From: parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish )
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: "Separation of Church and State"
Date: 17 Dec 92 08:00:53 GMT
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cygnus.cis.ksu.edu

jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only) writes:

>parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish ) writes:
>>
>> [Jefferson's quote deleted.]
>>>     [Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT.
>>>      "The Complete Jefferson" by Saul K. Padover, pp 518-519]
>>
>>"... Although the statesmen and patriots who framed the Constitution had
>>made it clear that no one Christian denomination would become the official
>                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>It was clearer than that. Read the first amendment again.

Obviously not, you still have a wrong impression.  Keep reading.

>>denomination, the Danbury Baptists expressed their concern over a rumor
>>that a particular denomination was soon to be recognized as the national
>>denomination.  On January 1, 1802, President Jefferson responded to the
>>Danbury Baptists in a letter.  He calmed their fears by using the now 
>>infamous phrase to assure them that the federal government would not
>>establish any single denomination of Christianity as the national
>>denomination.

>So, it is quite clear what was meant by Jefferson in the context of the first
>amendment.

You obviously think so.  However, I also see you ignoring why Jefferson
wrote the letter in the first place and what concern he was addressing
specifically.  But let's dig another quote out from Jefferson...let's 
read this Jefferson quote very carefully and see what Jefferson meant 
by separation.  Jefferson in a letter to Samuel Miller, 1808:

"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the
Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their
doctrines, discipline, or exercises.  This results not only from the
provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or
free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the
States the powers not delegated to the United States.  Certainly,
no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to asssume authority
in religious discipline, has been delegated to the General Government."

[Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, ed. 
(Washington, DC: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. 
XI, p.428, letter on January 23, 1808.]

Now, what did Jefferson say here?  The government is prohibited
from interfering with religious doctrine and practice as a result of
the 1st Ammendment (see sentence 1-2).  Further...

"In the Senate of the United States, January 19, 1853, Mr. Badger made 
the following report:

The [First Amendment] clause speaks of 'an establishment of religion.'
What is meant by that expression?  It refered, without doubt, to that
establishment which existed in the mother-country ... endowment at
public expense, peculiar privileges to its members, or disadvantages
or penalties upon those who should reject its doctrines or belong to
othoer communions,--such law would be a 'law respecting an establishment
of religion' ... They intended, by this amendment, to prohibit 'an
establishment of religion' such as the English Church presented, or
anything like it.  But they had no fear or jealousy of religion itself,
nor did they wish to see us an irreligious people ... they did not
intend to spread over all the public authorities and the whole public
action of the nation the dead and revolting spectacle of atheistic
apathy.  Not so had the battles of the Revolution been fought and
the deliberations of the Revolutionary Congress been conducted."

[Tim LaHaye, Faith of our Fouding Fathers (Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth 
& Hyatt, Publishers Inc., 1987), p.27.]

[A quite large deletion.]

>Again, all of this according to the Supreme Court's mis-interpretation.

But it wasn't a mis-interpretation, as shown by the second Jefferson
quote presented above.  It was the correct interpretation.

>>Nearly 70 years after the Reynolds case, in the 1947 Everson [v. Board of
>>Education] case, the Court excerpted eight words out of Jefferson's address
>>('a wall of separation between church and state') and adopted that phrase
>>as its new battle cry.  It announced for the first time the new meaning
>                                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^
>>of separation of church and state--a separation of basic religious
>>principles from public arenas. ... 

>No, not a new meaning, but the original intent of Jefferson and the 
>Constitution.  Supreme Court interpretations don't change the original
>intent.

No, sorry, you are mistaken.  The 1947 Court took the meaning out
of context from the original letter and gave it a new meaning at 
that time.  The Supreme Court's ruling DOES in fact change the original
intent--not only Jefferson's intent but also the Senate's and the
vast majority of the Founding Fathers.  

You may believe that the Court has now rendered the correct interpretation,
but 180 years of Supreme Court precedent saying that Christianity and 
Government are intertwined; religion being taught in the schools and 
not challenged or removed, but encouraged; and early text books that
were practically lifted from scripture tell me that you are wrong. 

Provide any other evidence from the Founding Fathers or even something
prior to 1947 (besides the obviously disputed Jefferson quote) that 
support the _current_ interpretation of the 1st Amendment.

-- 
Scott Parish                |  The Truth is still the Truth      |  John 14:6
parsons@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu  |  even if you choose to ignore it.  |
Newsgroups: alt.atheism