Replies

The CONCEPT, the CONCERN, was about the separation of the POWERS of CHURCH and STATE. Not about separation of CHURCH and STATE.

Flash loves 1/2 of the First Amendment, but fails to recognize the half about freedom of religious expression. Flash is well read on the subject of trying to get religion out of the public square. However Flash doesn't care that the IRS make churches register and can penalize churches if they do not abide by the rules. Flash's main objective seems to be suppress religious expression, not to protect it. In Flash's reality, any mention of religion by a public official is Satan worshiping and they are bound to hell. He has accused George Washington, Abe Lincoln, and Patrick Henry of being satan-worshipers along with anyone who disagrees with his views. He is a liberal who pretends to care about religious expression, but only really cares about religious oppression.

You are correct if you mean that the religion clauses were intended to separate the power, authority and jurisdiction of God from that of Caesar when you wrote that, "The CONCEPT, the CONCERN, was about the separation of the POWERS of CHURCH and STATE."

The Separation of Church and State (I speak of the pure sacred just and truly Christian Madison-Jefferson type of Separation of Religion and Government) is all about separating (aka distinguishing or dividing) the power/authority/jurisdiction of the government (aka civil, temporal, worldly or Cesar) from that of religion (aka church, duty owed to the Creator, eternal, ecclesiastical or God.

The official records of the First U. S. Congress show that during the legislative process that produced the religion clauses the concern most often expressed was that of infringement on the right of conscience. The right of conscience was mentioned fifteen times by five different legislators.

The concern for an establishment of a national religion was mentioned three times by only one legislator. I exclude Elbridge Gerry's the "Federalist are Rats" comment because although he used the word "national" he was refering to the Federalist Party.

Representative Daniel Carroll (Maryland), in the excerpt presented below , expresses his support for a strict separation of religion and government that would prohibit the government for even touching religon and the right of conscience.

************************************************************

Saturday, August 15, 1789:

The House again went into a Committee of the Whole on the proposed amendments to the Constitution. Mr. Boudinot in the chair.

The fourth proposition being under consideration, as follows: Article 1. Section 9. Between paragraphs two and three insert 'no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed.'

MR. CARROLL As the rights of conscience are, in their nature, a peculiar delicacy, and will little bear the gentlest touch of governmental hand; and as many sects have concurred in opinion that they are not well secured under the present constitution, he said he was much in favor of adopting the words. He thought it would tend more towards conciliating the minds of the people to the government than almost any other opinion he heard proposed. He would not contend with gentlemen about the phraseology, his object was to secure the substance in such a manner as to satisfy the wishes of the honest part of the community. (Annals of Congress 1:729-731)