The Mythical "Wall of Separation": How a Misused Metaphor Changed Church–State Law . . .

The Heritage Foundation ^ | 6/23/06 | Daniel L. Dreisbach

[wagglebee]

If the Supreme Court has accepted it, it won't be disappearing anytime soon. Nor should it.

I suppose you think that Plessy v. Ferguson should still be the "law of the land"?

Or should we still subscribe to this little gem from Chief Justice Roger B. Taney's majority decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford:
"We think they [people of African ancestry] are . . . not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States"

[TASMANIANRED]

Jefferson wasn't an author of the Constitution.

I believe he was out of the country in France at the time.

[wagglebee]

I am fully aware of that.

[AZRepublican]

A real good analyis on why the 14th amendment does not incorporate the establishment clause against the states see:

http://federalistblog.us/mt/articles/14th_dummy_guide.htm#e

[balrog666]

"We think they [people of African ancestry] are . . . not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States"

Is that really your position?

[wagglebee]

No, you said:

If the Supreme Court has accepted it, it won't be disappearing anytime soon. Nor should it.

[mrsmith]

"William Rehnquist totally destroys "Separation of Church and State" myth"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/971381/posts

Justice Rehnquist's Dissent in WALLACE V. JAFFREE (1985)

[roofgoat]

Thanks for the Post - will have to spend some quiet time with this one.

[balrog666]

And you said:

"We think they [people of African ancestry] are . . . not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States"

[wagglebee]

No I was quoting from Chief Justice Roger B. Taney's majority decision in "Dred Scott." One of the Supreme Court rulings that under YOUR thinking has been "accepted" and "won't be disappearing any time soon. Nor should it."

[Lancey Howard]

GREAT post!

Bookmarked.

[LowOiL]

Jefferson’s wall separated church and the federal government only. By incorporating the First Amendment non-establishment provision into the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Black’s wall separates religion and civil government at all levels—federal, state, and local. By extending its prohibitions to state and local jurisdictions, Black turned the First Amendment, as ratified in 1791, on its head. A barrier originally designed, as a matter of federalism, to separate the national and state governments, and thereby to preserve state jurisdiction in matters pertaining to religion, was transformed into an instrument of the federal judiciary to invalidate policies and programs of state and local authorities. As the normative constitutional rule applicable to all relationships between religion and the civil state, the wall that Black built has become the defining structure of a putatively secular polity.

Exactly... we have a FReeper who has a great (free) insight on this subject... I like it so well, I bought his book.

http://www.logical.arts.new.net/

The Conservative Debate Handbook is a great read and FR is greatly blessed to have Ohioan as a member.

[balrog666]

Yes, and you said:

"We think they [people of African ancestry] are . . . not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States"

And, just perhaps, you should give up the perfidious habit of putting words in other peoples mouths.

[LowOiL]

Ping... this reminds me of some of the older articles you used to post to FR years ago...

[HogFixer]

bump for later.

[LowOiL]

Hope you don't mind if I tie in some older articles on this subject ...

America is a Christian Nation?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1192745/posts

God In Your State Constitution?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1188144/posts

Judge Roy Moore and the Myth of the Separation Clause
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1384703/posts

Religion and the Constitution (Kinda long but it's an important subject)
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b1e98126aee.htm

Scalia: Church-state separation didn't protect Jews in Holocaust
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1313826/posts

THE BIG LIBERAL LIE (Seperation of Church and State)
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a54a9ed63d1.htm

William Rehnquist totally destroys "Separation of Church and State" myth
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/971381/posts

[Enchante]

This article is valuable for showing in great detail that not even Jefferson held the position that has been created by modern constitutional jurisprudence misusing his "wall of separation" phrase.

But what is more basic is that this phrase and the "Danbury letter" was an ABSURD place to go prospecting for the meaning of the 1st Amendment. As you both have noted, Jefferson was not part of the Constitutional Convention and was not even in the country. Also, as the article notes near the beginning, he was far from the spokesman for his contemporaries on all matters of religion and state and in fact was regarded as having views on the margin of society in that regard. Thus, for Justice Black and others to rely upon a MISREADING of Jefferson to create a fictitious intellectual pedigree for the supposed original meaning of the 1st Amendment is just the usual sort of liberal FRAUD.

Nearly every one of the original 13 states had an ESTABLISHED religion during the presidencies of George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson, so whatever the 1st Amendment was intended to do it certainly wasn't meant by anyone as a bar to any (state and local) government support of Christian religion, it was meant simply to keep the federal government from creating a national establishment of one Christian denomination over the others.

[TASMANIANRED]

Full agreement...

[Rameumptom]

I did find "Seperation of Church and State" in the Constitution in a couple of places.

Article 52 states, “the church is separated from the state”. Section 1, Article 14 states, “...shall be a secular state. No religion may be instituted as state-sponsored or mandatory religion. Religious associations shall be separated from the state,” Also in the 1918, the 1924 and 1936 Constitution of the ......USSR.

....Oh wait wrong Constitution.... Sorry (/sarc)

[epow]

And the left knows that if people remain ignorant about what is in the Constitution, they will get away with it.

Well, it's a sure bet that the people will remain ignorant about what is in the Constitution. All that the enemies freedom of religion have to do is say the magic phrase, "wall of separation" and the argument is settled as far as most people are concerned. I have challenged people to tell where I can find that phrase in the Constitution. They don't know where to look for it but they're sure it's in there somewhere, after all, the ACLU told them it is.