[NYer]

John Rossomando is a staff writer for the Daily Local News in West Chester, Pennsylvania. He has written previously for crisis, CNSNews.com, and the Free Congress Foundation.

[NYer]

Catholic Ping - Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list

[JamesP81]

I have said it hundreds of times to my athiestic and liberal friends: if God gave us a 2 hour press conference with the Founding Fathers, it would set a lot of things straight.

[Stultis]

This state of affairs continued throughout the colonial period and into the Americas, where each colony—except Pennsylvania and New York—had its own state church.

This is false. Most religious establishments in America -- even during the colonial period, but increasingly over time -- were either multiple or general establishments. That is that MORE than one church was supported by the state, and sometimes any church was eligible.

This was handled by various schemes, with a great deal of experimentation over time. For instance you might have to pay a compulsory religious tax, but then may be able to dictate to which denomination it was remitted. OTOH you might be required to support the "official" local church with your taxes, but in many cases the minister (and thereby the denomination) was locally elected. There might be one (or two) "official" churches that received tax dollars, but maybe you could get an exemption from the tax if you could prove that you attended and financially supported a local church of a different denomination.

[radioman]

ROFL!
This writer references the court of the 1890's. The same court that gave us segregation. The same court that gave the federal government power over the states. The same court that started us down the road of liberal activist judges!
.

[litehaus]

Frankly, that statement scares me........>>>Like all historical documents, the Bill of Rights must be read within the context of what its framers meant when they penned the establishment clause.

It, to me, sounds to close to what the num nums say about it being a "living document" when they want to take my guns away from me.

[Coleus]

Misquoting Our Founding Fathers

[little jeremiah]

Moral Absolutes Ping.

I admit I haven't read this yet, am bookmarking it. Just saw it now, and want to catch it before I lose it! But it looks highly insightful and very useful for understanding what the First Amendment really means.

Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.

[Sergio]

Thanks for posting. Great Information.

[porkchops 4 mahound]

The truth does not matter to the advocates of driving our historical and traditional Judeo/Christian ethics and morality from American public life.

The truth is these ideologues enemy.

The enemy never sleeps.

[A. Pole]

But they should tread lightly here. The 1965 Supreme Court decision United States v. Seeger shows that belief in a deity is not essential for a system of beliefs to be considered a religion within our legal system. From that standpoint, the degree of devotion homosexual-rights advocates or feminists give their own ideologies could actually be considered a form of religion.

Good point, the Celebration of Diversity is a religion and an evil false cult.

[FredFlash]

Why do you jump from the text of the religion clauses to Queen Elizabeth reestablishment of the Anglican Church in 1560?

If the object is to discern the understanding of the State Legislatures that ratified the First Amendment, why not first examine the official records of the State Legislatures to see what they understood it to mean?

[FredFlash]

What is the underlying fundamental principle of American religious liberty and who was its most eloquent champion?

[FredFlash]

You wrote that:

Anson Phelps Stokes, a mid–20th century Yale historian, relates in his book Church and State in the United States: The preaching services were established early in the Jefferson administration (1801-1809), and the seats were always kept for the president and his secretary, the former attending regularly.... The services were so popular that the floor of the House proved inadequate, and the platform behind the speaker’s chair and every other spot was filled....

My comment is:

Those were not the words of Anson Stokes. Phelps was quoting Mrs. William Harrison Smith. The divine services she was talking about could have been in the Capitol Building but it is more likely that they were in a temporary brick building known as the "Oven" that the House met in from 1801 to 1804 because the House wing was not completed. The "Oven" was torn down in 1804 to being work on the House wing. The wing was not ready until 1811.

From 1804 to 1811 the House was homeless. Some say it met in a basement room in the Senate wing but others say it was a school auditorium.

I have all of Mrs. Smith's writings and they contain some very interesting insights. She was a very good personal friend of Jefferson and Madison. Her story about her first meeting with Jefferson is priceless

She wrote about one minister who was constantly criticizing Jefferson and his supporters for not keeping the Sabbath. She also writes about the divine services (here ever they were held) being interrupted at the same time every Sunday by a two men who collected the mail from a mail box that was in the room.

Apparently, it was more important to move the U. S. Mail than ensure a divine service was not disturbed, or perhaps Jefferson would only allow the Presbyterians to use the mail room so the Baptist could use the nice room.