Pat Dollard

Hitchens cites to Jefferson’s 1802 letter to a congregation of Connecticut Baptists about the separation of Church and state, but that Jefferson letter must be considered in the context of the fact that Connecticut at that time and for about 20 years more had an established Church — the Congregationalist Church.

What about the First Amendment? It would not be for well over a century that the First Amendment’s anti-establishment/free exercise of religion clause would be applied by the U.S Supreme Court to the states. In the early American Republic, the states were free to have established churches, and there were a number of New England states that had established churches for the first couple of decades in the 19th century.

The significance? The Connecticut Baptists wrote to Jefferson right after the 1800 election when the Congregationalist clergy from the pulpit of the established Connecticut Church had supported John Adams and attacked Jefferson. The “separation of Church and State” language in Jefferson’s letter was metaphorical language to express what Jefferson truly believed was the better First Amendment rule of “no establishment of religion” for the federal Government and the “free exercise of religion” for the people and thus to assauge the concerns of a religious minority in a state that had an established Church. Jefferson’s language was not judicial language for the deciding of a case.

The point? Jefferson’s meaning of his “separation” language was the First Amendment meant no established Church, not expulsion of religion from the public square. Jefferson ordered the Marine Band to play at church services then being held in the Capitol building.

What has happened is that current day leftists have taken Jefferson’s “separation” language to do two things. First, they effectively replace the actual text of the First Amendment, which does not use the “separation” language but rather uses “no establishment of religion, free exercise of religion” language. Second, they give Jefferson’s “separation” language to mean something far different than what Jefferson intended; that different meaning is the prohibition of alleged entanglement of religion and the state, which translates into the expulsion of religion from the public square. Jefferson certainly did not mean that. George Washington would have elegantly expressed ridicule of such a notion. (Too little attention is paid to George Washington’s views on Church and state; and First Amendment religion cases should be decided based on the actual text of the First Amendment, not Jefferson’s metaphorical language.)

So when Hitchens harps about “separation,” it really should only take him so far. It does mean that we don’t have an established national Church and we do not impose a formal religious test on office holders. We are not a theocracy. But we are a nation in which most citizens do identify themselves as Christian and we have been guided by Judean-Christian moral principles. David Limbaugh has a good column on this subject today.

I can’t debate in Hitchin’s league, but I understand the influence his thoughts and masterful articulation have on people. It’s quite Satanic. It’s too bad they didn’t even up the sides to make a real debate.