Judge Roy Moore and the Myth of the Separation Clause

ChronWatch ^ | April 15, 2005 | Christian Hartsock

[FredFlash]

You wrote:

Personally, I consider Rehnquist's mistake in Wallace to be not protesting against the supposed incorporation of the establishment clause. I think Justice Thomas is much closer to the mark in his opinion in Newdow.

I say:

It is pure myth that at the founding, half of the states had religious establishments they wanted to preserve. Sure six States had religious authority "on paper", but only New Hampshire, Massachusetts and the land of Satan in Connecticut actually exercised that authority under the 1776 State Constitutions.

The fact that North Carolina, Maryland and Georgia had the legal authority to establish religion but chose not to exercise it, is a pretty good indication that the people of those States shared James Madison's contempt for government religion.

[FredFlash]

You wrote that: The establishment clause prevents a theocracy.

If the fundamental rule of religious freedom is “no theocracy” then please define the word “theocracy” for me and tell me if a law that forbid any person to advocate infant baptism and prescribed that offenders be tossed to the lions would violated the "no theocracy" rule?

[FredFlash]

BOGUS QUOTE ALERT ***BOGUS QUOTE ALERT*** BOGUS QUOTE ALERT
BOGUS QUOTE ALERT ***BOGUS QUOTE ALERT*** BOGUS QUOTE ALERT
BOGUS QUOTE ALERT ***BOGUS QUOTE ALERT*** BOGUS QUOTE ALERT
BOGUS QUOTE ALERT ***BOGUS QUOTE ALERT*** BOGUS QUOTE ALERT
BOGUS QUOTE ALERT ***BOGUS QUOTE ALERT*** BOGUS QUOTE ALERT
BOGUS QUOTE ALERT ***BOGUS QUOTE ALERT*** BOGUS QUOTE ALERT


Tailgunner Joe is telling the following lie: Jefferson wrote: “[the] wall of separation between church and state…is a one-directional wall. It keeps the government from running the church, but makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government.”

[FredFlash]

Justice Rehnquist wrote that it is impossible to build sound doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history. He then proceeds to found a new doctrine on the frivolous premise that the legal substance of the establishment clause was derived from a letter that President Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists.

Would some one please point out to me the First Amendment legal principles, rules and theories that were derived from Thomas Jefferson’s letter? Rehnquist once said that 99% of the meaning of the religion clauses is determined by the way you define the word “religion”.

The definition of “religion”, for First Amendment purposes, was derived from the Memorial and Remonstrance written by James Madison. See Reynolds v. U. S. (1878). That would leave only 1% of the meaning of the establishment clause that could have possibly been derived from Jefferson’s letter.

When Rehnquist read the establishment clause, I think he was sniffing glue with Clarence Thomas.