The Misleading Metaphor by David Barton

The historical “straying” from the Founders’ original meaning for the First Amendment has been greatly facilitated by an overused, misused, and even regularly abused historical phrase: “the separation of church and state.” Although these words are familiar to virtually the entire nation, few Americans know their history; where did this phrase originate?

“Separation of church and state” the expression Justice William Rehnquist described as “a misleading metaphor” appeared in an exchange of letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut. The election of President Jefferson   America’s first AntiFederalist President elated many Baptists since that denomination was, by and large, strongly AntiFederalist. This political disposition by the Baptists was understandable; from the early settlement of Rhode Island in the 1630s to the time of the federal Constitution in the 1780s, the Baptists had often found themselves suffering from the centralization of power.

Consequently, now having a President who had not only championed the rights of Baptists in Virginia 3 but who also advocated clear limits on the centralization of government powers, the Danbury Baptists wrote Jefferson a letter of praise on October 7, 1801, telling him: Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office, we embrace the first opportunity to express our great satisfaction in your appointment to the Chief Magistracy in the United States.

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 the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you. 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. However, in that same letter of congratulations, the Baptists also expressed to Jefferson their grave concern over the entire concept of the First Amendment: 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, and that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific.