prescribe
any religious exercise. . . . must rest with the States” (emphasis added). Nevertheless, the federal courts ignore this
succinct declaration and choose rather to misuse his separation phrase to strike down scores of State laws which
encourage or facilitate public religious expressions. Such rulings against State laws are a direct violation of the words
and intent of the very one from whom the courts claim to derive their policy.
One further note should be made about the now infamous “separation” dogma. The Congressional Records from June 7
to September 25, 1789, record the months of discussions and debates of the ninety Founding Fathers who framed the
First Amendment. Significantly, not only was Thomas Jefferson not one of those ninety who framed the First
Amendment, but also, during those debates not one of those ninety Framers ever mentioned the phrase “separation of
church and state.” It seems logical that if this had been the intent for the First Amendment-as is so frequently assertedthen at least one of those ninety who framed the Amendment would have mentioned that phrase; none did.
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.
Endnotes:
1. Letter of October 7, 1801, from Danbury (CT) Baptist Association to Thomas Jefferson, from the Thomas Jefferson
Papers Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D. C.
2. Id.
3. The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, John P. Foley, editor (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1900), p. 977; see also
Documents of American History, Henry S. Cummager, editor (NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1948), p. 179.
4. Annals of the Congress of the United States (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1852, Eighth Congress, Second Session,
p. 78, March 4, 1805; see also James D. Richardson, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents,
1789-1897 (Published by Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. I, p. 379, March 4, 1805.
5. Thomas Jefferson, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington D. C.: The Thomas
Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. I, p. 379, March 4, 1805.
6. Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, From the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas
Jefferson Randolph, editor (Boston: Gray and Bowen, 1830), Vol. IV, pp. 103-104, to the Rev. Samuel Millar on
January 23, 1808.
7. Jefferson, Writings, Vol. VIII, p. 112-113, to Noah Webster on December 4, 1790.
8. Jefferson, Writings, Vol. III, p. 441, to Benjamin Rush on September 23, 1800.
9. Jefferson, Writings, Vol. XVI, pp. 281-282, to the Danbury Baptist Association on January 1, 1802.
10. Richard Hooker, The Works of Richard Hooker (Oxford: University Press, 1845), Vol. I, p. 207.
11. Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (Philadelphia: Matthew Carey, 1794), Query XVIII, p. 237.
12. Reynolds v. U. S., 98 U. S. 145, 164 (1878).
13. Reynolds at 163.
14.
Janet's note: Eagle Forum’s complete with changes - Ron's suggestions in red
House Resolution
DRAFT 3
Whereas, Amendment I of the United States Constitution, “Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion…” is a specific and unequivocal instruction to the United States Congress; and,
- 10 -
Whereas, the United States Constitution makes no [further] restriction on the ability of states to acknowledge
a Supreme Ruler; and,
Whereas, Amendment 10 of the United States Constitution, “The powers not delegated to the United States
by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”
reserved the right of the acknowledgment of God to the states and the people; and,
Whereas, Misapplication of Amendment 14 of the United State Constitution by the Federal Judiciary has
resulted in the usurpation of the powers and liberties of the states and their citizens, and,
Whereas, the Preamble to the Missouri Constitution, “We the people of Missouri, with profound reverence
for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness, do establish this constitution for the
better government of the state” is within the boundaries of rights reserved to the states by the United States
Constitution; and,
Whereas, the Federal Judiciary has overstepped its Constitutional boundaries and ruled against the
acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government by local and state officers and
other state institutions, including state schools; and,
Whereas, Article III of the United States Constitution gives the United States Congress the power to create
“exceptions” and “regulations” to Supreme Court jurisdiction, plus the power to create all inferior federal
courts, which includes the power to abolish, regulate, and decide which cases may be heard or not heard; and
Whereas, there is pending before the 2d Session of the 108th Congress the Constitution Restoration Act:
(H.R. 3799 and S. 2082) which will restore the Separation of Powers among the three branches of the Federal
Government and return the rights, as claimed by the state of Missouri in its Preamble to the Missouri
Constitution, to the states and to the people by withdrawing jurisdiction from the federal courts to hear
challenges to the acknowledgment of God;
Now, therefore, be it resolved that we, the members of the Missouri House of Representatives, Ninetysecond General Assembly, urge the United States Congress to adopt forthwith H. R. 3799 or S.2082; and,
Be it further resolved that the Chief Clerk of the Missouri House of Representatives be instructed to prepare
a properly inscribed copy of this resolution to the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the
President of the United States Senate, the Chair of the United States Senate Judiciary Committee, the Chair of
the United States House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, and each member of the Missouri
Congressional Delegation.
- 11 -