Mr. Weinstein, You’ve got it all wrong!

Dear Mr.Weinstein

Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists was for the purpose of clarifying that Government can’t prevent the propagation of the Faith of Jesus Christ. Jefferson himself gave an executive order upon becoming president to allow Christian Services to be established weekly in the capital building both in the Supreme Courst Chambers which were in the basement of the Capital at that time and in the Congressional Chambers. He attended the services in the Capital every Sunday while he was president. These service were attended by every president up until about 1865 when they ended, which was not by any legal effort. Jefferson had nothing to do with the writing of the U S Constitution or the Bill of Rights. You need to contact David Barton of to get the real intent of the Separation of Church and state. Government was never meant to curtail Religious activity.

(name withheld)

Dear (name withheld),

Mikey Weinstein has read your email and asked me to respond on MRFF’s behalf.

Mikey and everyone at MRFF couldn’t agree with your ‘punch-line’ more, “Government was never meant to curtail Religious activity.” We also believe that under our Constitution the government was never meant to have any official role in religious activity as well. To do otherwise would be destructive to both government and religious activity.

Everyone at MRFF is well acquainted with Barton and his website. In fact, MRFF’s Senior Research Director has written/spoken volumes on the lies, half-truths, misquotations and junk history of David Barton.



While Barton’s brand of history relies on the philosophy that “There’s a sucker born every minute”, his success is limited to audiences with an X-Files mentality of “I Want To Believe”. While religious faith is clearly acceptable (without government support/involvement) faith-based rather than fact-based history is simple pandering.

In reference to your statement that “Jefferson had nothing to do with the writing of the U S Constitution or the Bill of Rights”, I offer the following. James Madison’s (aka ‘The Father of the Constitution’) beliefs regarding religious entanglements with government are best expressed in his own words from his contribution to the Federalist Papers which were written for the specific purpose of supporting Constitutional ratification:

The Federalist No. 10

The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection (continued)

Daily Advertiser
Thursday, November 22, 1787
[James Madison]

The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning RELIGION [my emphasis], concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts.

The disdain towards the division and mutual animosity created by religious entanglements with government shown in this statement by Madison could not be any clearer.

I am a Christian (Episcopalian in fact) who fully supports Mikey’s and MRFF’s attempt to protect members of the U.S. Military from unconstitutional religious (any religion) influence in relation to their training, assignment, advancement and retention. My devotion to this cause is based on the fact that by adoption of the Constitution, we as a nation agreed to be bound to each other under a democratic Man’s Law rather than a theocratic Devine Law. To sum up my perspective, I defend both my Christian faith and my Constitution proudly and equally. I simply don’t feel compelled to defend one at the expense of the other. Mr. Barton may be selling…but I’m not buying.

Peace be with you,

Andy Kasehagen

Share this page:

Commenter Account Access

  • Register for a commenter account
    (Not required to post comments, but will save you time if you're a regular commenter)
  • Log in using your existing account
  • Click here to edit your profile and change your password
  • All comments are subject to our Terms of Use

No Comments

Start the ball rolling by posting a comment on this article!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *