The original debate over this was about the Separation of the POWERS of Church and POWERS of State.
What the ‘left’ is fighting for is removal of MORALS from the POWERS OF STATE.
The perfect dhimmicrat. It doesn't have to make a lick of sense as long as you intone it with conviction.
bkmk
Good Read — Bookmarked
How pitifully ignorant, or deliberately misleading, are those who use the Jefferson phrase to promote an agenda Jefferson never would have approved!
These so-called "progressives" display lack of understanding of America's founding history and of the ideas of liberty which were strongly held and advocated by the man (Jefferson) who authored the Declaration of Independence, with its recognition of a "Creator," of "Divine Providence," and of a "Supreme judge of the world." They only focus on that letter to the Baptists--whose phrase about the "wall of separation" they love to twist and cite as the basis of their prejudice and tyranny against religious expression in the public square!
Perhaps these constitutionally illiterates, in their zeal to "transform" America from its foundations, might wish to read this portion of Thomas Jefferson's letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper:
"In our village of Charlottesville, there is a good degree of religion, with a small spice only of fanaticism. We have four sects, but without either church or meeting-house. . . .. . . The court-house is the common temple, one Sunday in the month to each. Here, Episcopalian and Presbyterian, Methodist and Baptist, meet together, join in hymning their Maker, listen with attention and devotion to each others' preachers, and all mix in society with perfect harmony.
". . . .In our university you know there is no Professorship of Divinity. A handle has been made of this, to disseminate an idea that this is an institution, not merely of no religion, but against all religion. Occasion was taken at the last meeting of the Visitors, to bring forward an idea that might silence this calumny, which weighed on the minds of some honest friends to the institution. In our annual report to the legislature, after stating the constitutional reasons against a public establishment of any religious instruction, we suggest the expediency of encouraging the different religious sects to establish, each for itself, a professorship of their own tenets, on the confines of the university, so near as that their students may attend the lectures there, and have the free use of our library, and every other accommodation we can give them; preserving, however, their independence of us and of each other. This fills the chasm objected to ours, as a defect in an institution professing to give instruction in all useful sciences. I think the invitation will be accepted, by some sects from candid intentions, and by others from jealousy and rivalship. And by bringing the sects together, and mixing them with the mass of other students, we shall soften their asperities, liberalize and neutralize their prejudices, and make the general religion a religion of peace, reason, and morality." - Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper
In the US it is important that we look at what the original intent and meaning of this protection of freedom of religion is. NO state church. NO government interference with the practice of MY religion. To tell me about the communists and their distortions of our freedoms is meaningless
They don’t have to be separated. The government merely cannot establish special privileges for one religion in preference to another, nor discriminate against religion.
Thanks for posting. Stand to Reason is a great resource for clear thinking.
Separation as used today is actually a French notion. Even Black had something had in mind something more like the language of the Blaine Amendment. It never became part of the constitution but it was adopted by many states.