THE “FIGHTIN’” PREACHER PRESIDENT AND SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other, It may seem strange that any men should ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces, but let us judge that we not be judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The almighty has his own purposes. —Abraham Lincoln
I have had many troubles in my life, but the worst of them never came. —James A. Garfield
Man cannot live by bread alone, he must also have peanut butter. —James A. Garfield
James A. Garfield was born on November 19, 1831, in Moreland Hills, Ohio, in a log cabin. His father was a wrestler who died when James was only seventeen months old. He received the most basic of education while growing up. He attended seminary school and worked all manner of odd jobs to help pay for his education He became both a teacher and a preacher, being aligned with the Christian Disciples of Christ church which was the church environment he was reared in. He later attended Williams College in Massachusetts where he would become an excellent debater. He eventually would give up his preaching career and become a teacher of classical languages. It was also at this time that he became very interested in Republican politics. He was for the most part a moderate Republican in his political views. He was not a pro slavery politician, but was not a staunch abolitionist either. He soon would become dissatisfied with teaching, just as he had preaching and began to study the law along with his ever growing interest in politics. He was elected to the Ohio state senate in 1858. At the outbreak of the American Civil War he eagerly sought a commission to serve as an officer in the military but to no avail. Finally after a long struggle and pure dogged determination he obtained a commission as a Lieutenant Colonel in the Union army. He would fight under Union General Don Carlos Buell in the Eastern Kentucky Campaign. Garfield performed his military duties solidly and participated in several battles with good success as a commander. Next, he would participate in the Battle of Shiloh in 1862. He would lead his troops in a weather delayed attempt to reinforce the forces of Ulysses S. Grant. His next military engagement was in the snail paced siege of Corinth, Mississippi. At Corinth, Garfield wanted to pursue the escaping Confederate army aggressively. The chief commanding officer of the siege, General Henry Halleck refused to grant Garfield’s request in his usual caution choked micromanaging ways. Garfield was furious and from then on would always carry with him a disdainful mistrust of any West Point trained military men. Later that year, Garfield contracted a case of infectious hepatitis that stalled his military career. During his long recuperation from the disease he would have to dispel rumors of an alleged extramarital affair. There has never been any proof brought forth to substantiate the rumors. After his recuperation, he returned to active military duty as the chief of staff for General William S. Rosecrans in the Union Army of the Cumberland. The two became very close friends as both were well educated and both were very religious. Garfield was a Christian and Rosecrans was a devout Catholic. They would often be overheard discussing their religious views in their tent well into the night. At the Battle of Chickamauga in 1863, Garfield made a heroic horseback courier ride through Union lines, after his superior Rosecrans made a serious mistake in troop alignment. For this feat, he was promoted to the rank of major general. After this incident at Chickamauga, head Commanding Union General Ulysses S. Grant dismissed Rosecrans from duty and replaced him with Gen. George H. Thomas. Grant was not a big fan of either Rosecrans or Thomas having had issues with each earlier in the war. To muddle the situation further, Garfield had always felt that he should have been chosen by Grant to replace Rosecrans in command. He and Grant had an at best tepid relationship after this incident. Garfield decided to resign his commission with the Union army and returned to politics. Back in late 1862, while still on active duty Garfield had been asked to run for a Congressional seat in the state of Ohio. Now, almost a year later and resigned from the army, he decided to accept the seat he originally had refused in honor of his military commitment. He developed a close alliance with Salmon P. Chase the current Union Secretary of War and began to chamber politically with the Radical Republicans. He had become a strong proponent of any aggressive action designed to whip the Confederacy quickly and totally. He promoted the use of a military draft and was a strong opponent of the greenback economic concept. He was reportedly very tentative toward the idea of Lincoln’s reelection to the presidency in 1864. After Lincoln’s assassination his views moderated much more. He attempted unsuccessfully to be a peacemaker between the United States Congress and President Andrew Johnson who were viciously fighting over the volatile policies of Southern Reconstruction. He regarded the notion of Johnson being impeached by the Congress to be “insane.” Garfield did agree that the United States Senate should have control over the President due to the Tenure of Office Act. Although he would do just the opposite later in his political career when he was later elected as President. Garfield was reelected to a fourth term in Congress in 1868 and a fifth in 1870. He began to lead the government fight on business monopolies in corporate America. He viewed the Federal government practice of bartering contracts to railroads as an evil full of graft and corruption. Despite being anti slavery, but not a staunch abolitionist, he did not support the passage of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871. He stated that it was “the most perplexing piece of legislation I had ever seen.” Garfield would be reelected to congress four more times for a total of nine consecutive terms. He chose to run for President of the United States in the 1880 election and won. He holds the unique distinction of being the only United States President ever elected from the House. He first had been chosen as a U.S. Senator from Ohio. During the presidential campaign he was one of four candidates who were deadlocked in the Republican primary. Garfield narrowly won the nomination. One of the four men he defeated in the primary was Ulysses S. Grant who was running for a third consecutive term as President. By this time the public had grown weary of Republican rule . The Grant administration had been laced with corruption and the constant revealing of scandal after scandal. These public sentiments aided Garfield greatly in his primary victory. Garfield went on into the general election to face and ultimately defeat former Union General Winfield Scott Hancock, (the Democratic candidate), . He would win the popular vote by only about seven thousand votes. He won the electoral college tally by a count of 214 to 55. Garfield became the first United States President ever to be elected from the House and for a short period of time was simultaneously a President elect, Senator elect and sitting Representative. When Garfield took over in the oval office, the number of Federal Government employees had swelled to over one hundred thousand strong. Whenever a new president took office, there was a massive rush by all previous Federal appointees to curry favor with the newly elected President in order to be retained in their current position or to be promoted by the next administration. Federal government growth and the job bureaucracy that had expanded massively out of control since the civil wars end had become a grotesque political lobbying monster, full of patronage, cronyism, and favoritism. Garfield saw this as a major problem that was growing steadily larger, was chocked full of greed, corruption, and political cronyism that had to be reformed. One of the top goals of his new administration would be civil service reform. His goal was to have all civil service positions regulated by law. Positions would be maintained based on merit and would not subject the incoming president to a process that would take months of deciding who should be placed in federal positions. His first move as president was designed to clean up the corruption in the postal service. The postal service had been rife with corruption under the Grant administration. There were astounding numbers of what were called star routes. These were nonexistent mail routes, where federal funds were used to pay certain entities with government money in order to pay off, reward, appease, bribe or pad the pocket of certain individuals. Garfield advocated the use of limited terms for certain appointees and the imposition of numerous laws that those who served the government in any capacity were subject to. As Garfield dug into government corruption he found more and more snakes under the rocks he turned over. He would soon learn that even his chief of staff was involved in certain incidences. Garfield in his short four month stint as our President also pushed for the new concept of universal education. Chinese immigration was becoming a growing issue that had to be dealt with as well. A large influx of Chinese immigrants on the west coast were creating employment issues as well as a new brand of racial issues. Garfield also pushed for a substantial revitalization of the United States Navy. Only into his fourth month of service as President, Garfield’s wife, Lucretia, came down concurrently with malaria and spiral meningitis and became gravely ill. Garfield rushed to her side and faithfully served and cared for her. She would make a near miraculous recovery. Garfield was never aware of the fact that he was being stalked by a disgruntled federal office seeker that had been planning his assassination. Charles J. Guiteau was a member of a group called the Stalwart Republicans. Guiteau was a pure radical politically who was severely disturbed both mentally and emotionally. Guiteau had already made his plans to assassinate Garfield at the Washington D.C. train depot., There was no secret service detail to protect the President in those days even though it had only been sixteen years since the Lincoln Assassination. Thus Guiteau was allowed to walk directly through the train station and approach Garfield from behind. Guiteau shot Garfield twice from behind with a .44 caliber revolver. One bullet struck Garfield in the arm and another entered his back. Garfield stated as he was shot, “My God what is this.” Guieteau shouted during the shooting, “I am a Stalwart of Stalwarts! I did it and I want to be arrested! Arthur is President now.” There was a brief period of time after the assassination attempt when rumors circulated that Vice President Chester A. Arthur was involved in the conspiracy. There was never any evidence to support this allegation. Charles J. Guiteau was a man who apparently lived in his own little carefully constructed world. He had previously sought several Federal appointments with no luck. He had recently sought the position of Consul of Paris but was turned down. He approached Garfield’s Secretary of State James G. Blaine about obtaining the position. Blaine had flatly denied Guiteau the appointment, stating that Guiteau had no qualifications for the position. In addition, Blaine had banned Guiteau from the White House due to his erratic and threatening behavior. Guiteau had apparently given a political speech in Garfield’s behalf during the Presidential campaign and was under the false sense of belief that his speech had given Garfield the Presidency. Iit was later found out that heoften suffered from delusions of grandeur. It was also later determined that he fully believed after the assassination attempt that he had done the right thing and would be fully acquitted of any crime. He had always lived a very erratic life in general. His mother died when he was very young child. He attempted to attend college, but could not pass the entrance exams. He joined a Utopian group marriage sect in his youth, but was kicked out for being insane. He somehow became a lawyer and somehow passed the bar exam, only to be constantly up before Judicial disciplinary committees because of his many dissatisfied and enraged clients. He also tried preaching and writing as careers. His writings were quickly deemed as plagiarism and his preaching was described as rambling and nonsensical. He once survived a ship wreck and became convinced that God had saved him for use in some great purpose. Guiteau’s trial was as bizarre and as crazy as he was. He wanted to serve as his own defense. When this request was denied by the presiding judge, his lawyers sought an insanity defense. Guiteau fought with his own lawyers over this issue. Guiteau’s stance was that while he was insane at the time of the shooting, he was in no way truly medically insane. During the trial he cursed anyone and everyone in his path, including prosecutors, his own legal team, the judge, and the jurors. He wrote poems about his testimony. He wrote an autobiography and ended it with a solicitation for a young Christian lady under the age of thirty to marry him. He once argued that the bullets he fired into the president’s body did not kill President Garfield, but instead the President’s death was due to medical malpractice. He wrote letters to Chester A. Arthur requesting that he be released from all responsibility in exchange for “handing Arthur the presidency.” He was fully planning a national post incarceration lecture tour. The jury found him guilty on January 25, 1882. Upon hearing the reading of the guilty verdict, he stepped forward and called the jurors a bunch of jackasses. He appealed the conviction and lost. He was quickly sentenced to be executed by hanging. He wrote a poem that he requested to be read at his execution and also asked for an orchestra to be playing during the poems reading. Charles J. Guiteau was hung to death on June 30th, 1882. The gun he had used to assassinate President Garfield was placed on display at the Smithsonian Institute for a period of time, but has since been mysteriously lost. Part of his brain is on display at the Nutter Museum in Philadelphia and the National Museum of Health and Medicine in Maryland. It is very likely that Guiteau had contracted syphilis in his early years while in the open marriage sect he had joined. It is also reported that he was briefly married when he was younger to a woman who soon would divorce him on grounds of adultery. She later stated that she had suspected him of frequently visiting prostitutes. By the time of Garfield’s assassination it is likely that Guiteau was in the late stage three phase of syphilitic infection, which attacks and destroys the brain matter. Notorious Chicago gangster Al Capone suffered from this same disease. It leaves the sufferer incoherent, demented, and in a constant state of erratic and sometimes dangerously violent behavior as the brain tissue is literally consumed by the bacteria. It is now fairly common medical opinion and knowledge that James Garfield would have likely survived his bullet wounds without any surgical intervention even with modern-day medicine. His doctors at the time were completely lacking in the knowledge and science of bacterial infection and use of any sort of aseptic technique. They repeatedly probed his wounds with non sterile instruments in attempts to locate and remove the bullet in his back. This led to a massive systemic bacterial infection that ultimately resulted in his death. The bullet that entered Garfield’s back did fracture one of the Presidents vertebra, but the shell did not contact or damage his spinal cord in any way. It was thought by his doctors then, to be lodged behind his liver. It was in fact later found to be lodged behind the President’s pancreas. Alexander Graham Bell had recently invented a machine much like the modern X ray machine and used it in an attempt to help the physicians to locate the bullet. It was thought that the device failed because of the metal bed springs. The bullet would have in fact been located by the device had they performed the procedure from the other side of Garfield’s body. As the President’s condition worsened, he suffered in extreme pain and with a very high fever. That particular summer in Washington was a very warm one, which added to the Presidents misery. A Naval Engineer placed a chest filled with six tons of ice in the Presidents room. It was connected to an elaborate system of coils and cotton to aid in drying the cooler air. It was a take on the world’s first air conditioner and was capable of lowering the room temperature by as much as twenty-degree Fahrenheit. James A. Garfield died on September 19, 1881, at the age of forty-nine. He is buried in a cemetery named after him in Cleveland, Ohio. A few little known facts about Garfield: Garfield was the last “log cabin president.” Being born in a log cabin has traditionally always been a symbol of American virtue and simplicity. Garfield liked to study geometry and even proposed his own theorem on triangles. He was also an excellent juggler. Garfield was multilingual and ran his political campaigns as such often speaking to potential immigrant voters in their own language quite fluently. Garfield’s mother was the first mother of a President to ever attend a Presidential inauguration. He was completely ambidextrous and could write clearly with both hands and could even write with both hands at the same time.
Since James Garfield was a preacher prior to his Civil War and political career, I think this would be the proper place to discuss the issue of our countries Constitution, its founding fathers, and their ever so controversial relationship to religion. First, it should be pointed out that I am not necessarily making on argument for or against a particular viewpoint. I am simply trying to encourage each person as an individual to do his own responsible research free of preconceived notions, ideas, or partisan theories. In other words formulate your own opinion. Don’t be indoctrinated by anyone. There are plenty of sources out there, some are good and some are bad. The internet can be a fantastic source of information. However it can also be the men’s room wall in a truck stop. If you selectively search for support of an extreme political viewpoint either to the left or the right you can almost certainly find it. If you attempt to find websites that paint our countries Founding Fathers as atheists, you will find them. In contrast you may be able to find a site at the other end of the spectrum that portrays the Founding Fathers as the reincarnated Apostles of Jesus Christ. Just because it is on the internet does not make it true. Even if it is in print it may be grotesquely distorted. And even if it is on a reputable website, it could still be politically twisted . Be careful and use your common sense. The real truth as it usually is, lies somewhere in the great chasm between. To start this discussion, I think it is very fair to say that no one can state with one hundred percent accuracy that they know beyond a shadow of a doubt what the innate belief system was of each man that participated in the founding our great nation. There is some clarity in most cases But it is not always crystal clear. To fog the issue further, many human beings have been known to change their worldview throughout their lives, sometimes permanently to one view and sometime coming full circle back to their original view. Many of the events, successes, failures, and tragedies that occur throughout life can alter or change our personal views. Our education, upbringing, authority figures, media, and life experiences as a whole can leave indelible marks that help to form our opinions and beliefs. Even many people who profess to be believers in the worldview of Christianity will honestly admit that their perception of who God really is and what He is like is constantly changing. In attempting to find answers for this controversy, we must first honestly answer this question. What was the primary reason that caused the majority of people to leave their homeland in England and travel to the New World and settle on the North American continent? The primary and correct answer was to practice free religion. It is not the only single reason, but it was the major reason in most cases. They wished to have the freedom to practice whatever view, sect, denomination, or none at all that they wished. In Europe, they were told what church they had to attend. There were no alternatives, no options, and no room for dissent. In other words: no religious freedom. During and prior to this period on the European continent as a whole, Catholicism was the state sponsored religion. It had been so for centuries. And it wielded incredible corporate, political, and even some degree of military power. This growth and absolute type power aided in corrupting the church at times. I wish to make it very, very clear that I am not condemning Catholicism in any way. I am just reiterating what seems to be a part of the historical record. The Protestant Reformation would be the main platform from which the main challenge to Roman Catholic church authority would come. The kindling event that would spark this world changing movement occurred in Germany in the year 1517. The Reformation’s pioneer was Martin Luther, an Augustinian Monk. Luther would later explain his despondency and feelings of hopelessness as a monk in the Church. He explained that he always felt that no matter how hard he tried or what duties or “good works” he performed for God or in the service of God, that he always knew deep in his heart that he would never be able to do enough to make up for his shortcomings and sin. Luther knew that he could never earn God’s favor. One day while reading the biblical New Testament Book of Galatians, which was actually a letter written by the Apostle Paul to the first century Christian church in the province of Galatia, he read the words “the just shall live by faith.” The effect of the passage was liberating as well as life-changing to Luther. Luther began to put together the famous ninety-five thesis which he eventually nailed to the church door. These thesis challenged the church and its corruption, greed, and politics as well as the concepts of purgatory and the buying of indulgences. The fire was kindled. The pope condemned Luther’s protest, considered him a heretic, and soon Luther was excommunicated from Germany. Luther spent his time well and translated the Holy Scriptures into German. The invention of the printing press soon occurred and this made the Holy Scriptures more readily available to the common man. An interesting side note on this issue is that an event known as the Thirty Years War occurred just one hundred years after Luther’s Protest. From 1616 to1648, the Thirty Years War which was for the most part a religious war which would claim somewhere between 25 and 40 percent of the entire German population.
The Protestant Reformation resulted in the formation of the many denominations and sects that exist today, Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, and others. These new denominations led to much strife and even violence between the Protestants and the Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church regarded all Protestant views as heresies and did it's best to attempt to eradicate them. Besides Luther, another man from France named John Calvin would take part in the Reformation. I mention this here because Calvin’s theistic views would have a great influence on many people in the Confederate States of America. Calvin was a strong proponent of the Doctrine of Predestination. The Doctrine believed that virtually everything about man and mankind was predetermined by God in advance. Even events such as a man’s eternal salvation or even the enslavement of a nation were events that God either preordained or allowed to happen as part of his unquestionable providence and plan for mankind. Calvinism and these attendant beliefs played a major role in the lives of many American Civil War Generals in the South. Support or toleration of the institution of slavery was often attributed to Calvinistic principle. To further complicate religious matters in England, in the year 1534, King Henry the VIII requested that the Catholic Church grant him a divorce from one of the many wives he had in his lifetime. The Catholic Church had very strong views against the breaking of the marriage covenant between a man and a woman and refused to grant the King’s request. Henry decided to take matters into his own hands, and since he was king, decided to create his own church. It was basically a copy of the Roman Catholic Church with some rule modifications that suited Henry. It was called the Church of England. Today it exists under the name of the Anglican or Episcopal Church. If one lived in England during this historical period, you had no choice but to attend the Church of England or the Catholic Church. This resulted in individuals who were members of Protestant denominations seeking a way to practice their own religious view as they saw fit. Since England’s law did not allow that, they began to travel to the New World to practice free religion and to escape what they saw as tyranny and forced religion by the state. It should be noted here that the Christian Church at this time was Roman Catholic throughout the then known world and had been for well over a millennia. During the Middles and the Dark Ages, it underwent great upheaval. Larger numbers of individuals had become increasingly frustrated with the graft, corruption, and over reach of political authority that the church was practicing, and rightfully so.
Another factor that further muddied the water was that mankind was in the middle of the so-called Age of Enlightenment. As man had progressed scientifically, he began to question the origins of his existence, the authority of the Church, and religious views as a whole. New philosophies, such as Free Thought, the Age of Reason, and various humanistic type views began to form. This created a new and so-called progressive, culture of reason, and logic that challenged and in some cases replaced the traditional church views of miracles, prophecy, and divine revelation. It was a case of man’s self-induced sense of greatness and brilliance being more profound than God's. It was a movement founded on progressive ideas and the deification of man. There was a group of old school traditionalists who held tightly to the traditional Judao-Christian views and a group of newly liberated idealists. Those at the left end of the spectrum who aspired to belief in the totality of mans brilliance and rejected all old fashion views, even extending their liberation into breaching and questioning virtually all aspects of traditional morality. The largest group in the middle with its various sets and subsets incorporated beliefs and ideas of both camps into all forms of viewpoints. This same dilemma has been playing out over the last century in the United States in an even more magnified manner with the majority of people by far in the middle attempting to incorporate traditional religious views with those of the Secular Humanistic view. In Europe during the eighteenth century, a new religious view called Deism had taken shape. Just like Secular Humanism has muddied the religious waters today, Deism was doing so during the time of the early settlers in America. Deism is a belief in God, a belief in a divine Creator of the Universe and the Creator of Man. However Deism differs from Christianity in that it believes man’s logic and reasoning is enough to question all traditional religious ideas. It is an attempt to explain away, refute, criticize, or discount the concept of the inerrant nature of the Scriptures, Divine Revelation, Miracles and Prophecy. It has a billion different forms. A Deist may believe in full part or none at all in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, The Bible, Prophecy, Jesus Christ as God, or any traditional religious view that each and every individual so desires, much like modern Secular Humanism. A Deist by definition believes in God. The base belief is that God created man and the universe. However this is where the divergence from traditional Judaeo Christian values begins. A Deist believes that while God was the Creator, he is not interested much in his creation and is not intimately involved in mankind’s affairs nor intimately involved in each individual’s life. The Deist believes that God created and then left his creation to the whim of natural laws. The soon to follow Theory of Evolution by Charles Darwin and the Socialist Communist political theory of Karl Marx would serve to enhance and advance these deistic type views. Here is a statement that must be kept in mind for this discussion. A Deist is not a Secular Humanist. Let me say that again: A Deist is not the same as a Secular Humanist. The Secular Humanist Manifesto clearly and unequivocally states in its first line that “we do not believe in God.” It also has no room for Creationist theory. Secular Humanism by its own definition is atheistic. A true Deist is no more a Secular Humanist than a dog is an elephant. The very term Deist derives from the Latin word dues, which means God or deity. A Deist is not an atheist or even an agnostic (someone who doubts the existence of God). A Deist believes in a divine Creator. By the same token, a true Deist would not automatically be excluded from being considered a true Christian but usually if not almost always is. The following factors help to explain why. A Deist who holds to any of the following tenets cannot be called a Christian (this is not an exhaustive list):
1. Belief that the Bible is not the Inspired Word of God 2. Non belief in the concept of the Trinity 3. Rejection of Jesus Christ as the Son of God who appeared in the flesh 4. Rejection of the concept of Absolute Truth and Absolute Morality 5. Rejection of Salvation through Jesus Christ’s redemptive work and Atoning death on the Cross 6. Non belief in celestial beings such as angels and demons, (not ghosts). 7. Non belief in the concept of Good and Evil. 8. No belief in an afterlife 9. Selective removal of Scriptures and morals from the Holy Scriptures that you do not personally agree with
Examples of Combined Christian Secular Humanist and Deistic Views:
1) I believe in God and Evolutionary theory. 2) It is okay to be Homosexual or adulterous and Christian. 3) It is okay to be unmarried and in an intimate relationship and be Christian. 4) Jesus was a good moral teacher but not the Son of God. 5) I believe in Jesus, but the Bible is outdated. 6) I believe in Jesus, but the Bible was written by man and therefore must be full of mistakes. 7) I believe in God and Jesus, but not the Trinity. 8) God loves everyone and would therefore never allow or send anyone to hell. 9) Parsing of the Scriptures and legislating your own personal moral code. 10) God exists but does not care about mankind because too many bad things happen. 11) I believe in heaven but not in hell. 12) I believe in God but not Satan.
Looking as objectively as possible at our founding fathers and the depth and details of their various worldviews would be a whole work in itself. In searching numerous seemingly neutral sources, it seems very fair to say that almost all had some degree of religious affiliation. It is also very fair to say that with most being well educated, they were influenced to varying degrees by the Deistic philosophies prevalent in their era. In other words there were doses of Deism and Christianity in many of them. The degree and balance of each philosophy in each and every founders psyche is very difficult to determine with utmost certainty. Their religious views may have spanned a very broad and diverse panorama. One thing is quite clear, there is virtually no evidence that they were atheists or even agnostics. Some were apparently much more Deistic in philosophy than others and some were seemingly devout Christians with many being somewhere in the broad gap in the middle. They were seasoned to varying degrees with views or leanings toward various Deistic Principles. This is a similar but not quite the same parallel we see today with Christian based churches and individual members of those churches attempting to incorporate Secular Humanistic views with Christianity. My question is this: How can one harmonize theistic views with views that are atheistic in base philosophy. This is illogical and unreasonable to me. The two very simple words, yes and no, do not mean nor can they even imply the same thing. With each successive age of human existence, man has always gone through periods where he felt so sure of himself and confident in his own worth and ability that he began to feel self-sufficient .. No obstacle was too great to overcome and no problem too complex to solve. The Bible refers to this as being prideful. And it should also be noted that it is considered one of the seven deadly sins . The problem is that every great world civilization that has ever existed has basically imploded with the slow march of corruption and moral decay starting from within,. Overconfidence, self-sufficiency scientific progress, the perfect political system, or the ideal nation, have never sustained any world civilization . Those old problems of pride, greed, self indulgence, lust, disease, death, thirst for wealth and power, and dishonesty always seem to rear up and lead to mans downfall. Despite the wonderful and brilliant advances mankind has achieved scientifically and technologically, it has never saved him. Despite almost miraculous discoveries in medicine throughout the ages we still get sick, we still will die. We seemingly conquer one disease and feel good about it, (and we should). But new diseases always manage to pop up to present new challenges, new ways to get sick and still we will ultimately expire. This is not to say we should not continue to try, to search, to push on; but in this cosmos, there are way too many things that are well beyond our control. Another point I wish to make is that all man made theories and worldviews based on reason and logic contain one major factor that we cannot deny or overlook. It is the elephant in the room. It is the one aspect of man that almost anyone will agree is a given in every human being’s makeup. Nobody is perfect. Humankind is flawed. We are not perfect. We make bad decisions. We show poor judgment. We let our emotions rule over our common sense. We are lazy, gluttonous, horribly capable of telling lies, being dishonest, being uncaring; and we are all guilty way too often of looking out for number one, regardless of the negative impact it has on others. In other words, “I want what I want when I want it and to hell with everyone else.” It makes sense to me that if we are capable of any of the misdeeds above or any other manner of error, does it not logically follow that our logic and reason can be flawed as well? How many human beings can honestly say that they have never thought, acted, or behaved in an unreasonable manner. How often have each of us had unreasonable thoughts? Have you ever arrived at a logical conclusion that ended up being wrong?
Let us now apply a simple test to make a point before moving to the next issue. Question: What does the following statement mean? I am placing a partition next to my kid’s room to separate it from the rest of the house.
Next question: Could the previous statement mean more than one thing depending on who and how it is interpreted?
It could mean: My kid’s room is open on one side, and we wish to enclose their room in order to give them privacy. It could also mean: The kids are too noisy, and I need to help eliminate the noise and distraction. It could also mean: The house needs a wall redone. It could also mean: I don’t want the kids to be allowed in any other part of the house. It could also mean: Creation of a barrier, but not a wall that simply changes the design in the house and has nothing to do with the kids being good or bad.
Taking it to the extreme either way the statement could mean:
1. I am putting up a piece of cardboard, folded accordion style, and am going to stand it on end next to my kid’s room so that the view is blocked. 2. It could in the further extreme mean that I am building a concrete wall reinforced with iron bars to prevent the kids from ever exiting the room for any reason. They will not be allowed to eat dinner with us, being served food under the door. They will not be allowed to use the bathroom and will be issued slop jars. They will not go to school or be allowed to go out and play. There will be limited if any parent-child interaction. Their room is their room, and what they do in it is their business.
Both views are certainly possible, but are they likely to be correct in most cases? Would either of these choices be the first one you picked if you were a contestant on family feud and were posed this question for the grand prize?
My whole point is this: The context of any statement is always significant to its meaning. What factors were present at the exact time the statement was made? The facts of my partition statement could be that the family is poor and live in a three room lean to, and all they can afford is an accordion piece of cardboard to divide off the kid’s room. It could also mean the parent hates his kids and never wants to deal with them again. If the statement was made by ten thousand different people, what are the chances that the two above situations were actually meant? I would say five out of the ten thousand would be a generous number. The truth of the matter is simple. It is easy for human beings to take one statement and literally interpret it an almost infinite number of ways. The context means everything, not to mention the feeling that may have been behind the statement. A second truth about all humans is that we tend to read things into what others say as well as believe what suits us and our lifestyle. We also do a very good job of embellishing the truth as well as flat-out lie. All of these factors combined make our understandings and interpretations extremely susceptible to error if we are not careful.
This now brings me to the following portion of a statement that was made by Thomas Jefferson on January 1, 1802: “Thus building a firm wall of separation between church and state.”
Of course this statement portion was made in the famous Danbury letter which has been interpreted, reinterpreted, and misinterpreted a million times over. It has been selectively used by many on the modern left to promote the idea that America was an atheistic nation founded on secular principles only. It has been parsed and scrutinized by some on the extreme right who have almost insisted on denying Jefferson ever said it. What he really meant by the statement is a bit trickier interpretation. Most reliable sources that are more interested in presenting historical fact rather than opinion, portray Jefferson as a Deist for the most part. If he in fact was a Deist, he could not be an atheist. By the same token, if he was primarily a Deist, he could not be considered a devout Christian Zealot either. The original letter was written by the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut. (The text of the letter from The Danbury Baptist Association as well as Thomas Jefferson's response are included at the end of this post). Connecticut was the state where the majority of New World Baptists settled and felt the most comfortable practicing their religious views. They were a smaller group of Protestants at this time in our country’s history compared to several of the other denominations present in the United States. It should be noted that the Baptists chose not to participate in the Constitutional Conventions because of their fears that the new colonial government would, just like in the mother land, establish a state run government controlled religious establishment, This was the sole concern they had when they corresponded with Jefferson. Let us look at Jefferson’s response closer. Jefferson kindly and graciously assured the Danbury Baptist’s that the newly formed government did not have and never did have any intention of picking, choosing, or creating a state religion. There would be no Law, no prohibition, and no enforcement by governing powers to make the people bow down to any specific religion. Seemingly, the letter in no way implies, and it certainly does not say that one should be or will have to be a Christian, an Atheist or a Deist. In direct contrast it does not say that being a Christian, Atheist, or Deist is good, bad, or ugly. The government will allow you to practice your worldview freely “free exercise of” without government interference or enforcement. You would not be made to worship and you would not be exposed to taxation that would support one dominant government religion over all others. In other words the government intends to stay out of your religious choice.
Does Jefferson’s statement "wall of separation between church and state" mean that never is the word God or religion to be uttered within five hundred miles of the capitol rotunda? Did he mean that you can go to church if you want to, but that all government and law in this new country will be without God and His moral teachings? Did he imply that there is no God? (As a Deist he could not have.) Did he mean that our newly formed government will be so reasonable, logical, and brilliant that we do not need God's help? Was his letter condescending to the Baptist’s where what he was really saying was, if you naive traditionalists want to practice your pathetic old fashioned values go ahead, but us more enlightened individuals know better and are not going to succumb to such spiritualistic nonsense? Let me be clear that I am not criticizing Christianity with my next point. I am criticizing those Christians who parse the Scriptures and take out one or two verses and build an entire theology around them without taking the Scriptures context, the culture, and it's historical context, into consideration. Those on the extreme right will often portray those on the extreme left end of the political spectrum as evil pagans. Those on the extreme left seem to think those to the right of them are unenlightened, not as intelligent, and out of the loop. In other words, conservative traditionalists are not part of the Mod Squad. The Mod Squad believes in self—worship. They act as if, and may I dare say it, like all knowledge has been divinely revealed to them and only them. They are the chosen ones. Those of the more left persuasion treat the Danbury letter as a “sacred text” because of one single line. They deliberately ignore the remainder of the discussion in order to use one line that fits their own personal views. Their Deology (worship of a deity) is humanism. Man is great, man is good, let us thank evolution for that dude, “Amen.”
The final question about Separation of Church and State is this. Did the Founding Fathers use Biblical Christian type principles when they wrote our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. The truest answer is probably yes, but to what degree could be manufactured into another book. Why did they most obviously place the word God or god, Creator or creator in the original document that they all signed? It would appear that they used a capital G and a capital C on both counts .That in itself is a strong indicator of their belief and over all agreement in something much bigger than man. How much of the equation was from Deist belief versus Christian belief is virtually impossible to ascertain with any sense of surety. One should notice when reading the Danbury correspondence that Jefferson’s tone throughout the entire Danbury Letter seems very kind, considerate, and gracious. While he was penning the letter and it is certainly possible, but I think highly unlikely, that in the back of Jefferson’s mind he was really thinking, "Danbury Baptists I think your religious view is backward, petty, and silly. But I assure you we will let you practice your religion as you see fit. But don’t you dare try to force your moral code or religion on our new and brilliant man-made government that is so wonderful and perfect that it needs no god and no moral code except what we brilliant men see as fit, thus freely building a firm wall of separation between church and state.” It is also possible, but just as unlikely that Jefferson was really thinking as he wrote. I assure you Danbury Baptists that our new government will not only allow you to practice your religious views freely, and also intend to the letter of the law to incorporate everything Biblical and that is part of your moral code into our laws. We will not force a religious view on anyone nor will we have a state run religion. But we will enact your moral code throughout the land thus building a firm wall of separation between church and state. I think or at least I hope you see both these examples of extreme views as absurd to ridiculous. However in the grand scheme of things, it is possible ever so minutely. This brings me to the final point in this discussion. We need to carefully select our words when we make statements. If we state that we know something to be true, what we are really saying is that it is a fact. We are saying that we can produce concrete touchable evidence that can be proven demonstrated or duplicated. In other words what we believe to be true versus what we know to be true are two entirely separate entities. A perfect examples of this is the great debate between evolution vs. creationism. In both theories there are some facts that can be used to help support or contradict either. There are way too many gaps and unanswered questions in both arenas for anyone to state that they know either to be true. Neither theory as a whole is an indisputable fact. Furthermore both theories are based on many assumptions. The assumptions are far to intricate to go into in any detail in this text. Human beings can and do assume many things. When we meet an individual for the first time we often develop an impression of them. Sometimes our first impression is correct and sometimes it is not. s human beings we make judgments, right or wrong, about other people and issues all the time. Fact is not assumption. Example: That guy must be a slob since his clothes are dirty and his hair is unkempt. That guy is an alcoholic since he was so drunk. The slob may be a real slob or he may have just gotten off work from a job that causes him to get dirty and he has not had a chance to change clothes and bathe yet. The drunk may very well be an alcoholic. Or you may have met him on one of the few days in his life that he drank too much. After all, haven’t the majority of people you know, done just that at least once in their life including yourself. Human beings are rash, impetuous, self centered, and full of all types of preconceived notions of what is right in them and wrong in others. In other words we are prejudiced. To put it bluntly we as humans far too often assume way too much to be fact about someone without truly knowing at least some if not all of the facts about the whole person and whole issue. To sum this whole discussion up, extremists make way too many assumptions about what the basis and entire scope of the Danbury letter entails in order to suit their worldview and their Deology or Theology. We can far too easily make numerous assumptions that this is what Jefferson really meant when he responded to the Danbury Baptist Association. The exact words written in the letter are seemingly fact, although you still have to assume that the version or copy you are reading is authentic and is an exact rendering as Thomas Jefferson wrote it over two hundred years ago. If you were reading any copy of the letter that has been altered by adding or deleting a word here and there or even if the punctuation has been changed, your own opinion and developing view could be altered or influenced falsely. Read it for what it says, attempt as best you can to keep it in its proper context. That is, the proper context of the historical period it was written in. Avoid altering or twisting it yourself in order to bend it in the direction you want it to go. Do not assume that you know the mind of Thomas Jefferson, every detail about his own personal worldview, not to mention how he truly felt about the issue over two hundred years ago. It should be noted that Jefferson in the letters closing stated that he reciprocated the "prayers" of the Danbury Association. He also capitalized the words, Father and Creator, in the text of the letter which strongly imply his belief in a Deity. He also states that government legislation should provide "actions and not opinions". Legislative action and not opinion . . . interesting, Just a little more food for thought.
APPENDIX Thomas Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists – Full Text
The address of the Danbury Baptists Association in the state of Connecticut, assembled October 7, 1801.
To Thomas Jefferson, Esq., President of the United States of America.
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
Thomas Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptist Association
To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
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.
Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802