BVOV Magazine 2013 - present

B V O V : 2 3 belongs to the church and what to the State." That court identified actions that the government did have legitimate reason to intrude upon. Those activities included human sacrifice, polygamy, infanticide, promotion of immorality, etc. Such acts, even in the name of religion, would be stopped by the government since they were "subversive of good order" and "overt acts against peace." However the government was never to interfere with traditional religious practices—public prayer, use of the Scriptures, public acknowledgements of God, etc.—outlined in "the Books of the Law and the Gospel." Original Intent If Thomas Je•erson's letter is to be used today, let its context be clearly given. Earlier courts viewed his Danbury letter for what it was: a personal, private letter to a specific group. There is probably no other instance in America's history where the words of an individual in a private letter—words clearly divorced from their context— have become the sole authorization for a national policy. A proper analysis of Mr. Je•erson's views must include his numerous other statements on the First Amendment—not just that of the Danbury letter. For example, in addition to statements previously noted, he also declared that the "power to prescribe any religious exercise…must rest with the States." Federal courts ignore this declaration and choose rather to misuse his separation phrase to strike down scores of state laws which encourage or facilitate public religious expressions. Such rulings are a direct violation of the words of the very one from whom the courts claim to derive their policy. They should consider the intent of the Founding Fathers who framed the First Amendment. Their months of discussions and debates are recorded in the Congressional Record, and the phrase "separation of church and state" never occurred. It seems logical that if this had been the intent for the First Amendment, at least one of those 90 would have mentioned it. None did. "Separation of church and state" has been described as a "misleading metaphor" by Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist since the current meaning is almost exactly the opposite of what was originally intended. As Christians we need to pray for our country and for those in authority to come to the knowledge of the truth. Join us in spreading the message of the founders' original intent for the First Amendment. 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. The president's reference to "natural rights" rea¤rmed his belief that religious liberties were inalienable rights. "Natural rights" included "that which the Books of the Law and the Gospel do contain." That is, what God Himself had guaranteed to man in the Scriptures. When the president assured the Baptists that by following their "natural rights" they would violate no social duty, he was a¤rming to them that the free exercise of religion was their inalienable, God-given right and therefore was protected from federal regulation or interference. Doubting whether America could survive if we ever lost knowledge of the source of our inalienable rights, he asked: "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?" The Meaning of Separation Thomas Je•erson believed that God, not government, was the author and source of our rights and that government was to be prevented from interference with those rights. The "wall" of the Danbury letter was not to limit religious activities in public. It was to limit the power of the government to prohibit or interfere with those expressions. Earlier courts long understood President Je•erson's intent. When his Danbury letter was invoked by the Supreme Court in 1878, unlike today's courts which publish only his eight-word separation phrase, that earlier court published a large segment of his letter and concluded: Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it [Mr. Je•erson's letter] may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and e•ect of the Amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere [religious] opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order. The court then summarized Thomas Je•erson's intent for "separation of church and state": "[T]he rightful purposes of civil government are for its o¤cers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order. In th[is]…is found the true distinction between what properly i David Barton is founder and president of WallBuilders, a pro-family organization which seeks to educate grassroots society to rebuild America's constitutional, moral and religious foundations. For more information go to wallbuilders.com

• Cover