Attacks on Thomas Jefferson's "wall of separation between Church and State" have become more frequent, as religious groups work to enact the Religious Freedom Amendment. A newspaper article concerning an FBI examination of Jefferson's seminal letter to the Danbury Baptists distorts the record, and misrepresents the Founder's ideas.

ention Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association and you might find it incredible that the Federal Bureau of Investigation would be interested. After all, what does the FBI have to do with the historical document where one of the most prominent founders of the American Republic employed, for the first time, the historic phrase about "a wall of separation between Church and State"?

    Plenty. And the findings of the world-class FBI Laboratory are at the center of a building controversy made all the more poignant by this Thursday's anticipated vote in the U.S. House of Representatives on the controversial Religious Freedom Amendment. That measure, introduced by Rep. Ernest Istook, would legalize a wide range of religious activities, including student led prayer in public schools and other government venues throughout the nation. It would also end prohibitions against the use of taxpayer money for making grants to churches and other "faith based" organizations. Critics charge that the proposed amendment is not needed in granting or guaranteeing legitimate religious exercise, but instead is designed to "gut" the establishment clause of the First Amendment, reverse decades of important state-church litigation such as MURRAY v. CURLETT or ENGEL v. VITALE, and would violate the civil rights of millions of Americans who are atheists, or do not choose to participate in public religious ritual.

   And the debate starts with Thomas Jefferson.

WASHINGTON TIMES --
SPIN CONTROL FOR PUBLIC RELIGION?

    Today's issue of the Washington Times, a newspaper owned by Korean evangelical cult leader Rev. Sun Myung Moon (founder of the Unification Church), reports on lab work performed by the FBI on inked out lines in drafts of Jefferson's 1802 letter. Reporter Larry Witham then goes on to suggest that the new research indicates that the "wall of separation" phrase was designed "to please partisan supporters and answer critics," a sentiment allegedly shared by Dr. James. H. Hutson, Chief of the Manuscript Division at the Library of Congress.

    Hutson notes that two days after penning the famous letter to the Danbury Baptists, Jefferson began attending weekly worship inside the House of Representatives. "That phrase about the wall doesn't mean much in light of his behavior, does it?" Hutson asks.

    The thrust of the Washington Times piece is that the reference to a "wall of separation" was a political ploy designed to appease Jefferson's opponents, especially Federalists who branded him an "atheist" who was hostile toward religious faith and exercise. Indeed, Jefferson was heavily criticized for not issuing a proclamation on behalf of days of "fastings, humiliations and thanksgivings," as his predecessors, Adams and Washington, had done. The Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut had contacted Jefferson; it was in his reply that Jefferson employed the historical phrase referring to a "wall of separation" between church and government.

    The Times newspaper article says that the Danbury group "had sent Jefferson a letter of congratulations on his election, and the president 'labored over' a strategic reply..." according to Mr. Houston.

    But the real background is more complex, and contains crucial information ignored or deleted by the Times. In fact, the letter from the Baptist group was a complaint that the Connecticut tax laws oppressed them, since they permitted communities to levy taxes for the support of an official, government-chosen religion. Connecticut was overwhelmingly Congregationalist, so Baptist and members of other religious groups (as well as nonreligious persons) were compelled to support the dominant faith through their tax money." In his seminal work, "JEFFERSON THE PRESIDENT: First Term, 1801-1805", the distinguished historian Dumas Malone noted that Jefferson "was honored as an apostle of religious liberty. Much of their address sounded like (Jefferson's) bill for establishing religious freedom in Virginia, and they hoped that the sentiments of their 'beloved President' would prevail so that 'hierarchy and tyranny' would vanish from the earth..."

    Indeed, Jefferson had been the architect of the Act for Establishing Religious Freedom in Virginia which put an end there to the compulsory funding of so-called "established" churches. One often had to be a member of the "established" congregation in order to vote, own property or exercise other rights -- a fact that may account for the resistance of the select group of voters who constantly fought the disestablishment of these religious groups. The 1786 Act stated that "no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions of belief..."

    Responding to the Danbury Baptists 16 years later, Jefferson wrote: "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law regarding an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

   The letter does not specifically refer to the declaration for days of fasting or thanksgiving; Jefferson prefaced his reference to the "wall of separation", though, saying, "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..."

ENTER THE FBI...

    But in the first draft, where lines of copy had been inked over, Jefferson was more direct and blatant in distinguishing between secular power and religious authority, and even more stringent in his notion of the "wall." If anything, the "wall of separation" was a political device only in that it was a toned-down version of what Jefferson originally had written.

    Hutson had been curious about the inked out portions of Jefferson's draft of the Danbury letter. "It's a mystery to me why somebody had not tried to investigate this," Hutson told the Washington Times. "What was under there? Why did Jefferson cross it out?" In January, Librarian of Congress James Billington sought the assistance of the Federal Bureau of Investigation into uncovering what lay beneath the blotted out portions of the Danbury letter; the FBI had successfully uncovered written copy in materials linked to President Theodore Roosevelt which he had made in his diary. In mid-April, the Federal Bureau of Investigation Laboratory finished its examination of the Jefferson response.

JEFFERSON'S "ETERNAL WALL"

    Despite the thrust of the Washington Times piece, critics of the "wall of separation" will be most distressed by the new findings. In his final letter, Jefferson had referred to a "wall of separation between Church and State." The FBI results, though, showed that in the early draft, Jefferson was even more vehement, and referred to "wall of eternal separation." In addition, the early draft shows Jefferson explaining his opposition to government proclamations of fasting days because the office of the President had only "temporal powers."

    Despite this, the Times reports that "Mr. Hutson argues that Jefferson did not use the phrase ("wall of separation") to elucidate what the First Amendment says about religious freedom and the state." But that claim, too, is on shaky ground. Jefferson wrote:

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law regarding an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

    The middle portion which refers to "no law regarding an establishment of religion" is from Amendment I. Jefferson's next phrase, "thus building a wall of separation..." clearly refers to the First Amendment, and is a frank statement using a metaphor (the "wall") about the nature of that relationship between religious institutions and the state.

TIMING -- AND ''SNEAK ATTACKS'' ON THE WALL

   The Washington Times story also focuses on an exhibition scheduled to open this Thursday at the Library of Congress titled "Faith of our Forefathers: Religion and the Founding of the American Republic." Curator for the exhibition is Dr. Hutson. Coincidentally, the exhibit opens on the very day when the House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on the Religious Freedom Amendment, although background to the program was presented in a Library of Congress Information Bulletin released in May.

   Separationists will find plenty to argue with, including the tone, selective use of materials, and claims made in the exhibit. Nevertheless, judging from the Information Bulletin, the exhibit is not an apology or whitewash for the role played by religious groups in colonial America or during the period of the early Republic. Under "Persecution, American Style," the bulletin notes that, "The Puritan procedure was to expel dissenters from their colonies... Those who defied the Puritans by persistently returning to their jurisdictions risked capital punishment, a penalty imposed on four Quakers between 1659 and 1661."

    Defaming Jefferson's remarks on the "wall of separation" has become a major project for religious right groups which are seeking a historical rationale in support of school prayer amendments and other measures. The most vitriolic and disingenuous claims emanate from an anti-separationist writer named David Barton, identified with a group ironically called "Wall Builders," based in Aledo, Texas. The organization offers a slew of materials including Barton's book "America's Godly Heritage," which "sets forth the beliefs of many of the famous Founding Fathers concerning the proper role of Christian principles in education, government and the public affairs of the nation," according to a promotional pamphlet.

    But Barton's materials have come under attack for their poor scholarship and unsupported claims; in certain cases, Barton had to withdraw specious or questionable quotes. In the first hour-long video version of "America's Godly Heritage," Barton argued that the "wall of separation" reference by Jefferson was to what Barton called a "one directional" wall which only prohibited government from meddling in the affairs of churches. The "one-directional" reference also appears in Barton's 1989 book "The Myth of Separation," although he does not link the "one directional" phrase to Thomas Jefferson. "The Myth of Separation" is still peddled by Wall Builders and claims that "today's doctrine of 'separation of church and state' is a recent innovation, having no precedent either in American history or jurisprudence." Even so, the "one direction" myth has become a cant in many religious right circles, and stands as a blatant attack on Jefferson's commitment to the separation of church and state.

JEFFERSON -- SEPARATIONIST, DEIST

    While Jefferson did attend religious services during certain portions of his life, today's Washington Times story, and content in the forthcoming Library of Congress Exhibition place considerable emphasis on trying to "rehabilitate" the Founder. Hutson is quoted as arguing that the letter to the Danbury Baptists was "political," noting that two of Jefferson's Cabinet members urged that he moderate his tone in the missive. The newspaper adds, "Mr. Huston said that 'wall' phrase seems even more calculated when documents show that two days after writing the letter, Jefferson began attending Christian worship in the House of Representatives. The president knew his worship would help erase his campaign image as a 'miserable atheist,' Mr. Hutson said, but it also showed that Jefferson decided that traditional religion was important for the morals of the republic."

    But Thomas Jefferson also penned what he termed a "wee little book" titled "The Philosophy of Jesus Christ." He described it as "a paradigm of his doctrines, made by cutting the texts out of the book and arranging them on the pages of a blank book, in a certain order... In extracting the pure principles which he taught, we should have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms as instruments of riches and power for themselves."

    While Jefferson sought wisdom in the alleged elemental teachings of this Jesus, he was skeptical, even hostile, to many organized religious systems and institutions. He wrote, "I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded upon fables and mythologies. The Christian God is a being of terrific character -- cruel, vindictive, capricious, and unjust."

    Considerable evidence exists that Jefferson, like other select Founders, was a "deist," one who embraced the notion of nature, and nature's god. Deism is minimized, even dismissed in the Library of Congress Bulletin describing Thursday's exhibition; but the documents adds that it "rejected the orthodox Christian view of Christ, often viewing him as nothing more than a 'sublime' teacher of morality. Even so, "Deism and some strains of 'liberal religion,' which stressed morality and questioned the divinity of Christ, found advocates among upper class Americans, conspicuous among whom were Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Ben Franklin, but supporters of these views were never more than 'a minority within a minority,' and were submerged by evangelicalism in the 19th century."

The Courts And Thomas Jefferson

    If Jefferson's metaphorical use of a "wall of separation" between government and religion was a "political" move which did nothing to elucidate the nature of the establishment clause, it is certainly a new and highly questionable revelation -- and one lost, apparently, even on the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1947, for instance, the Everson case emerged as the first judicial guideline for the effective separation of church and state. It concerned a New Jersey board of education which provided financial assistance for bus transportation to parents who were sending their children to and from Roman Catholic schools. The high court ruling which struck down that practice noted:

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another... Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State."

   This last quote in the Everson decision is from Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists.

    In an interview with AANEWS this afternoon, Dr. James Hutson warned that while he considered Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist group "political in its motivation," it did not mean that the Founder was not concerned about the relationship between church and government. "It's hard to get inside Jefferson's mind at time," said Hutson. "And the Danbury letter is awfully slippery, we may never be able to figure it out."

   Attempts to dismiss Jefferson's wall as a form of cheap publicity ploy, though, ignore the real significance of the latest FBI findings concerning his letter to the Danbury Baptists. Jefferson's first draft was even more outspoken that the final missive. His "wall" was "eternal," and he more tightly defined the limits of "temporal power." Jefferson's "wall of separation" stands today, a barrier to schemes to meddle with the Constitution and promote dangerous legislative remedies such as the Religious Freedom Amendment.

[text only]