Separation of Church and State gone amok?

[Alabama Larry]

Pretty good research from both of you people.

[hoops5]

Habib and Bluegrasscard---:thumb: :thumb:

 

Do we get a study guide? Cliff notes?

[Bluegrasscard]

Habib and Bluegrasscard---:thumb: :thumb:

 

Do we get a study guide? Cliff notes?

 

Here are the main links I found useful:

 

The LOCs investigation into the draft of the Danbury Baptist letter.

 

'A Wall of Separation' (June 1998) - Library of Congress Information Bulletin

 

 

Here is the case where the famous statement was used.

 

Everson v. Board of Education - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

This was basically a 'voucher' case as it pertained to school tax funds going to parochial schools for transportation costs. The majority was in favor of the of the law and Justice Black wrote the opinion. In it he makes a good, clear case of trying to document the black and white of the 1st Amendment that was (and is) still grey. He ends with the the Jefferson quote trying to tie together his detailed argument.

 

"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. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'" 330 U.S. 1, 15-16.

 

I do not believe the case was ever reversed. To this day I know that in Michigan the 'public school' buses will carry and drop off parochial school students in much the same manner argued here.

[Jim Schue]

Here are the main links I found useful:

 

The LOCs investigation into the draft of the Danbury Baptist letter.

 

'A Wall of Separation' (June 1998) - Library of Congress Information Bulletin

 

 

Here is the case where the famous statement was used.

 

Everson v. Board of Education - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

This was basically a 'voucher' case as it pertained to school tax funds going to parochial schools for transportation costs. The majority was in favor of the of the law and Justice Black wrote the opinion. In it he makes a good, clear case of trying to document the black and white of the 1st Amendment that was (and is) still grey. He ends with the the Jefferson quote trying to tie together his detailed argument.

 

"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. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'" 330 U.S. 1, 15-16.

 

I do not believe the case was ever reversed. To this day I know that in Michigan the 'public school' buses will carry and drop off parochial school students in much the same manner argued here.

 

In this area, kids from Bethlehem ride Nelson County school buses. Pretty sure Bethlehem pays for that and it doesn't come out of state coffers. The fact that they pay for the service absolves them from any consideration of state v. church concerns, it seems. I'm guessing those parochial schools in Michigan you speak of also do the same as Bethlehem.

 

I guess I really don't understand how this aforementioned case would be carte blanche for those who wish to shove their religion down others' throats in the interest of majority rules.

[Hatz]

^

 

Thomas Jefferson's famous writing was thrust into the mainstream for the first time in 1947 in the Everson Supreme Court case.

 

It was a 5-4 opinion and Justice Black wrote - "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state."

 

And now the Thomas Jefferson's words have been used in ways never intended.

 

Before 1947 the words 'separation of church and state' were not in the political dialog much.

 

The case above was about using public tax monies to support religious non-public schools. The ruling may have been correct, that is not the point. The point is that Justice Black invoked Jefferson out of context to drive home the majority point. And he got the context and intent of Jefferson's word wrong. And even worse - as the online civics test shows - most people believe that the words are in law or the Constitution.

 

Here is a very interesting analysis of the Danbury letter - posted by the Library of Congress based on analysis done by the FBI of the drafts of the Danbury letter. Here.

 

 

 

The foundation of the most strict interpretation of the 'separation of church and state' is an out of context and incorrect usage of a political letter by Justice Black. Jefferson was simply reassuring the Baptists that he, as President, would not establish national days of thanksgiving and prayer that would conflict with their beliefs. Basically showing he would observe a view that limited governments role than his predecessors. But he also used the letter to attack his political opponents by re-enforcing that national days of feast and prayer were a British custom due to its national church.

 

The atheists are way out of bounds on this particular case. For to do what they want would directly conflict with the Free Exercise clause that is often forgotten. And Jefferson did not imply that the functions of government and religion would never interact.

 

Baptists historically understood Jefferson all along. 1920 George W. Truett, pastor of First Baptist Dallas, spoke on the Capitol steps:

 

Baptists have one consistent record concerning liberty throughout all their long and eventful history. They have never been a party to oppression of conscience. They have forever been the unwavering champions of liberty, both religious and civil. Their contention now, is, and has been, and, please God, must ever be, that it is the natural and fundamental and indefeasible right of every human being to worship God or not, according to the dictates of his conscience, and, as long as he does not infringe upon the rights of others, he is to be held accountable alone to God for all religious beliefs and practices. Our contention is not for mere toleration, but for absolute liberty. There is a wide difference between toleration and liberty. Toleration implies that somebody falsely claims the right to tolerate. Toleration is a concession, while liberty is a right. Toleration is a matter of expediency, while liberty is a matter of principle. Toleration is a gift from God. It is the consistent and insistent contention of our Baptist people, always and everywhere, that religion must be forever voluntary and uncoerced, and that it is not the perogative of any power, whether civil or ecclesiastical, to compel men to conform to any religious creed or form of worship, or to pay taxes for the support of a religious organization to which they do not believe. God wants free worshipers and no other kind.

 

Truett Sermon

 

The first Baptist Faith and Message Confession in 1925 stated thusly:

 

XVIII. Religious Liberty

 

God alone is Lord of the conscience, and he has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to his Word or not contained in it. Church and state should be separate. The state owes to the church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. In providing for such freedom no ecclesiastical group or denomination should be favored by the state more than others. Civil government being ordained of God, it is the duty of Christians to render loyal obedience thereto in all things not contrary to the revealed will of God. The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends. The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind. The state has no right to impose taxes for the support of any form of religion. A free church in a free state is the Christian ideal, and this implies the right of free and unhindered access to God on the part of all men, and the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the civil power.

 

 

2000 Baptist Faith & Message beside the 1925 & 1963 Statements

I think the interpretation you see as only having been since 1947 has been around a lot longer in many arenas of religion and popular discourse.