[HisKingdomWillAbolishSinDeath]

Their is a name for the modern interpretation of the "separation of church and state", communism.

[armordog99]

Yes most states had state sponsored religions, and all of them got rid of them by the early 1800's. Even considering that, however, the 14th amendment has incorporated the bill of rights and made it applicable to the states.

Also alot of state consitution's were even stricter than the federal consitution about the state and religion, on paper. However when 80% of a state think the same way it is very easy to run roughshod over the other 20%. That is what happened to the catholics when they started to immigrate over here in large numbers during the mid-1800s. When catholics sued the public schools about the use of the KJV of the bible judges in many parts of the US ruled it was alright to use the KJV of the bible AND THAT IT DIDN'T PROMOTE ONE RELIGION OVER ANOTHER.

However anyone with a lick of common sense realizes that it certainly promotes a specific denomination over another. But there was a concertated effort by many in power to try and convert catholics to protestanism. The catholics weren't going for it so they opened their own schools.

Now you have a country that is 76% christian(from the most recent survery I saw) compared to 95% christian at the turn of the century. The best way for the government to be is neutral to religion, neither promoting it nor hindering it.

[usadave]

Black went on, however, to claim that it meant that neither state nor federal government was allowed to have anything whatsoever to do with any religion.

I would think that if the Founding Fathers had wanted the First Amendment to mean this, the First Amendment would have been written this way:

"Neither Congress, nor any other branch of the Federal government, shall have anything whatsoever to do with any religion".

[Ready4Freddy]

Wrong. It appeared in at least 1 SCOTUS decision in the late 1800's.

Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black first enshrined the phrase “separation of Church and State” into law in Everson vs. the Board of Education, 1947.

[gakrak]

We need to take back our courts and put in Judges that apply the law as written not their interpretations. Judges should not have a agenda nor a bias.

[blackeagle]

bump

[Drammach]

Justice Black wrote, “The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church.” This was partially correct--the First Amendment refers only to the federal government.
Black went on, however, to claim that it meant that neither state nor federal government was allowed to have anything whatsoever to do with any religion.
In this, he was wrong. Justice Black did not consider the historical framework of the Bill of Rights; he took a phrase out of context and twisted its meaning to suit his decision.

The author is incorrect in his interpretation, as many are..
Too many take the word "establishment" to be interpreted as a verb.. i.e., to "create" a church..
Judge Black interpreted the word establishment as a NOUN.. an organization, group, or entity..

Congress shall make no law regarding "religion".. period..

[StonyBurk]

The single most disagreeable point was the suggestion most
of the founders were "probably Deists".Perhaps I am just not
schooled at such -but The claim seems cotrary to what I've
read of Franklin --and Jefferson.For their writings suggest
Deism as rare and unconventional as atheism. And M.E.Bradfords' work suggests most were active members of their local church.Then there is the centric problem of
confusing what is passed off as Deism today and confusing
the modern corruption of terms with what was understood as
Deism in the founding era 1730-1805.Most of the Founders were schooled in Calvanism.

[The Mayor]

On seperation of Church and State

It is impossible to build sound Constitutional doctrine
on a mistaken understanding of Constitutional history...
The establishment clause had been expressely freighted with
Jeffersons misleading metaphor for nearly forty years...
There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition
that the framers intended to build a wall of seperation
[between church and state]...
The recent court decisions are in no way based on either
the language or the intent of the framers.

William H. Rehnquist
1985 Assoc. Justice U.S. Supreme Court
Wallace vs Jafree


from my profile page..

[Sandy]

In Everson vs. Boe, Justice Black decided that it was unconstitutional for New Jersey residents “to pay taxes to help support and maintain schools which are dedicated to, and which regularly teach, the Catholic Faith.”

What is this crap? Justice Black didn't "decide" that. That was Everson's contention. And FYI, Everson lost.

Justice Black did not consider the historical framework of the Bill of Rights;

But he did. In fact, almost half his opinion deals with the historical framework.

Kinda hard to care what else the author has to say after he begins with such whoppers.

[joesnuffy]

Hugo Black...the ACLU's first "sock puppet"

imo

[MarxSux]

Massachusetts had an established church until 1833.

[little jeremiah]

Moral Absolutes Ping.

Here's a link to an article on FR a while ago, with a lot quotes by founding fathers. In their own words, more revealing that the extrapolations people twist up to turn them all into religion loathers.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1426198/posts
Misquoting Our Founding Fathers

Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinstlist.

Note: I recently read Benjamin Franklin's autobiography. He was not a church goer, and did consider himself more or less a Deist. One of the few. And he was a great admirer of religion, did believe in God, and encouraged religious belief in others by word and deed.