Replies

>>>If Justice Black undercut the true meaning of the religion clauses then why don’t you tell me in a sentence or two just what the clauses do mean and why?<<<

His own biographer made that statement, and Mark Levin agrees. Black's statement, "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach", was a lie in the manner he intended it, because his intent was strip the states of its power over religion, which was a usurpation of power by the court. Even Jefferson did not believe the First Amendment restricted the states. Of course, you knew that.

You wrote:
Black's statement, "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach", was a lie in the manner he intended it, because his intent was strip the states of its power over religion, which was a usurpation of power by the court.

I say:
Have you ever read the Fourteenth Amendment; what makes you more of an authority than James Madison; and can you distinguish between the name of a legal concept and its substantive legal or intellectual content?

Justice Black's opinion mentioned James Madison eighty seven times. The substantive law established in Everson v. Board of Education (1947) was derived from the writings of James Madison. Thomas Jefferson's only contribution was to give the concept the name that it had already been awarded by the American people.

I have examined the following claims of Dr. Daniel Dreisbach:

The "wall of separation between church and state" metaphor was the central theme of the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Everson v. Board of Education.

My opinion is:

Determining the fundamental premise of a Supreme Court Opinion requires a very close examination of the Court’s opinion. A good way to start might be to read the opinion and identify the religious liberty issues, concepts and principles mentioned in the opinion and determine how many times each is mentioned.

The religious liberty issue, concept or principle, most frequently mentioned in Everson, is government authority over religion. There are at least fifteen such references.

The fifteen references to government authority include references to:

· Government authority to compel an individual to contribute to the financial support of religion.
· Government authority to punish individuals for their religions sentiments.
· Government authority to punish individuals for speaking disrespectfully of the views of ministers.
· Government authority to punish individuals for non-attendance at religious meetings.
· Stripping the government of all authority to interfere with the beliefs of any religious individual or group.

Other religious liberty issues, concepts or principles, mentioned in Everson are:

· The concept of a man’s duty to obey the dictates of his conscience.
· The concept that true religion did not need the support of law.
· The concept that cruel persecutions were the inevitable result of government-established religions
· The concept that Almighty God hath created the mind free.
· The concept of separating religions and government
· The concept of government neutrality on religion
· The concept of Separation of Church and State

Based on the number of times the concept was mentioned, I conclude that the central theme or fundamental premise of the Everson opinion is that government has no legitimate authority over religion. The concept of Separation of Church and State is mentioned only once. I see no way anyone who actually read the decision could possibly conclude that Separation of Church and State was the central theme of the Everson Decision.