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

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

[DJ MacWoW]

So the Constitution is not the supreme law of the land?

[jwalsh07]

"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature" Adams.

The Tripoli Treaty also involved paying exortion money to the Muslims. Probably not the best treaty to cite as the Supreme Law of the Land.

But that is neither here nor there. The establishment clause prohibited the federal government from establishing any religion. In that respect, the words you cite are indisputable. Establishment and separation are not synonomous. If you are arguing that they are you have lost the debate before it ever started.

[Ohioan]

Can you give me a few of the best examples of what you consider to be absurd suppressions of the freedom to affirm one's faith that the founders would never have suggested. I am not sure I know exactly what you are talking about, mi amigo.

Restrictions on prayers in community supported public schools; forced removal of the Ten Commandments from local public buildings; school authorities turning off a microphone because a school valedictorian mentioned God in her Valedictory address, etc., ad nauseum.

William Flax

[jwalsh07]

I don't follow you, mi amigo. Tell us what the difference is, that we might be as wise and enlightened as thou art.

I'm not your amigo, I don't even know you.

Y senor, it doesn't take a genius to know that establish and spearate are not synonyms, just an average blue collar guy like me.

That you are unaware of that ain't mi problema senor, pero et es a problema, para tu.

[Ohioan]

No, the offenders, here, are the Federal Courts, misled by an 86 year old, ongoing campaign, largely directed by the ACLU. Of course, the microphone incident merely reflects the lunacy of local school administrators.

Again, see my essay on this issue: Leftwing Word Games & Relgious Freedom.

William Flax

[jwalsh07]

&440. The first amendment is, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...

&441. The same policy, which introduced into the Constitution the prohibition of a religious test, led to the more extended prohibition of any religious test, led to the more extended prohibition of the interference of Congress in religious concerns. We are not to attribute this prohibition of a national religious establishment to an indifference to religion in general, and especially to Christianity, (which none could hold in more reverence, than the framers of the Constitution,) but to dread by the people of the influence of ecclesiastical power in matters of government; a dread which their ancestors brought with them from the parent country, and which, unhappily for human infirmity, their own conduct, after their emigration, had not, in any just degree, tended to diminish. It was also obvious, from the numerous and powerful sects existing in the United States, that there would be perpetual temptations to struggles for ascendency in the National councils, if any one might thus be introduced, to an extent utterly subversive of the true interests and good order of the Republic. The most effective mode of suppressing evil, in the view of the people, was, to strike down the temptations of its introduction.


&442. ... Indeed, the right of a society or government to interfere in matters of religion, will hardly be contested by any persons, who believe that piety, religion, and morality are intimately connected with the well being of the state, and indispensable to the administration of civil justice. The promulgation of great doctrines of religion, the being, and attributes, and providence of one Almighty God; the responsibility to Him of our actions, founded upon moral accountability; a future state of rewards and punishments; the cultivation of all the personal, social, and benevolent virtues; - these never can be a matter of indifference in any well-ordered community. It is, indeed, difficult to conceive, how any civilized society can well exist without them. And, at all events, it is impossible for those who believe in the truth of Christianity; as a Divine revelation, to doubt, that it is the especial duty of government to foster, and encourage it it among all the citizens and subjects. This is a point wholly distinct from that of the right of private judgement in matters of religion, and of the freedom of public worship, according to the dictates of one's own conscience.


&443. The real difficulty lies in ascertaining the limits, to which government may rightfully go, in fostering and encouraging religion... (note: a discussion follows of various possibilities available to individual State governments, all of which deal specifically with the Christian religion and it's promulgation)....


&444. Probably, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the State, so far as such encouragement was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.

Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of The Constitution Of The United States

Now what was that you were saying about Justice Story?

[DJ MacWoW]

What does Article VI say is the "supreme law of the land?"

You're reaching. And failing. The treaty, in English, does not bar public exorcising of faith. It never even mentions it in the original arabic.

[DJ MacWoW]

I am skeptical of the claim that church services were actually held in U. S. Government owened buildings.

Would you believe a period newspaper article about it?

Church in the U.S. Capitol

Many people are surprised to learn that the United States Capitol regularly served as a church building; a practice that began even before Congress officially moved into the building and lasted until well after the Civil War. Below is a brief history of the Capitol's use as a church, and some of the prominent individuals who attended services there.

The cornerstone of the Capitol was laid by President George Washington in 1793., but it was not until the end of 1800 that Congress actually moved into the building. According to the congressional records for late November of 1800, Congress spent the first few weeks organizing the Capitol rooms, committees, locations, etc. Then, on December 4, 1800, Congress approved the use of the Capitol building as a church building.

The approval of the Capitol for church was given by both the House and the Senate, with House approval being given by Speaker of the House, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, and Senate approval being given by the President of the Senate, Thomas Jefferson. Interestingly, Jefferson’s approval came while he was still officially the Vice- President but after he had just been elected President.

Significantly, the Capitol building had been used as a church even for years before it was occupied by Congress. The cornerstone for the Capitol had been laid on September 18, 1793; two years later while still under construction, the July 2, 1795, Federal Orrery newspaper of Boston reported:

City of Washington, June 19. It is with much pleasure that we discover the rising consequence of our infant city. Public worship is now regularly administered at the Capitol, every Sunday morning, at 11 o’clock by the Reverend Mr. Ralph.

[DJ MacWoW]

You're claiming that the newspaper article from " Federal Orrery" in Boston lied?

Btw, give a link to your info. I did.

City of Washington, June 19. It is with much pleasure that we discover the rising consequence of our infant city. Public worship is now regularly administered at the Capitol, every Sunday morning, at 11 o’clock by the Reverend Mr. Ralph.

Church in the U.S. Capitol

[DJ MacWoW]

In July 1795 the Capitol Building was a construction site. The divine services administered by Reverend Ralph could not have possibly been held in the Capitol Building in 1795.

Where is your proof that the newspaper lied?