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

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

[Enchante]

"I thought you said that every one of the thirteen colonies had a state religion"

No, I didn't say all 13 had it, and the point is that a state establishment was then common in the states (9 of 13 had it and among the others various forms of open endorsement of religion was common). That doesn't for a moment suggest I'm proposing anything like that now. What I am saying is that it is a flagrant and despicable lie for ACLU types to pretend that there is some glorious all-secular constitutional tradition that has always required that all hints of any reference to God, Christianity, the 10 Commandments, etc. be scoured out of every part of our public life. That would have been shocking and appalling to George Washington and just about everyone in his generation, just as it would have been shocking and appalling to Abe Lincoln or FDR. It's only in recent decades that this indefensible approach to constitutional jurisprudence has arisen among the ignorant, the fraudulent, and the merely dishonest.

[Enchante]

Sorry, bud, I don't care to be interrogated and you obviously haven't read what I linked above, so this exchange is over. Bye bye..........

[Enchante]

"I think we have established that you are not going to be a source of accurate information on the history of the Church State in America."

I think we have established (repeatedly) that you are incapable of reading simple English. I linked above to a site that answers your questions: http://www.undergodprocon.org/pop/statereligions.htm#Rhode%20Island

[Ohioan]

Had not been by for a week or so, and just caught you very kind comment in reply #32. Thank you.

Of course, the points made in the essay at the head of this thread are right on the mark. Anyone who understands the history of settlement of the several States will realize how inconceivable the ACLU interpretation of religious freedom actually would have been to the Founding Fathers. They get by with it not only because of the appointment of Leftists to the Federal Courts--particularly during the 1930s through 1960s--but because too few Americans know the history of settlement.

The Constitution, as written, left questions of morality and social custom--as well as Faith and education--wholly to the States, which in turn left much to individual communities. The area where Americans came together as a Nation never embraced such questions; rather it was on the basis of a new found mutual respect, forged on the anvil of the Revolution. Virginia Cavaliers and Massachusetts Puritans did not abandon their distinct characters in 1776 to 1783. They learned that they could come together on common pursuits and common interests, without sacrificing their rights to manage their own affairs. Neither group ever desisted in the slightest from acknowledging their ultimate dependence upon a Creator, and one will look in vain for any evidence of a departure from the custom of the times, by which our honored Founders closed virtually every major public address with what was tantamount to a prayer.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[Ohioan]

Had not been by for a week or so, and just caught you very kind comment in reply #32. Thank you.

Of course, the points made in the essay at the head of this thread are right on the mark. Anyone who understands the history of settlement of the several States will realize how inconceivable the ACLU interpretation of religious freedom actually would have been to the Founding Fathers. They get by with it not only because of the appointment of Leftists to the Federal Courts--particularly during the 1930s through 1960s--but because too few Americans know the history of settlement.

The Constitution, as written, left questions of morality and social custom--as well as Faith and education--wholly to the States, which in turn left much to individual communities. The area where Americans came together as a Nation never embraced such questions; rather it was on the basis of a new found mutual respect, forged on the anvil of the Revolution. Virginia Cavaliers and Massachusetts Puritans did not abandon their distinct characters in 1776 to 1783. They learned that they could come together on common pursuits and common interests, without sacrificing their rights to manage their own affairs. Neither group ever desisted in the slightest from acknowledging their ultimate dependence upon a Creator, and one will look in vain for any evidence of a departure from the custom of the times, by which our honored Founders closed virtually every major public address with what was tantamount to a prayer.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[GSlob]

If I quoted something from an earlier post to which quote I appended my reply for the convenience of the reader - it does NOT mean that I wrote what I merely quoted. Large difference here. What I wrote, and what I'm responsible for, was my reply - and not the original quote.

[ArcadeQuarters]

But my television told me it's true!

[wagglebee]

But my television told me it's true!

I remember back in 2004 watching TV and learning all about how GWB skipped his Texas Air National Guard duty too!

[Non-Sequitur]

"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"

The 14th Amendment took care of that little gem from Chief Justice Taney.