Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So...you're saying the Catholic Church desires to be regulated by the government?
Because that's what Jefferson meant in his letter in 1802. This isn't a concept to keep religion out of government, but to keep the government from regulating the practice of religion.
Catholics are not to believe in the Separation of Church and State
Catholics are not to believe in the Separation of Church and State. This concept is also not in the Constitution and is a legal fiction.
As Shane pointed out you're letting the other side define the terms "Separation of Church and state" was never meant to regulate or restrict the Church but to keep government out of the affairs of the Church
Separation of Church and state (properly understood) is one of the "Baptist Distinctives" that define Baptists
Baptists (the Calvinist Baptists) were early on represented in the US by men such as Roger Williams--the founder of the first Baptist congregation in America. Williams' "The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution for Cause of Conscience" is the seminal document in America for the separation of Church and State. It's tough slogging to read because all versions I've found are in "King James" English, but it's worthwhile to get the sense of how and why certain denominations were "Separatists." It's in that treatise that Williams coins the phrase "hedge of separation between the garden of the Church and the wilderness of the World" that Jefferson would later crib to "wall of separation between Church and State" when writing to the Danbury Baptists.
It's also important to remember that the issue of separation of Church and state was about to come to a violent head in England even as Williams wrote his treatise--and would result in the English Civil War that would see a king assassinated.
The latest Baptist Faith and Message still draws heavily on the basics of Roger Williams for that point.
Okay, I was confused by the wording here. It seemed you were saying Catholics do not support the separation.
As Shane pointed out you're letting the other side define the terms "Separation of Church and state" was never meant to regulate or restrict the Church but to keep government out of the affairs of the Church
I don't understand why so many Christian opponents to the Establishment Clause seem to implicitly assume that it's abolition would lead to the theocracy of their dreams.
In all likelihood, the end result would be not unlike the Church of England, where theology is subjected to the political zeitgeist of the society therein.
No, I am referring to Separation of Church and State as the Supreme Court invented the definition in 1947. The word "separation" is improper and misleading. Let us use a proper and more accurate word -- "distinction."
Properly understood there is a "distinction" not a "separation" between church and state. The current nonsense is nonsense. The First Amendment was written to prevent a State Church, like the Church of England. It was not written to prevent Christmas trees from display on government property.
In fact, after the enactment of the First Amendment, Jefferson et. al. went to church and worshiped in, I think, the Senate.
Christ was preached from the same podium as Senators gave their speeches. Obviously, religious activities on government property was not what Jefferson and other founders thought was prohibited by the First Amendment.
The Catholic Church teaches, and requires all Catholics to believe, that we are to inform the world, including the political world, with our faith and morals. That is the role of the Church Herself. Our faith not only belongs in the Public Square, but we have a duty to bring our faith to the Public Square.
Actually, it would. There is a difference between using government funds to support a particular religion--which is an "establishment" --and permitting persons of a religion to practice their religion while coincidentally being on government property.
That would not have been Jefferson, who was not a Christian.
The State Becomes the Church: Jefferson and Madison
It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House--a practice that continued until after the Civil War--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience." Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.
Jefferson's actions may seem surprising because his attitude toward the relation between religion and government is usually thought to have been embodied in his recommendation that there exist "a wall of separation between church and state." In that statement, Jefferson was apparently declaring his opposition, as Madison had done in introducing the Bill of Rights, to a "national" religion. In attending church services on public property, Jefferson and Madison consciously and deliberately were offering symbolic support to religion as a prop for republican government.
Jefferson attended church at the Capitol while he was Vice President 5 and also throughout his presidency. The first Capitol church service that Jefferson attended as President was a service preached by Jefferson's friend, the Rev. John Leland, on January 3, 1802. 6 Significantly, Jefferson attended that Capitol church service just two days after he penned his famous letter containing the "wall of separation between church and state" metaphor.
MANASSEH CUTLER
U. S. Rep. Manasseh Cutler, who also attended church at the Capitol, recorded in his own diary that "He [Jefferson] and his family have constantly attended public worship in the Hall." 7 Mary Bayard Smith, another attendee at the Capitol services, confirmed: "Mr. Jefferson, during his whole administration, was a most regular attendant." 8 She noted that Jefferson even had a designated seat at the Capitol church: "The seat he chose the first Sabbath, and the adjoining one (which his private secretary occupied), were ever afterwards by the courtesy of the congregation, left for him and his secretary." 9 Jefferson was so committed to those services that he would not even allow inclement weather to dissuade him; as Rep. Cutler noted: "It was very rainy, but his [Jefferson's] ardent zeal brought him through the rain and on horseback to the Hall." 10 Other diary entries confirm Jefferson's attendance in spite of bad weather. 11
In addition to Mary Bayard Smith and Congressman Manasseh Cutler, others kept diaries of the weekly Capitol church services "" including Congressman Abijah Bigelow and statesman John Quincy Adams. (Adams served in Washington first as a Senator, then a President, and then as a Representative; and his extensive diaries describe the numerous church services he attended at the Capitol across a span of decades.) Typical of Adams' diary entries while a U. S.
Senator under President Jefferson were these:
Attended public service at the Capitol where Mr. Rattoon, an Episcopalian clergyman from Baltimore, preached a sermon. 12
[R]eligious service is usually performed on Sundays at the Treasury office and at the Capitol. I went both forenoon and afternoon to the Treasury. 13
Jefferson was not the only President to attend church at the Capitol. His successor, James Madison, also attended church at the Capitol. 14 However, there was a difference in the way the two arrived for services. Observers noted that Jefferson arrived at church on horseback 15 (it was 1.6 miles from the White House to the Capitol). However, Madison arrived for church in a coach and four. In fact, British diplomat Augustus Foster, who attended services at the Capitol, gave an eloquent description of President Madison arriving at the Capitol for church in a carriage drawn by four white horses.
From Jefferson through Abraham Lincoln, many presidents attended church at the Capitol; and it was common practice for Members of Congress to attend those services. For example, in his diary entry of January 9, 1803, Congressman Cutler noted: "Attended in the morning at the Capitol. . . . Very full assembly. Many of the Members present." 16 The church was often full "so crowded, in fact, one attendee reported that since "the floor of the House offered insufficient space, the platform behind the Speaker's chair, and every spot where a chair could be wedged in" was filled. 17 U. S. Representative John Quincy Adams (although noting that occasionally the "House was full, but not crowded" 18) also commented numerous times on the overly-crowded conditions at the Capitol church. In his diary entry for February 28, 1841, he noted: "I rode with my wife, Elizabeth C. Adams, and Mary, to the Capitol, where the Hall of the House of Representatives was so excessively crowded that it was with extreme difficulty that we were enabled to obtain seats." 19 Why did so many Members attend Divine service in the Hall of the House? Adams explained why he attended: "I consider it as one of my public duties- as a representative of the people- to give my attendance every Sunday morning when Divine service is performed in the Hall." 20
Interestingly, the Marine Band participated in the early Capitol church services. According to Margaret Bayard Smith, who regularly attended services at the Capitol, the band, clad in their scarlet uniforms, made a "dazzling appearance" as they played from the gallery, providing instrumental accompaniment for the singing. 21 The band, however, seemed too ostentatious for the services and "the attendance of the marine-band was soon discontinued." 22
From 1800 to 1801, the services were held in the north wing; from 1801 to 1804, they were held in the "oven" in the south wing, and then from 1804 to 1807, they were again held in the north wing. From 1807 to 1857, services were held in what is now Statuary Hall. By 1857 when the House moved into its new home in the extension, some 2,000 persons a week were attending services in the Hall of the House. 23 Significantly, even though the U. S. Congress began meeting in the extension on Wednesday, December 16, 1857, the first official use of the House Chamber had occurred three days earlier, when "on December 13, 1857, the Rev. Dr. George Cummins preached before a crowd of 2,000 worshipers in the first public use of the chamber. Soon thereafter, the committee recommended that the House convene in the new Hall on Wednesday, December 16, 1857." 24 However, regardless of the part of the building in which the church met, the rostrum of the Speaker of the House was used as the preacher's pulpit; and Congress purchased the hymnals used in the service.
The church services in the Hall of the House were interdenominational, overseen by the chaplains appointed by the House and Senate; sermons were preached by the chaplains on a rotating basis, or by visiting ministers approved by the Speaker of the House. As Margaret Bayard Smith, confirmed: "Not only the chaplains, but the most distinguished clergymen who visited the city, preached in the Capitol" 25 and "clergymen, who during the session of Congress visited the city, were invited by the chaplains to preach." 26
In addition to the non-denominational service held in the Hall of the House, several individual churches (such as Capitol Hill Presbyterian, the Unitarian Church of Washington, First Congregational Church, First Presbyterian Church, etc.) met in the Capitol each week for their own services; there could be up to four different church services at the Capitol each Sunday.
IN 1867, OVER 2,000 PER WEEK ATTENDED CHURCH SERVICES AT THE CAPITOL
The Library of Congress provides an account of one of those churches that met weekly at the Capitol: "Charles Boynton (1806-1883) was in 1867 Chaplain of the House of Representatives and organizing pastor of the First Congregational Church in Washington, which was trying at that time to build its own sanctuary. In the meantime, the church, as Boynton informed potential donors, was holding services- ˜at the Hall of Representatives' where- ˜the audience is the largest in town. . . . nearly 2000 assembled every Sabbath' for services, making the congregation in the House the ˜largest Protestant Sabbath audience then in the United States.' The First Congregational Church met in the House from 1865 to 1868." 27
OLD SUPREME COURT CHAMBER
With so many services occurring, the Hall of the House was not the only location in the Capitol where church services were conducted. John Quincy Adams, in his February 2, 1806, diary entry, describes an overflow service held in the Supreme Court Chamber, 28 and Congressman Manasseh Cutler describes a similar service in 1804. 29 (At that time, the Supreme Court Chamber was located on the first floor of the Capitol.) Services were also held in the Senate Chamber as well as on the first floor of the south wing.
Footnotes:
[5] Bishop Claggett's (Episcopal Bishop of Maryland) letter of February 18, 1801, reveals that, as vice- President, Jefferson went to church services in the House. Available in the Maryland Diocesan Archives.
[6] William Parker Cutler and Julia Perkins Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence of Rev. Manasseh Cutler (Cincinnati: Colin Robert Clarke & Co., 1888), Vol. II, p. 66, letter to Joseph Torrey, January 4, 1802. Cutler meant that Jefferson attended church on January 3, 1802, for the first time as President. Bishop Claggett's letter of February 18, 1801, already revealed that as Vice-President, Jefferson went to church services in the House.
[7] Cutler and Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence, Vol. II, p. 119, in a letter to Dr. Joseph Torrey on January 3, 1803; see also his entry of December 12, 1802 (Vol. II, p. 113).
[8] Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 13.
[9] Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 13.
[10] Cutler and Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence, Vol. II, p. 119, in a letter to Dr. Joseph Torrey on January 3, 1803; see also his entry of December 26, 1802 (Vol. II, p. 114).
[11] Cutler and Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence, Vol. II, p. 114, December 26, 1802.
[12] John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, Vol. I, p. 268, October 30, 1803.
[13] John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, Vol. I, p. 265, October 23, 1803.
[14] Abijah Bigelow to Hannah Bigleow, December 28, 1812. "Letters of Abijah Bigleow, Member of Congress, to his Wife," Proceedings, 1810-1815, American Antiquarian Society (1930), p. 168.
[15] See, for example, Cutler and Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence, Vol. II, p. 119, from a letter to Dr. Joseph Torrey on January 3, 1803.
[16] Cutler and Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence, Vol. II, p. 116, January 9, 1803.
[17] Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 14.
[18] See, for example, John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, Vol. VII, pp. 437-438, February 17, 1828; Vol. XI, pp. 160-161, May 22, 1842; and others.
[19] John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, Vol. X, p. 434, February 28, 1841.
[20] John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, Vol. XI, p. 169, June 5, 1842.
[21] Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 14.
[22] Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 16.
[23] James Hutson (Chief of the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress), Religion and the Founding of the American Republic(Washington, DC: Library of Congress, 1998), p. 91.
[24] William C. Allen (Architectural Historian of the Capitol), A History of the United States Capitol, A Chronicle of Design, Construction, and Politics (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 2001), p. 271.
[25] Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 14.
[26] Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 15.
[27] Fundraising brochure, Charles B. Boynton. Washington, D.C.: November 1, 1867, Rare Book and Special Collections Division, Library of Congress; available at Library of Congress at http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html.
[28] Hutson, Religion and the Founding of the American Republic, p. 90.
[29] From the Library of Congress, at http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html.
why?So if government property is used for Christmas displays during Christmas season, then it must be open for other religious displays on their holidays.
Roger Williams, in "The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution for Cause of Conscience," marches through history to show that abolition of the Establishment Clause will definitely have that result, each and every time. We see it now in Islamic societies
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?