The Irony of Quoting Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists

During the debate on same-sex civil unions some of the state legislators alluded with pride to Thomas Jefferson's famous Letter to the Danbury Baptists. The concept of a "wall of separation between church and state" does not appear in the U.S. Constitution but in this letter. The state's legislators obviously felt their actions would yet again confirm Connecticut's preeminence in dealing with such issues and that they were somehow acting in continuity with the citizens of Danbury, CT, in 1802.

What irony! The arguments offered in the debate were much closer to what this letter opposed than to what it established. The Connecticut state legislature is on the wrong side of this today, as it was back then.

Jefferson's letter was a response to a petition by the Baptist citizens of Danbury, CT, protesting the de facto establishment of Congregationalism as the state-endorsed religion.

The Baptist complaint was that the Connecticut state constitution did not prohibit the state from legislating about religious matters. As a consequence, they argued, "...what religious privileges we [Baptists] 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."

The "degrading acknowledgements" referenced here refers to a system of religious taxation that forced many Connecticut Baptists to support the established Congregationalist church. According to church/state scholar Derek Davis, Connecticut law allowed the Baptists to rout (sic) their religious taxes to their own churches, but this involved locating and filling out an exemption certificate, and many Connecticut communities either made it difficult to obtain the certificates, or refused to approve the exemptions once submitted (see, "What Jefferson's Metaphor Really Means," Liberty, Jan/Feb, 1997, p. 13). Beyond this, the Baptists found the law unjust and discriminatory in that it favored Congregationalism over other denominations.

from: Separation of Church and State web site

The final version of Jefferson's reply is very short,

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.

Where's the irony?

1) The supreme irony, of course, is that this debate featured alot of religious argument, and the denomination whose arguments were endorsed by the proponents of this legislation is the historic descendant of the Congregationalism the Danbury Baptists complained about.

In spite of their assertion that "this is not a religious issue," one of the most common themes in the legislators' speeches was disparagement of religion; that is, certain forms of religion. A complete catalogue of arguments used by proponents of this legislation would have to include the bitter-former-practicing-Catholic argument and the my-small-minded-religious-relative story. The debate was very long on personal anecdote. The anti-unenlightened-religion anecdote was much more common than the emotionally cloying stigma-of-homsexuality story, though the latter was used to open the debate in both the state Senate and House. It seems that those who spoke most about separation of church and state also spoke the most about religion.

The only religious denomination that was cited favorably was the United Church of Christ, which joined with Love Makes a Family and the ACLU in lobbying for same-sex marriage. The fact that the UCC endorses same-sex marriage was used to argue that there is no consensus among people of faith on this issue, and, therefore, the religiously-informed opinion of Connecticut's citizens, unless they hold to the views of the UCC, are automatically disqualified.

Once again, the Congregationalists are endorsed by the state of Connecticut, and the rest of us are disparaged. (By Congregationalist, of course, I'm talking about those churches that remain in the UCC. Those Congregationalist churches that have left the UCC over this issue get the same treatment as the rest of us unenlightened types.)

2) It is ironic that the petition of the Danbury Baptists involved the unfairness of requiring an exemption for the free practice of religion, while the current state legislature denied an exemption for those religious organizations for whom recognizing same-sex marriages is "contrary to the bona fide religious tenets" of the organization. Once again, Lawlor, "Religious organizations should not be exempt from recognizing, respecting and honoring same-sex civil unions."

3) It is ironic that the main intent of Jefferson's response was to assert that religion is an inalienable right, a "natural right," not a mere concession of the Connecticut state legislature. Jefferson asserted the rights of conscience of religious people, "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 ..."

Yet the Connecticut state legislature, in voting against an exemption for religious organizations, trampled all over the rights of religious conscience, which though actually enumerated in the Constitution is apparently expendable while the right to sodomy is not. Their arguments disenfranchised religion, especially when they claimed that "civil rights" and "religion" are mutually exclusive, forgetting that religious expression and freedom of conscience are a constitutionally guaranteed civil right.

4) It is ironic that Jefferson said, "the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions." But the purpose of Connecticut's recent legislation is precisely to regulate opinion.

The goal of this legislation is to confer social acceptance on homosexual relationships. Rep. Michael Lawlor, "This was a discussion about ... private attitudes towards homosexuality. That is really what is at the heart of this … That’s what it is all about. And recognition of same-sex marriage is the most symbolic acknowledgement that homosexuality simply appears to be a normally ocurring phenomenon in nature." This legislation is mere symbol, what it's really all about is private attitude and social opinion.

5) Finally, it is ironic that Jefferson signed his letter, "I ... tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem."

The legislators' accusations of hatred, bigotry, ignorance, extremism, propensity toward violence, and so on, was offensive and insulting, very different from the high respect and esteem Jefferson affirmed, and much more blatantly "degrading acknowledgments" than the Danbury Baptists complained about.