Posted on 12/28/2005 12:11:30 PM PST by seanmerc
Second, Everson didn't forbid New Jersey from spending state educational funds for religious instruction; it stopped just short of it. The usage of funds was held to be Constitutional, but walking on shaky ground. And while the case involved a Catholic school, it very well could have been a Protestant, Jewish, or Muslim school, or even a private academy, and in fact, the decision was binding to almost all private schools.
Third, Justice Frank Murphy, a Catholic, joined in Black's decision. For some reason, if Black was outwardly anti-Catholic and wrote the majority opinion in that manner (as you allege), I don't see another Justice outwardly seeking to join in it, especialliy if said another Justice is Catholic.
While I won't deny that Black was KKK and he was in the Twenties and Thirties anti-Catholic, the article doesn't prove beyond any doubt he was anti-Catholic on the bench.
Still. A gun makes me feel better when there are religious people around.
I have examined David Barton’s claim that:
In 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared, “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state.
My opinion is that:
It was actually in the 1878 case of Reynolds v. United States that the U. S. Supreme Court first declared, “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state.”
Slice
I have examined David Barton’s claim that:
The “separation of church and state” phrase which they invoked, and which has today become so familiar, was taken from an exchange of letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, shortly after Jefferson became President.
My opinion is that:
Who cares? The Reynolds Court in 1878 established the Memorial and Remonstrance of James Madison and the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom as the two primary sources of the principles of religious liberty. The Everson Court in 1947 acknowledged Madison’s authority and drew upon the Memorial and Remonstrance for the legal principles it applied to the issue of government support of religion.
Slice
I have examined David Barton’s claim that:
The “separation of church and state” phrase which they invoked, and which has today become so familiar, was taken from an exchange of letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, shortly after Jefferson became President.
My opinion is that:
Who cares? The Reynolds Court in 1878 established the Memorial and Remonstrance of James Madison and the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom as the two primary sources of the principles of religious liberty. The Everson Court in 1947 acknowledged Madison’s authority and drew upon the Memorial and Remonstrance for the legal principles it applied to the issue of government support of religion.
Slice
I have examined David Barton’s claim that:
The “separation of church and state” phrase which they invoked, and which has today become so familiar, was taken from an exchange of letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, shortly after Jefferson became President.
My opinion is that:
Who cares? The Reynolds Court in 1878 established the Memorial and Remonstrance of James Madison and the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom as the two primary sources of the principles of religious liberty. The Everson Court in 1947 acknowledged Madison’s authority and drew upon the Memorial and Remonstrance for the legal principles it applied to the issue of government support of religion.
Slice
I have examined David Barton’s claim that:
The “separation of church and state” phrase which they invoked, and which has today become so familiar, was taken from an exchange of letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, shortly after Jefferson became President.
My opinion is that:
Who cares? The Reynolds Court in 1878 established the Memorial and Remonstrance of James Madison and the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom as the two primary sources of the principles of religious liberty. The Everson Court in 1947 acknowledged Madison’s authority and drew upon the Memorial and Remonstrance for the legal principles it applied to the issue of government support of religion.
Slice
I have examined David Barton’s claim that:
The election of Jefferson-America’s first Anti-Federalist President-elated many Baptists since that denomination, by-and-large, was also strongly Anti-Federalist.
My opinion is that:
Thomas Jefferson was elected in 1800 as a Republican-Democrat. Previously, he was a Federalist. Thomas Jefferson was never an Anti-Federalist.
Slice
I have examined David Barton's claim that:
The political disposition of the Baptists was understandable, for from the early settlement of Rhode Island in the 1630s to the time of the federal Constitution in the 1780s, the Baptists had often found themselves suffering from the centralization of power.
My opinion is that:
I love the politically correct ways Barton finds to avoid saying government authority over our duties to the Creator. The Baptists had been persecuted since the 1500's for their refusal to acknowledge any government authority over their duties to God.
The Baptists in Connecticut, in 1802, were free to profess and worship the Baptist religion. However, the Baptists were not free to contribute to the financial support of the Baptist faith without approval from the government.
Counterfeit Christians controlled Connecticut. It was the only State that actually narrowed religious liberty after the Constitution was ratified. Baptists were required to file certificates of dissent and membership in a Baptist Church, in order to be exempt from the state tithe.
By 1801, the conflict was exceedingly bitter. The Federalists confounded Jefferson-ism with infidelity and all the horrors of the French Revolution, which they believed would be repeated in Connecticut, if the Church were overthrown.
In 1817, the conservatives fell from power and the noble Oliver Wolcott was chosen governor by a coalition of the opponents of the State-Church. The dissenters made common cause with the Republicans against the conservative dynasty and the legislature called a Convention to frame a Constitution.
The Convention met in 1818, framed a constitution to take the place of the old colonial charter, and incorporated provisions that destroyed all religious establishment. The change seemed to many of the conservatives as the beginning of the day of doom. The venerable Timothy Dwight, the president of Yale, deprecated it until his death. It involved readjustments but in a few years the wisdom and righteousness of the new system justified itself to even those who had been staunchest in defense of the establishment.
Slice
I have examined David Barton’s claim that:
The Baptists expressed to Jefferson grave concern over protection for the “free exercise of religion” in the U. S. Constitution. It suggested to the Danbury Baptists that the right of religious expression was government-given rather than God-given.
My view is:
The Danbury Baptists said nothing whatsoever in their 1801 letter to President Jefferson regarding a grave concern over protection for the free exercise of religion in the U. S. Constitution. In their letter, the Baptist expressed their religious liberty concerns as follows:
Our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the law made coincident therewith, were adopted as the basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our laws and usages, and such still are; that religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen.
The “constitution of government” the Baptists were referring to was the Connecticut Colonial Charter of 1626. It was not, as David Barton claims, the U. S. Constitution.
In 1801, the U. S. Constitution was not “ancient”, it was only twelve years old. Nor was it adopted at “the time of our revolution.” (The period from 1776 to 1783)
Believe it or not, in 1801, the “ancient charter” of 1626 still served as “the basis of” the Connecticut government. At the time of the American Revolution in 1776, the Colony Charter was quickly adopted by the Standing Order of the State of Connecticut without the approval of the people and was still in effect in 1801.
The whole object of the American Revolution was to get rid of a tyrannical government that claimed authority from God. It is a dirty little historical secret that most of the folks in Connecticut would just as soon have stayed with the English.
The Charter contained no provision for it to be amended and enabled the Standing Order to stay in power for about twenty years after a majority of the people probably would have gotten rid of it, if a constitutional convention had been possible.
Under the ancient charter, the Connecticut government was granted legislative power over religion, or as the Baptist put it in their letter, “religion is considered the first object of legislation.” Therefore, what religious liberty the Baptists enjoyed (as a minority religion) was viewed as favors granted by a tolerant government and not as the inalienable natural right of every man.
The Baptist enjoyed the “privilege” of professing and exercising their faith as dictated by their conscience and convictions. The “privilege” to obey God with respect to the duty to contribute to the financial support of the Baptist religion required the Baptist to obtain a “Certificate of Dissent” under the 1791 the Connecticut Certificate Law.
The Baptists considered it degrading and inconsistent with the rights of freemen to be required, by the Connecticut Certificate Law of 1791, to obtain an acknowledgment from a Baptist minister in order that their compulsory financial contributions would go the Baptist Church instead of the Church chosen by the majority of the local voters
Many Baptist refused to comply with the Certificate Law, gave their tithe directly to a Baptist Church and dared the local tithe collector to do anything about it. The Baptist believed that “God alone ruled a man’s conscience” and they didn’t need no stinking Certificate of Dissent from a government stooge to support the Baptist religion.
The Baptists wrote Jefferson to complain about Connecticut law - Not U. S. Law. I believe their letter shows that the Baptists already knew Jefferson’s beliefs regarding the right of conscience and his take on the First Amendment. Nehemiah Dodge, the leader of the Danbury Association, had traveled Connecticut during 1800 campaigning for Jefferson as his “campaign manager.” Jefferson’s alliance with the Baptists dated from the mid 1770’s when the movement to destroy the Virginia Church-State was organized.
Presented below is the complete letter of the Baptist to Jefferson.
The address of the Danbury Baptists Association in the state of Connecticut, assembled October 7, 1801. To Thomas Jefferson, Esq., President of the United States of America.
Sir,
Among the many million in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration, to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief magistracy in the United States: And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe that none are more sincere.
Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty--that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals--that no man ought to suffer in name,person, or effects on account of his religious opinions--that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbors; But, sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the law made coincident therewith, were adopted as the basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our laws and usages, and such still are; that religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power and gain under the pretense of government and religion should reproach their fellow men--should reproach their order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ.
Sir, we are sensible that the president of the United States is not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each state; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved president, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these states and all the world, till hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more than thirty years we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the chair of state out of that goodwill which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for your arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you to sustain and support you enjoy administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to raise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.
And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his heavenly kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious
Mediator.
Signed in behalf of the association,
Nehemiah Dodge
Ephraim Robbins
Stephen S. Nelson
Hmmm... certainly polygamy was deemed as somewhat acceptable in the 'Books of the Law'.
I would not rely on David Barton for accurate information. Barton makes a lot of claims that he doesn't prove. One example is his claim that on December 4, 1800, Congress approved the use of the Capitol building as a church building.
The evidence cited by Barton is: Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1853), p. 797, Sixth Congress, December 4, 1800.
An examination of the evidence cited by Barton reveals the opposite of his claim. The House declined to even consider "that the Chaplains had proposed, if agreeable to the House, to hold divine services every Sunday in their Chamber."
The Speaker of the House informed the members of the Chaplain's proposal but did not order it assigned to a committee or to lay on the clerk's table for consideration.
No House member moved for it to be assigned to committee or to lay on the table. It went straigt into the trash basket.
It appears that not even one member of the House was interested in a divine services every Sunday in their Chamber.
Follow this link, see the document and make up your own mind if Congress approved the Chaplain's proposal.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=010/llac010.db&recNum=396
F. Slice
The phrase "freedom or religion, not freedom from religion" is found nowhere in the Bill of Rights.
"Separation of Church and State" is the absence of civil authority over religion. Where does the Constitution grant the government any authority over religion or establish a Union between Church and State?
If a Catholic hating racist wrote the opinion then why did the Court rule in favor of the Catholics.
Your statment that the doctrine of church-state separation is not in the Constitution, reveals a lack of understanding of the concept of no government authority over our duties to the Creator, that is the fundamental legal principle of the James Madison Doctrine of Separation between Religon and State.
Church/State Separation is the opposite of a Church/State Union. There is nothing in the Great Charter establishing a Church/State Union or granting the government any authority over religion.
No civl authority over religion = The exemption of our duties to the Creator from the authority of Ceasar = Separation of Church (our duty to the Creator) and State (the government)
Absolutely correct. Jefferson's letter to Danbury talks only of a seperation of Church and State, a reference to the first amendments prohibitions on establishing a State church, as the Brittish had done with the Church of England. Hugo Black took this phrase and reinterpeted it to mean a seperation of religion or faith and State. This was never contemplated by those who ratified the first amendment and completely different from what Jefferson was refering to in his letter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.