Last Updated on Friday, 05 December 2008 19:47 Written by Greg Thursday, 04 December 2008 20:00

I made a passing comment in my post on voting that I want to follow up on here.  I prefer to talk about things in this order, because what I am going to suggest here could be costrued differently than my previously described disposition would intend. 

I am regularly disgruntled by the general ignorance with which people so emphatically argue their position on "church and state."  I mean ignorance in a non-derogatory way: lack of information.  But maybe the issue is bad information.  One of my favorite moments in television was when I witnessed Larry King suggest to James Dobson that Dobson's political position needed to deal with the "constitutional" separation between church and state.  Dobson calmly informed a confused Larry King that the constitution makes no mention of "separation between church and state," nor does the Bill of Rights or the Declaration of Indepedece or any other governing document.  The phrase was taken from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist association. 

Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists

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.

It is not insignificant that this was the phrase Jefferson chose to interpret the First Amendment, but the phrase itself needs interpretation in its context.  The letter indicates what was at stake in the minds of these Christians: that there should not be a state religion that would impede their rights or wield undue influence in a legal ("established") sense.  That was, of course, what colonials had escaped, and that was the historical context that birthed and shaped the First Amendment.  

All of that is to say, those who suggest that churches or religious groups should not, on constitutional grounds, be allowed to wield their influence do not understand the point of the First Amendment.  It was not meant to prevent Christians from having a vote as a body.  Democratically, Christians have every bit as much right to ban together, petition, and jockey as does a labor union, a minority group, or anyone else.  It was not meant to prevent religiously motivated moral scruples from becoming legislation, if that be the result of the democratic process.  It has a very limited intention: to keep all denominations on the same ground, establishing no preference for any one.  Of course, more extended interpretation is the domain of the Supreme Court, but I think the historical intention is pretty clear.