Sharron Angle: Praise the Lord and pass the Haldol.

I’d leave a comment but I’m afraid I’d be misquoted out of context.

I just LOVE seeing Sharron Angle’s photo on that book cover!

Errr…”misquoted out of context”? That doesn’t even make sense. What a fool.

50 years ago, wingnuts like Angle were kicked out of the GOP.

Now, they’re running the place.

Some people are misquoted. Thomas Jefferson, not so much. She definitely should not be taking on Jefferson.

Jefferson has been misquoted . . . by every tea party lunatic who have no idea what they are talking about!!

Even more scarey is that people VOTED her to run in this election. The rethugs in Nevada must be thrilled with their fine choice. Reid is a shoe in—I hope. or not.

I’m trying to figure out what part of “wall of separation” could have been misinterpreted. Apparently, my dictionary is just too damned liberal.

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes (Letter to von Humboldt, 1813).

In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own (Letter to H. Spafford, 1814).

Thomas Jefferson on Separation of Church and State

Reid is apparently going to introduce a stand alone bill that will fund UI benefits but between Republicans who think unemployed people are lazy and deficit hawks who think UI benefits are going to break the country, I don’t hold out a lot of hope.

I was trying to type a comment but was laughing to hard. “Misquoted out of context.” Priceless.

Thanks BT. Was having a bad day and needed a good laugh.

Talk about a choice between the lesser of two evils…

Maybe she “misunderestimated” her audience. Thanks, Bush, for the wonderful new word.

Harry talks a good game.

Harry talks sh*t. Period.

LOL you’re right

See, like a lot of words the context has changed over the years. Priest actually meant government regulator back then. The word for priest was actually undefined so there couldn’t have been anyone saying anything against theocracies at that time either. All part of that misquoting out of context thing.

Defending some types of lunacy requires an extra measure of alternate universe thinking.

“Actually, Thomas Jefferson has been misquoted

I feel a lot more comfortable with her now that I know she’s a Jefferson scholar.

Maybe she is actually a not very bright loon. (That’s what I think.)

Obama and Biden should be there twisting arms. They need to threaten Nelson’s projects as well as his re-election funding for supporting Republican filibusters. The only rational explanation that they are not is that they agree that unemployed people are lazy and that UI benefits, not two unfunded wars, are going to break the country.

Damn, what are you smokin’ to put that together? I want some. *g*

Yep. I think she will furnish us with a lot of laughs until the election.

No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the power of its public functionaries, were it possible that any of these should consider a conquest over the conscience of men either attainable or applicable to any desirable purpose (Letters to the Methodist Episcopal Church at New London, Connecticut, Feb. 4, 1809). (Thanks for the link, SD)

People like Angle don’t understand that the separation of church and state actually protects and ensures our right to worship (or not) as we choose. Theocracies inevitably lead to tyranny. Surely a tea partier would get that?!

That’s funny.

Ya oughtta send that to Jon Stewart.

Apparently they don’t. And don’t call me Shirley.

Angle is an idiot, like most of her followers and those who are of the movement. They are being played like cheap fiddles and are too damned stupid to figure it out if somebody grabs them by the ears and shoves their face into it.

From Thomas Jefferson’s 1777 bill for Esatblishing Religious Freedom in Virginia:

the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time

and

WE, the General Assembly of Virginia, do enact that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities

and, of course, from the Constitution, the First Amendment, not Jefferson:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

And don’t call me Shirley.

Oh, lordy, I’m not alone.

Thomas Jefferson said those words while giving a speech in a church. The parish was afraid of the govt. infiltrating the church. They were afraid of the church of England in England and thought the same thing could happen here. Thus, Jefferson said the words. Separation of church and state are not in the constitution. History people. History must be accurate. Not made up.

I was just starting to read through that draft copy but gotta go back to work.

Namaste

Yeah, well, there are way too many idiots running around trying to get their grubby little hands on the levers of power.

Be aware.

The doctrine of separation of church and state is embodied, and stated, in the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Thus the First Amendment says verbatim. Courts, including the United States Supreme Court have over and over interpreted that to be a defacto wall between the state and religion, since the words “make no law regarding the establishment of religion” cannot be clearer. No, the Constitution doesn’t say “There shall be separation between church and state” but it doesn’t say, “You can’t commit rape and murder”, either but nobody is claiming that those should be legal because the Constitution doesn’t prohibit them.

History must be accurate. Not made up.

Indeed.

Oops.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

Hugh didn’t make that shit up.

owe you one.

Margret too.

perfect !

Here’s another Jefferson misquote, especially useful against Constitution-worshiping righties and libertarians. Apparently, the Constitution is just a damn piece of paper:

“Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”
– Jefferson, on reform of the Virginia Constitution

Missing Dubya

though the Haldol reference would get you out.

Although I gotta wonder about Angle’s viewpoint on rape sometimes….

Nixon’s Southern Strategy has finally run amok.

“Well yeah but…what if it was a typo or something? I notice the far-left liberal elite are ominously silent on that point…”

Jefferson’s position was also elaborated upon in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 in which both the First Amendment and “building a wall of separation between Church and State” are explicitly used.

Well being as how it was hand written, I doubt it was a “typo”. ;-)

So where does it say separation of church and state? If you go by what some people believe, Me using a VA loan to buy a house would stop me from praying in my house. Slippery slope.

Who has ever said that?

X~)

Separation of Church and State is Unconstitutional?

According to the DailyKos poll, 77% of Republicans think public school students should be taught that the book of Genesis in the Bible explains how God created the world?

That’s bullshit, and you know it.

This whole argument about “what Jefferson meant” is irrelevant anyway. Jefferson was selected for his prose and his penmanship, so while he can be said to have authored the Constitution, he wasn’t the only person with input into it’s contents and that goes doubly for the amendments. It was a convention which authored and ratified the document, not Jefferson alone in his study.

Where does it say you can’t murder your neighbor and take his property? Where does it say your neighbor can’t do the same thing to you? You can’t have it both ways. Either the Constitution is a guideline or it is the entire body of law that applies to the citizens and government of the United States.

and just what have you got against loons?

Jefferson had no part in the authorship of the Constitution; he was in France when the Convention was held. Any input he had was impeded by the speed of Transatlantic mail at the time.

The constitution was not to regulate the people. It was to regulate the federal govt. It was and is a contract between the states and the federal govt. The tenth amendment takes care of the laws that the states will live under. The states make the laws to not rape or steal or any thing else. That is why you have different laws in different states.

Ain’t that the truth of it Margret. Get damn religion out of my Government… All these “Faith Based Initiatives” is spewing religion while spending the Public’s money….A violation of the first amendment!!

That’s bullshit, and you know it.

My fear is that he/she/it doesn’t.

IT sounds like Mr. Steve Patriquin is being very narrow in how he reads the Constitution. He is one of those “Strict” literalists. The kind that will read a word in the wrong way if it suits their agenda. The kind that will say ” well, it doesn’t say the word separation, so it must not mean separation.”

The type that have no concept of the definition of SYNONYM. They don’t understand metaphors. They don’t realize that the Constitution was a FOUNDATIONAL DOCUMENT and that the DRAFTERS AND FRAMERS AND FOUNDERS very quickly asserted that the SUPREME COURT would issue rulings that would EXPAND UPON and INTERPRET and FLESH OUT the intricacies and nuances of the very sparsely worded FOUNDATIONAL DOCUMENT.

People like Mr. Steve Patriquin cannot begin to understand the concept of LEGISLATIVE INTENT, STARE DECISIS, or ENGLISH COMMON LAW as it has been developed since the 1400s.

People like Mr. Steve Patriquin simply open up the Constitution, scan for the words, “Separation” and “Church” and “State” and then declare “Nope, its not in there! Means we can have a THEOCRACY!”

He does not understand that the common phraseology of “church” and “State” are just a colloquialism that was enshrined in judicial rulings and speeches in the Congress and letters written by legislators, but that when they use the word “Church” they are being synonymous with the Constitution’s use of the word, “RELIGION.”

See, people like STever and Sharon Angle don’t realize that “Church” is “Religion.”

They don’t get that simple fact. So this is a VERY HARD AND CONFUSING THING for us to discuss with them.

What is sad is that Mr. Stever Patriquin is the typical Repblican, and he is only saying what Sarah Palin and SHaron Angle and Rick Perry and John Cornyn all think.

This is the result of “Strict Constructionism.” Sort of like the FUndamentalists of any relgion who believe its okay to stone an adulterer just because the words, “Stone the adulterer” were written in that book they revere. They don’t know what the word “Exegesis” means. They don’t know what “CONTEXT” means. They don’t even know what a SYNONYM or ALLEGORY is.

They truly think of words in one-dimension.

And by the way, Steve, Jefferson DID NOT say that in a church, or if he did, that is not where this quote comes from. He was addressing the Virginia Legislature when he said that.

Not true. Jefferson had no part in the articles of confederation. He and Madison mostly wrote the constitution, which came later. The articles of confederation did not go far enough, as anarchy came close to happening.

you heard it hear at fdl first. it’s the midday troll report.

You are wrong on where Jefferson said those words. I will give the reference if you want, but you are only interested in attacking me. I am only interested in debate. Your labeling of someone you know nothing about is your problem.

History people. History must be accurate.

And yours is not.

“Aha, what’s so special about the cheesemakers?”

“Well, obviously it’s not meant to be taken literally; it refers to any manufacturers of dairy products.”

thread hijacker

The Philadelphia Convention took place from May 25 to September 17, 1787, Thomas Jefferson was NOT a delegate. So much for your history.

Connecticut

* Oliver Ellsworth*
* William Samuel Johnson
* Roger Sherman

Delaware

* Richard Bassett
* Gunning Bedford, Jr.
* Jacob Broom
* John Dickinson
* George Read

Georgia

* Abraham Baldwin
* William Few
* William Houstoun*
* William Pierce*

Maryland

* Daniel Carroll
* Luther Martin*
* James McHenry
* John Francis Mercer*
* Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer

Massachusetts

* Elbridge Gerry*
* Nathaniel Gorham
* Rufus King
* Caleb Strong*

New Hampshire

* Nicholas Gilman
* John Langdon

New Jersey

* David Brearley
* Jonathan Dayton
* William Houston*
* William Livingston
* William Paterson

New York

* Alexander Hamilton
* John Lansing, Jr.*
* Robert Yates*

North Carolina

* William Blount
* William Richardson Davie*
* Alexander Martin*
* Richard Dobbs Spaight
* Hugh Williamson

Pennsylvania

* George Clymer
* Thomas Fitzsimons
* Benjamin Franklin
* Jared Ingersoll
* Thomas Mifflin
* Gouverneur Morris
* Robert Morris
* James Wilson

South Carolina

* Pierce Butler
* Charles Cotesworth Pinckney
* Charles Pinckney
* John Rutledge

Virginia

* John Blair
* James Madison
* George Mason*
* James McClurg*
* Edmund Randolph*
* George Washington
* George Wythe*

Rhode Island

* Rhode Island did not send delegates to the convention.

Slippery slope? Steve – you must read the caselaw sir. The court has already prevented that “slippery slope” from happening. There are at least 20 scotus cases you can read that will give you great guidance on what those short sentencnes in the first amendment say or don’t say about religion and government.

Do you know that “religion” is synonymous with “church” and that “government” is synonymous with “State”?

Do you know that when we say “state” we are not talking about just “STATES vs. FEderal governmetn?” Do you know that the word, “State” is being used as it applies to a “government of any form, be it muncipal up to national”?

See the words “the state” mean all forms of government. Not just one of the 50 states.

See, I’m not sure you understand that. I’m not sure you know what the definition of “establish” means either. It means to “make official” or “impose upon” or to “sponsor.” Or all those thing mixed into one. That is a broad brush word.

Do you know what I mean when I say “broad brush?” Do you think I mean it is a paint brush that has a large width? Or do you know that such a phrase has a rhetorical meaning?

Do you know what “rhetorical” means?

Good grief, this is going to be hard…

Not true. Jefferson had no part in the articles of confederation. He and Madison mostly wrote the constitution, which came later

Wow! A visitor from an alternate stupidverse!

Do you have to look things up to avoid any chance of getting something right?

Yup. Anything better to talk about?

it’s just a wild guess, but i’m guessing you’re not referring to moi.

Oh, he “looks things up” I’m sure.

In Conservapedia.

Hey! I’m a well known loon. However, I’m not running for a Senate seat.

David Dayen has a fresh cross-post ready: President Brown Pushes Stimulus-Financed Bill as Cover for Denying UI Extension

as am i and many of the people i know. other than that, did you know that a loon is a kind of bird?

and…. i’d vote for you any day over angle or reid. :-)

Nice to see your typin. Hope all is well. And, yes loons are lovely birds.

LOL You would be correct.

Priest ridden government??/

interesting -

in other letters he speaks as a religious person

Seems you can be religious and not want church domination of government

By the way – Angle is a liar and a nut but in this case she is correct – the Constitution does not say there must be a separation between church and state – in the 1960′s we started to interpret the First Amendment”

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

to mean that there can be no action that benefits religion allowed to occur in a public place – in the 2000′s we re-interpreted that interpretation to allow use of church manpower and assets in our federal and state welfare programs.

It all depends on whether “separation” as read after passing through the First Amendment means Government favoring belief systems that are based on faith in no god existing – atheism – over belief systems that have faith in god’s existence – - rather than meaning no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof- and nothing more. Christmas symbols is an example where one side is annoyed they exist and does not want to see them in the public square and the other side is angry that American life – which is religious for 85% of the population – must be presented in an atheist approved manner in the public square during the Christmas season.

stevepatriquin at #29 on this post is correct as the document- and marsdragon at #65 is correct in the main as to how the Courts in 1960 began to interpret the document – but we can all agree that we are against a “priest-ridden people” since as Jefferson noted then we would have a problem “maintaining a free civil government”. Let’s agree that government regulations need not be approved by the Vatican! :-)

Speaking of the Constitution, there is another Wall of Separation between Church and State in the Constitution, Article VI. No religious Test for any secular government office is allowed. “NO RELIGIOUS TEST”.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

American life – which is religious for 85% of the population

Source, please.

James Madison was the author of the Virginia plan upon which the Constitution was based. Roger Sherman came up with the Great Compromise (bicameral legislature and electoral college). Gouverneur Morris headed the writing committee and was responsible for most of the actual phrasing. This all went through the 1787 Convention. Non-authors who had great influence on the proceedings, spiritual godfathers if you will, were Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Thomas Paine. Afterwards Hamilton, Madison, and Jay wrote the Federalist Papers promoting ratification of the Constitution.

You can trust the ReBirchLickens — proud to be crazy in a country that is crazy to be proud.

It was actually the 1940s. A good brief history of the religious clauses and the case law can be found at the government’s Annotated Constitution.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/019.pdf

in the beginning scholarly essay.

loon call

And picts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Feedingtime.jpg

In my experience with the many religious folks in my life (speaking strictly from my direct personal experience) is that most of the ones I know profess to pray to Jesus to gain guidance on almost everything, including the “meanings” of various documents, such as the Bible or the US Constitution.

It has been my experience, that prayer tends to end up with 10 good, righteous, solid, well-meaning, well-intentioned, moral, pure, conscientious people gaining 10 different interpretations to what it is they seek.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Just saying…

It’s next to impossible to have a rational discussion because the religious person truly, honestly and genuinely believes that they’ve gotten the answer from God. Maybe they have, but then again, all too often what I see is that the person has decided that “God” told them whatever notion it is that THEY (a human) WANT to believe (and/or maybe Glenn Beck told it them yesterday).

And so: on it goes….

When I saw the quote from Ms. Angle, what immediately came in to MY mind was Jackie Gleason saying: Aaaand awaaaaay we go!!!

No doubt, that speaks volumes for who is “guiding” moi… ;-)

“Loon feeding on baby” Editors at Wiki musta been asleep.

I missed that SD LOL!!

Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists
The Final Letter, as Sent

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.

What he said…

Here’s the EXACT WORDING of what Thomas Jefferson said in 1802 : ‘In 1802, President Jefferson wrote a letter to a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut, in which he declared that it was the purpose of the First Amendment to build “a wall of separation between Church and State.” Do you want it more clearly?? Are you that stupid??

Here’s the link…have Ms. Angle get someone to READ IT TO HER since it’s clear she’s too stupid to read it for herself…

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt1afrag2_user.html#fnb15ref

This IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE!!! But I guess in Angle’s world reading/understanding and involvement both don’t work and shouldn’t be attempted. Olbermann’s tag for the Swag-Hag is appropriate in this case as well… “This woman is an idiot”…

It would be hilarious if Reid lost to this woman.

: )

Sheesh, you’d think that if a group of blogheads in the course of the afternoon could come up with Jefferson’s written thoughts on the subject that the brilliant Angle could come up with them in her lifetime.

Think so, do ya?

Oh, yes.

: )

Awesome use of the language, dude.

The importance of that letter is not just what it is in it… But what he thought about putting in it and how he edited the letter after he consulted with Lincoln:

The Supreme Court turned the spotlight on the “wall of separation” phrase in 1878 by declaring in Reynolds v. United States “that it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [first] amendment.”

The high court took the same position in widely publicized decisions in 1947 and 1948, asserting in the latter case, McCollum v. Board of Education, that, “in the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and state.’” Since McCollum forbade religious instruction in public schools, it appeared that the court had used Jefferson’s “wall” metaphor as a sword to sever religion from public life, a result that was and still is intolerable to many Americans.

Some Supreme Court justices did not like what their colleagues had done. In 1962, Justice Potter Stewart complained that jurisprudence was not “aided by the uncritical invocation of metaphors like the ‘wall of separation,’ a phrase nowhere to be found in the Constitution.” Addressing the issue in 1985, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist lamented that “unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson’s misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years.” Defenders of the metaphor responded immediately: “despite its detractors and despite its leaks, cracks and its archways, the wall ranks as one of the mightiest monuments of constitutional government in this nation.”

Given the gravity of the issues involved in the debate over the wall metaphor, it is surprising that so little effort has been made to go behind the printed text of the Danbury Baptist letter to unlock its secrets. Jefferson’s handwritten draft of the letter is held by the Library’s Manuscript Division. Inspection reveals that nearly 30 percent of the draft — seven of 25 lines — was deleted by the president prior to publication. Jefferson indicated his deletions by circling several lines and noting in the left margin that they were to be excised. He inked out several words in the circled section and a few words elsewhere in the draft. He also inked out three entire lines following the circled section. Click here to see the text of the final letter.

Since the Library plans to display Jefferson’s handwritten draft of the Danbury Baptist letter in its forthcoming exhibition “Religion and the Founding of the American Republic,” the question was raised whether modern computer technology could be used to uncover Jefferson’s inked-out words, so that the unedited copy of the letter might be shown to viewers alongside Jefferson’s corrected draft. The Library requested the assistance of FBI Director Louis Freeh, who generously permitted the FBI Laboratory to apply its state-of-the-art technology to the task of restoring Jefferson’s obliterated words. The FBI was successful, with the result that the entire draft of the Danbury Baptist letter is now legible (below). This fully legible copy will be seen in the exhibition in the company of its handwritten, edited companion draft. Click here to see Jefferson’s unedited text. By examining both documents, viewers will be able to discern Jefferson’s true intentions in writing the celebrated Danbury Baptist letter.

The edited draft of the letter reveals that, far from being dashed off as a “short note of courtesy,” as some have called it, Jefferson labored over its composition. For reasons unknown, the address of the Danbury Baptists, dated Oct. 7, 1801, did not reach Jefferson until Dec. 30, 1801. Jefferson drafted his response forthwith and submitted it to the two New England Republican politicians in his Cabinet, Postmaster General Gideon Granger of Connecticut and Attorney General Levi Lincoln of Massachusetts. Granger responded to Jefferson on Dec. 31.

The next day, New Year’s Day, was a busy one for the president, who received and entertained various groups of well-wishers, but so eager was he to complete his answer to the Danbury Baptists that, amid the hubbub, he sent his draft to Lincoln with a cover note explaining his reasons for writing it. Lincoln responded immediately; just as quickly, Jefferson edited the draft to conform to Lincoln’s suggestions, signed the letter and released it, all on New Year’s Day, 1802.

That Jefferson consulted two New England politicians about his messages indicated that he regarded his reply to the Danbury Baptists as a political letter, not as a dispassionate theoretical pronouncement on the relations between government and religion. His letter, he told Lincoln in his New Year’s Day note, was meant to gratify public opinion in Republican strongholds like Virginia, “being seasoned to the Southern taste only.”

Expressing his views in a reply to a public address also indicated that Jefferson saw himself operating in a political mode, for by 1802 Americans had come to consider replies to addresses, first exploited as political pep talks by John Adams in 1798, as the prime vehicles for the dissemination of partisan views. A few weeks earlier, on Nov. 20, 1801, Jefferson had, in fact, used a reply to an address from the Vermont legislature to signal his intention to redeem a campaign promise by proposing a tax reduction at the beginning of the new session of Congress in December.

In his New Year’s note to Lincoln, Jefferson revealed that he hoped to accomplish two things by replying to the Danbury Baptists. One was to issue a “condemnation of the alliance between church and state.” This he accomplished in the first, printed, part of the draft. Jefferson’s strictures on church-state entanglement were little more than rewarmed phrases and ideas from his Statute Establishing Religious Freedom (1786) and from other, similar statements. To needle his political opponents, Jefferson paraphrased a passage, that “the legitimate powers of government extend to … acts only” and not to opinions, from the Notes on the State of Virginia, which the Federalists had shamelessly distorted in the election of 1800 in an effort to stigmatize him as an atheist. So politicized had church-state issues become by 1802 that Jefferson told Lincoln that he considered the articulation of his views on the subject, in messages like the Danbury Baptist letter, as ways to fix his supporters’ “political tenets.”

Airing the Republican position on church-state relations was not, however, Jefferson’s principal reason for writing the Danbury Baptist letter. He was looking, he told Lincoln, for an opportunity for “saying why I do not proclaim fastings & thanksgivings, as my predecessors did” and latched onto the Danbury address as the best way to broadcast his views on the subject. Although using the Danbury address was “awkward” — it did not mention fasts and thanksgivings — Jefferson pressed it into service to counter what he saw as an emerging Federalist plan to exploit the thanksgiving day issue to smear him, once again, as an infidel.

… as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”
– Jefferson, on reform of the Virginia Constitution

There are some for whom it is even possible to imagine returning to such an age AFTER having become free of it. They’re called ‘originalists’ or ‘textualists’ or whatever suits them to explain their aching for ‘the good old days’. Scalia is one. Oddly, some even yearn for a byegone day which didn’t exist in the first place.

while he can be said to have authored the Constitution,

Even moreso the Declaration of Independence!

Where does it say your neighbor can’t do the same thing to you?

Where it says you have the right to Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness and that right shall not be violated without Due Process.