If you find that letter, would you FReepMail a hyperlink?
This was in a letter written by school teachers around the turn of the century because secularism was being talked about in the public system. I don't have a link, but it comes from David Barton I believe.A lot of what's in the original article came from David Barton. The thing is, he's since had to admit that a number of his quotations cannot be verified. They include the supposed Patrick Henry quote, and the 1892 Holy Trinity case. Here's a link to a full writeup:
American History Re-Written By Christians.
Barton used to have the list of quotations on his own site at Wallbuilders, but he's removed them.
The Trinity case in particular is interesting because the remarks quoted were not part of the decision. Indeed, they were what is called "dicta", notes by one of the judges explaining his thought process but not endorsed by any other judges nor part of the decision.
Go back another 32 years and one finds a decision contrary to Holy Trinity and fully compatible with Everson.
Christianity is not established by law, and the genius of our institutions requires that the Church and the State should be kept separate....The state confesses its incompetency to judge spiritual matters between men or between man and his maker ... spiritual matters are exclusively in the hands of teachers of religion.-U. S. Supreme Court, Melvin v. Easley, 1860
Of particular note is the word "separate".
Much is made of the fact that Jefferson's Danbury letter was not an official government document. What is sometimes missed is that he was clearly referencing the First Amendment as establishing his wall of separation
I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.Indeed, in Reynolds v. U.S. (1879), the Supreme Court declared that Jefferson's letter could be considered as an authoritative declaration on the intended scope of the First Amendment
Madison, in "Monopolies. Perpetuities. Corporations. Ecclesiastical Endowments", did much the same thing.
Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.Madison also destroyed the "unidirectional wall" theory here. There is also the 1797 "Treaty of Peace and Friendship between The United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary" , negotiated under Washington, signed and declared under Adams, and approved by a Senate loaded with Framers and their immediate political heirs, which was quite explicit:
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion...Still, the most compelling case against the "Christian Nation" theory is not what's in the Constitution, it's what's not. No direct reference to God, let alone Jesus, the Bible, or the Christian faith. Indeed, what kind of "Christian Nation" not only omits such, but protects in its founding documents the right to violate at least three of the Ten Commandments?
Nor was it meant to be implied. There was significant discussion during the writing of the Constitution of placing Christianity above all other faiths. In a report to Maryland lawmakers, delegate Luther Martin asserted that "in a Christian country, it would be at least decent to hold out some distinction between the professors of Christianity and downright infidelity or paganism." In the end that side lost, and the Constitution would be written as a secular document.
The evidence is so profound that one must wonder why the "Christian Nation" theory is put forth. To grant primacy to the Christian faith as a matter of law would dramatically shift the founding principles. Considering that we are the longest lasting, most stable, and freest nation on Earth, why would anyone want to do that?
The only reason I can think of is that some feel that freedom and liberty is less important than following what they consider to be the will of God. Not only for themselves, but for all others.
That is a path to tyranny.
-Eric