Thanksgiving, God and the U.S. Constitution

[Whitney]

^This is why it is important to cite sources.  If you don't cite your sources no one knows where you are getting your information and if it conflicts with their previous research they are only left to assume you are either confused or lying.

You are absolutly right. However My souce is a show on Lincoln I saw a couple weeks ago. That makes sourcing difficult especialy since I don't remember the station. I could take the time to google but a) I simply don't care that much at this point and b) everyone else (namely the op) can do he same.

My comment was largely directed at the OP since even his blog entry did not cite quotations and his claims go against modern understanding of separation of church and state as has been interpreted by the supreme court.

[Recusant]

...even if Jefferson really did write at some later date that "one of" his reasons for writing to the Baptists related to Thanksgiving, I would need to see that exact quote from Jefferson and look at the context.

No sooner said than done:

January 1, 1802

Averse to receive addresses, yet unable to prevent them, I have generally endeavored to turn them to some account, by making them the occasion, by way of answer, of sowing useful truths and principles among the people, which might germinate and become rooted among their political tenets. The Baptist address, now enclosed, admits of a condemnation of the alliance between Church and State, under the authority of the Constitution. It furnishes an occasion, too, which I have long wished to find, of saying why I do not proclaim fastings and thanksgivings, as my predecessors did. The address, to be sure, does not point at this, and its introduction is awkward. But I foresee no opportunity of doing it more pertinently. I know it will give great offense to the New England clergy; but the advocate of religious freedom is to expect neither peace nor forgiveness from them. Will you be so good as to examine the answer, and suggest any alterations which might prevent an ill effect, or promote a good one, among the people? You understand the temper of those in the North, and can weaken it, therefore, to their stomachs: it is at present seasoned to the Southern taste only. I would ask the favor of you to return it, with the address, in the course of the day or evening. Health and affection.

You can, if you wish, read about some of the background and history of the letter in this very interesting article by James Hutson, curator of an exhibit at the Library of Congress called, "Religion and the Founding of the American Republic."

You will find, if you read the Hutson article, that Jefferson's note to Lincoln was not written "at some later date," but actually was written as he finalized the composition of the letter.

...Jefferson was describing the prohibition on Congress rather than claiming that the prohibition extends beyond congress or demanding that Church and State be separated in other ways.

I think (and so did the Supreme Court) that it's pretty clear from reading the establishment clause, in conjunction with the Danbury letter, not to mention the note to the Attorney General, that the intent was to keep government from being involved in any way with religion.

Moreover, the validity of "separation between church and state" as a description of the establishment clause relies on the validity of Jefferson's "Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom"(the law which explicitly acknowledges God), as the basis for the establishment clause. This is because the only reason the Supreme Court cited Jefferson's "separation" statement as authoritative was because Jefferson had written what the Court acknowledged as the basis for the clause (the Virginia Statute). In other words, Jefferson's description of the establishment clause is only legitimate if the statute he wrote is the legitimate basis for the clause. Essentially, "separation between church and state" is seen as authoritative because of a law which acknowledges God. We cannot therefore say that "separation between church and state" prohibits government from acknowledging God.

The Virginia Statute is not the same as the establishment clause for a very good reason; the establishment clause does not mention God.  The establishment clause of the First Amendment is valid law irrespective of its origin in the Virginia Statute.  I would say that there was a reason why "God" is excluded from the establishment clause, and that is to prevent people who think as you do from construing "God" as inherent in the law of the land. The Supreme Court's very reasonable understanding of the intent of the establishment clause comes from reading Jefferson's letters, and I would say, from taking note of the fact that "God" is explicitly not mentioned in that clause.

It [the Virginia Statute] is relevant because it is an instance of the government acknowledging God...

The Commonwealth of Virginia acknowledged God; the US Constitution, in the First Amendment, does not.

God is not an "establishment of religion."

On the contrary, I would say that it is.  When a government uses a god as a basis for its authority or attempts to legislate in any way the validity of religion (including mention of "God" in its laws regarding religion) then the two become inextricably intertwined.  The establishment clause was written to prevent that very thing from ever occurring.


* Andrew Lipscomb and Albert Bergh, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. 10, p. 305
Link to Religious Liberty Archive website, where the text of the "Lincoln note" may be read.

(Edit to add date to President Jefferson's letter to Atty. General Lincoln.)
(Edit to add online link to "Lincoln note" text.)

[Tanker]

^This is why it is important to cite sources.  If you don't cite your sources no one knows where you are getting your information and if it conflicts with their previous research they are only left to assume you are either confused or lying.

You are absolutly right. However My souce is a show on Lincoln I saw a couple weeks ago. That makes sourcing difficult especialy since I don't remember the station. I could take the time to google but a) I simply don't care that much at this point and b) everyone else (namely the op) can do he same.

My comment was largely directed at the OP since even his blog entry did not cite quotations and his claims go against modern understanding of separation of church and state as has been interpreted by the supreme court.

I had figuered as much I however was guilty of not sourcing as well and thought I would explain before being called on it.

[RyanL]

To both Whitney and Tanker: my blog does cite sources and does provide quotes. You can read the blog, which has moved to http://RyanLarsen.blogspot.com

Tanker, Lincoln made Thanksgiving an annual event so I can understand why you would think that he initially instituted it. However, the dates and facts in my blog are correct.

[Whitney]

To both Whitney and Tanker: my blog does cite sources and does provide quotes. You can read the blog, which has moved to http://RyanLarsen.blogspot.com

I was already well aware that your blog provided quotes because I already read part of it....that's why I said they needed to be cited.  Just noting who said the quote is not a citation.  So, unless I'm missing your apparently not obvious works cited page....you still need to cite your sources.  Only proper citation, like you did in English/History in High School, allows others to locate the source and is also important so you can avoid copyright issues.  As it stands now, the reader has no easy way of verifying that the quotes are what you say they are , no way to check the context, and whoever may own the original source of the quote is having their rights violated.


Example of citing a source:

* Andrew Lipscomb and Albert Bergh, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. 10, p. 305

If he had used an internet article as a source, he would have just provided a direct link to the original source location.  No one is asking for MLA format, just enough information to where if we wanted to go to a library we could find the source material.

[RyanL]

No sooner said than done:

Thank you for providing that quote.

So, Jefferson was apparently planning on explaining why he did not proclaim fastings and thanksgivings, but decided not to explain it. The relevant part which he omitted from his final letter reads:

"Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect,"

So, he omitted it from the letter, apparently after conferring with the Attorney General. Thus, the final letter is not an explanation as to why he did not proclaim thanksgiving.

The bottom line is, Jefferson viewed Thanksgiving to be a religious "exercise." In other words, he thought Thanksgiving went beyond the government merely acknowledging God as Jefferson had done in his statute. Jefferson's use of the words "acts," "performances" and "exercises"demonstrates this. Nevertheless, Jefferson used the word "even" which implies that he is merely staying on the safe side--a far cry from claiming that Thanksgiving actually violates the Constitution.

Even if we were to suppose that an accurate reading of the Virginia Statute inhibits government-sponsored days of Thanksgiving, it would be irrelevant to the establishment clause since those who drafted and passed the establishment clause intended no contradiction. In such a case, we would have to say that the establishment clause does not mirror the Virginia Statute closely enough to share its inhibition of Thanksgiving. What we would not do is say that since Jefferson wrote the law that the drafters of the establishment clause were working from, their choice of language and meaning takes a back seat to Jefferson's intended meaning for the Virginia Statute.

RyanL wrote:...Jefferson was describing the prohibition on Congress rather than claiming that the prohibition extends beyond congress or demanding that Church and State be separated in other ways.

I think (and so did the Supreme Court) that it's pretty clear from reading the establishment clause, in conjunction with the Danbury letter, not to mention the note to the Attorney General, that the intent was to keep government from being involved in any way with religion.

No. The establishment clause inhibits only congress. It does not prohibit private citizens or local communities from doing anything, whether on public or private land. The portion of the Danbury letter in which Jefferson referenced Thanksgiving ("performances of devotion") confirms this ("Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion"). Jefferson never said it was to "keep government from being involved in any way with religion." As I said, and as the portion Jefferson removed from the letter confirms, "Jefferson was describing the prohibition on Congress rather than claiming that the prohibition extends beyond congress or demanding that Church and State be separated in other ways."

As for the Supreme Court, I don't know what case you are referring to. If a Justice wrote an opinion claiming that government cannot be involved in any way with religion, the Justice was showing incompetence. A Justice is assigned to write the opinion after the case has been decided, and often a Justice will throw their own extraneous views into their opinions.

The Virginia Statute is not the same as the establishment clause

Which is why I never said it was. I said the establishment clause is based on the Virginia Statute.

The establishment clause of the First Amendment is valid law irrespective of it's origin in the Virginia Statute.

Yes. But the validity of "separation" rests on the validity of the Virginia Statute, as I explained.

I would say that there was a reason why "God" is excluded from the establishment clause

Like other clauses in the Constitution, the establishment clause is very brief. Statutes on the other hand can get very long.

and that is to prevent people who think as you do from construing "God" as inherent in the law of the land.

Again, my argument is not that God is inherent in the Constitution. I never said that. I said the government has a right to acknowledge God. I pointed to one law in which God is explicitly recognized: The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. Jefferson never renounced it; in fact, Jefferson had it listed as one of his proudest accomplishments on his gravestone. The Supreme Court never denounced it. In fact, the Court cited it as the basis for the religion clauses of the First Amendment.

Jefferson was in France when the religion clauses were drafted. Yet the Supreme Court cited him as the expert on them based solely on Jefferson having written the Virginia Statute.

The statute acknowledges God. The establishment clause does not inhibit the statute (the 14th amendment is irrelevant because the Statute did for Virginia what the clause did for the federal government--see below). Therefore, the establishment clause does not inhibit government from acknowledging God. Simple. You don't seem to have an argument against this.

Either the Virginia Statute did for Virginia what the establishment clause did for the federal government, or it did not. If the establishment clause is based so loosely on the Virginia Statute that it actually contradicts and inhibits the Virginia Statute, then Jefferson's statute  obviously does not make him an expert on the establishment clause after all--which means his "wall of separation" interpretation is therefore not authoritative and is moot. But such is not the case. The Virginia Statute and has been cited by the Supreme Court as the basis for the religion clauses.

Again, even if we were to suppose that an accurate reading of the Virginia Statute inhibits government-sponsored days of Thanksgiving, it would be irrelevant to the establishment clause since those who drafted and passed the establishment clause intended no contradiction. In such a case, we would have to say that the establishment clause does not mirror the Virginia Statute closely enough to share its inhibition of Thanksgiving.

The Supreme Court's very reasonable understanding of the intent of the establishment clause comes from reading Jefferson's letters

Again, the reason the Court holds Jefferson as the authority is because of a statute Jefferson wrote which acknowledges God!

"God" is explicitly not mentioned in that clause.

Which does nothing to contradict my argument that government acknowledgment of God does not violate the clause.

The Commonwealth of Virginia acknowledged God; the US Constitution, in the First Amendment, does not.

The statute is still on the books in the State of Virginia. And again, Jefferson did the opposite of renouncing it--he had it listed on his gravestone as his proudest accomplishment.

Jefferson's self-written epitaph reads:

Here was buried Thomas Jefferson,
author of the Declaration of American Independence,
of the statute of Virginia for religious freedom,
and father of the University of Virginia.
Thomas Jefferson

When a government uses a god as a basis for it's authority or attempts to legislate in any way the validity of religion (including mention of "God" in it's laws regarding religion) then the two become inextricably intertwined. The establishment clause was written to prevent that very thing from ever occurring.

Then you believe the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom is unconstitutional? And you believe Thanksgiving as declared by the very people who wrote the constitution was unconstitutional?

[RyanL]

To both Whitney and Tanker: my blog does cite sources and does provide quotes. You can read the blog, which has moved to http://RyanLarsen.blogspot.com

I was already well aware that your blog provided quotes because I already read part of it....that's why I said they needed to be cited.  Just noting who said the quote is not a citation.  So, unless I'm missing your apparently not obvious works cited page....you still need to cite your sources.  Only proper citation, like you did in English/History in High School, allows others to locate the source and is also important so you can avoid copyright issues.  As it stands now, the reader has no easy way of verifying that the quotes are what you say they are , no way to check the context, and whoever may own the original source of the quote is having their rights violated.


Example of citing a source:

* Andrew Lipscomb and Albert Bergh, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. 10, p. 305

If he had used an internet article as a source, he would have just provided a direct link to the original source location.  No one is asking for MLA format, just enough information to where if we wanted to go to a library we could find the source material.

I still don't see your beef. I may not cite sources that aren't critical to my argument, but no copyrights are being infringed. I go to the actual source material rather than relying on books written about the source. I wrote "The following is from the annals of Congress Sept. 25 1789." That's a source. I quoted from George Washington and explained that the quote was from "the first official proclamation of any U.S. President." That's a source. I quoted from Jefferson's letter to the Baptists. That's a source. Granted, I should have specified "Danbury" Baptists, but if people are too lazy to look up the source using a google search based on the info I provide, that's their issue not mine. I quoted from The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. That's a source.

But even when I quote Lincoln, I attribute the quote to Lincoln even if I don't provide a link to the quote. I'm not taking credit for anything anyone else said, so no copyright violation - get it?

[Whitney]

But even when I quote Lincoln, I attribute the quote to Lincoln even if I don't provide a link to the quote. I'm not taking credit for anything anyone else said, so no copyright violation - get it?

Know what...it's not my problem if you are violating copyright but yes, just indicating the author can still violate copyright.  Copyright is not about if you take credit but also about if the source is clearly identified.

[Tom62]

If you just can’t deal with reality, and must bow and grovel to some unseen god on Thanksgiving Day, may I recommend Gadura, the Hindu bird god. He’s as close to a turkey god as you can get. Source: http://atheistcamel.blogspot.com/

[LoneMateria]

If you just can’t deal with reality, and must bow and grovel to some unseen god on Thanksgiving Day, may I recommend Gadura, the Hindu bird god. He’s as close to a turkey god as you can get. Source: http://atheistcamel.blogspot.com/

Lol yeah Hump is awesome.   <3 his blog.  And i'm gonna plug for him since he is so awesome and a genuinely nice person ... The Atheist Camel Chronicles is an awesome book and i'd recommend it to atheists with all attitudes.  It promotes good PR while illustrating the failures that religion offers.  He should give me commission cause i've done this a lot for him .

[Kylyssa]

What's silly is trying to proclaim that the US is necessarily Christian because Thanksgiving is officially recognized as a holiday here.  Thursday is officially recognized as a day of the week here but it does not mean America is a Thor worshiping nation.

I find it amusing how Christians always turn Thanksgiving into another "look how great Christianity is" day when the real heroes of the day were the Indians who shared their food and knowledge to save the settlers lives so the Christian settlers could later take theirs.  It seems a bit silly to have a day glorifying Christians for thanking God for what other people (Native Americans) did for them to help them survive, doesn't it?  

What this holiday is really about is how a bunch of natives saved the Christian settlers' asses and how those Christian folks later rewarded them with mass slaughter and coercive destruction of their native culture, religions, and languages.  If the rape of native peoples by Christian settlers is something to celebrate - have at it.  Go ahead and glory in the slaughter and destruction of lives perpetrated by your spiritual brethren.  I'm not saying other people wouldn't have slaughtered the Indians just like the Christians did but what is the real insult on top of injury is the forced Christianization, the theft of children from culture and family.

I'm half Native American.  My Native ancestry contains a wide mix of tribes, some of whose languages and cultures were completely snuffed out by the Christian invasion and forced Christianization of Native Americans.  I'm sure what my ancestors believed was just as silly as the fairy tales Christians believe but it was no one's right to steal their beliefs, culture, and language away through force.

It's no surprise that Christians want to keep all holidays all to themselves though most holidays have become secular shadows of the pagan celebrations they were handed down from.  Christians stole the celebrations in the first place, why would they want to share them now?  They tend to be very materialistic and selfish folks.  

So, I'm an atheist but I full well plan to eat my roast turkey this Thursday  - unless the Christians plan on coming to steal it from me.

[Recusant]

Thus, the final letter is not an explanation as to why he did not proclaim thanksgiving.

I understand your unwillingness to concede even a single point.  I think that the evidence which I've presented, however, shows that your belief was incorrect when you said: "I don't believe Jefferson ever cited the wall of separation as his reason."  I don't expect that you will admit this, so I'm going to drop it after this post.

The bottom line is, Jefferson viewed Thanksgiving to be a religious "exercise." In other words, he thought Thanksgiving went beyond the government merely acknowledging God as Jefferson had done in his statute. Jefferson's use of the words "acts," "performances" and "exercises"demonstrates this. Nevertheless, Jefferson used the word "even" which implies that he is merely staying on the safe side--a far cry from claiming that Thanksgiving actually violates the Constitution.

I never said that "Thanksgiving violates the Constitution."  I do assert that the establishment clause is being circumvented when a president invokes "God" in a national proclamation, and I think that the letters of Thomas Jefferson provide a basis for that assertion.

Even if we were to suppose that an accurate reading of the Virginia Statute inhibits government-sponsored days of Thanksgiving, it would be irrelevant to the establishment clause since those who drafted and passed the establishment clause intended no contradiction. In such a case, we would have to say that the establishment clause does not mirror the Virginia Statute closely enough to share its inhibition of Thanksgiving

I've made no such supposition.  In fact, Thomas Jefferson did proclaim days of thanksgiving while he was chief executive of the Commonwealth of Virginia.  He chose not to do the same while President, for reasons we've already discussed:  He felt that the establishment clause of the First Amendment would be at least encroached upon by doing so.  It would seem clear that he thought that the clause went further in this regard than the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.

Jefferson never said it was to "keep government from being involved in any way with religion." As I said, and as the portion Jefferson removed from the letter confirms, "Jefferson was describing the prohibition on Congress rather than claiming that the prohibition extends beyond congress or demanding that Church and State be separated in other ways."

As for the Supreme Court, I don't know what case you are referring to. If a Justice wrote an opinion claiming that government cannot be involved in any way with religion, the Justice was showing incompetence. A Justice is assigned to write the opinion after the case has been decided, and often a Justice will throw their own extraneous views into their opinions.

Well, I think that the phrase "wall of separation" does describe an intention to "keep government from being involved in any way with religion."  I think that Jefferson felt that the wall extended beyond Congress, in that he refused to proclaim a day of "Thanksgiving to God" as President, an act which would not involve Congress.

I admit that I've gotten carried away in the exuberance of my rhetoric, in my mention of the Supreme Court.  I would be referring, of course, to the famous case of "Everson v Board of Education 330 U. S. 1 (1947)" in which the Court wrote in its decision:

"The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."

Like other clauses in the Constitution, the establishment clause is very brief. Statutes on the other hand can get very long.

I don't think that the brevity of the establishment clause is the reason "God" was not included. I wasn't there though. Congress went through at least eight drafts of what eventually became the establishment and free exercise clauses.  In none of them will you find the word "God." It would have been very easy for the writers of the First Amendment to include a 3 letter word if they had thought it was needed.  They did not.  I will say that if the word "God" had been included in the First Amendment, then I don't think we would even be arguing this. I think that you are trying to imply that because "God" is mentioned in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, and the establishment and free exercise clauses use the Virginia Statute as a model, then there is some sort of subtext in which "God" is included. This is a matter of opinion, with no basis other than conjecture on your part. If the US government has a right to acknowledge a god, it should be explicitly stated, not buried in subtext.

...Therefore, the establishment clause does not inhibit government from acknowledging God. Simple.

The clause, when it was written, did not inhibit state governments from acknowledging God, very true.  I think it's clear that Jefferson felt that it did inhibit the national government from doing so.

I believe that the people (and when the First Amendment was written, this included the states, as in the case of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom) of the United States are free to acknowledge God.  It's quite possible that I'm wrong when I assert that the national government, on the other hand, is to keep itself uninvolved with religion.  This includes acknowledging God.  After all, I'm not a Constitutional scholar.  Your arguments contrary to my position, however, fail to persuade me that I'm wrong. I'm basing my position on the fact that Thomas Jefferson wrote that he felt the First Amendment erected a wall of separation between church and state.  This is a principle which I think is very admirable.  Subsequent generations (and yes, even some of the other framers of the Constitution) have disagreed with his strict interpretation, and thus have felt it to be acceptable for the national government to acknowledge God. It isn't in my authority to declare that what they've done is unconstitutional, but yes, in my mind it is.

I've really enjoyed this discussion, RyanL, but I think that we've probably about exhausted the possibilities of exploring this subject of which you and I are capable.  Unless I can avoid repeating myself in any further answers, I'm going to let you have the last word, assuming you wish to reply to this post.

You have my sincere thanks for providing me an opportunity to examine these issues with an intelligent and polite interlocutor.

[RyanL]

Recusant,

I don't have it in me right now for a point-by-point response, but I greatly appreciate your exchange. I need to get to bed, I can barely keep my eyes open  

You have certainly given me cause to refine and clarify my argument. I have done so to an extent on my blog, and will continue to do so when I have the energy and time.

A lawyer commented on my blog last night and I responded today. He raised some of the issues you raised in your recent post. You can take a look at it here:

http://ryanlarsen.blogspot.com/2009/11/ ... and-u.html

I think it's necessary to fact-check anything a lawyer says, since the world they work in generally considers distortion to be ethical (the idea being that one should argue for a particular side rather than arguing for the truth).

For the record, I thought I had conceded that Jefferson cited the wall of separation as his reason for not declaring Thanksgivings. As I pointed out however, he did not do so in the final letter, only in the part that was removed. Also, he specifically says (in the part that did not make it into the final letter) that it is Congress that is "inhibited from acts respecting religion." He seems to imply that the inhibition does not apply to the executive, but that the
executive is "authorised only to execute their acts" meaning the acts of Congress. In other words, Congress cannot legislate Thanksgiving, so the executive cannot execute Thanksgiving. Even though the end result is no Thanksgiving, the implications of limiting the inhibition to Congress itself (as the actual wording of the clause calls for) are numerous. For instance, Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore decorated the State Courthouse with a ten commandments display. He argued that it was not an act of congress but was under his purview. Given Jefferson's interpretation, Moore has a case.

One other thing you mentioned that I'd like to touch on. You wrote, "It would seem clear that he thought that the clause went further in this regard than the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom." It is worth pointing out what I pointed out to the lawyer in my response today:

The Supreme Court in Everson states that "the provisions of the First Amendment...had the same objective and were intended to provide the same protection against governmental intrusion on religious liberty as the Virginia statute."

Now I'm off to bed,

Ryan

[Recusant]

OK.  


Happy Thanksgiving to all here at HAF!    

[Ellainix]

Thanksgiving is a religious holiday. It is in fact the first official U.S. holiday.

If anyone says the Constitution prohibits the U.S. government from acknowledging God, send them to this link:

http://ryanlarsen.blogspot.com/2009_10_01_archive.html

Hey look here, if God wants to negotiate trade with the US or something, I'm all for it.