SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE:  A REBUTTAL

      By Wayne Aiken, North Carolina state director American Atheists
          with acknowledgement to Jim Allison (jalison@cox.net)
          for original material and research


   Introduction


           Recent events have indicated the existence and influence of a
historical revisionism movement designed to marginalize and deny the
constitutional principle of the separation of church and state.  Through
the works of evangelists such as David Barton and his "Wallbuilders"
organization, books, movies, and seminars are used to present a highly
selective and biased account of the founding period of this country.  The
purpose is to mislead the public into believing that government and
religion were intended from the beginning to be mixed, and that an evil
cabal of politicians and judges have somehow cheated us out of a "christian
nation" to which we must return. Designed to be impressive-sounding to a
public otherwise unfamiliar with early American history, this misleading
information is used as "sound-bites" in publicity campaigns and public
arguments in favor of increased religious intrusion into government
affairs.

           The truth, however uncomfortable it may be to those whose
religious faith needs government support, is different.  It is true that
the debate over the relationship between state and church was heated, and
this was a major issue which motivated many to oppose the ratification of
our country's Constitution. History, however, clearly records the
prevailing philosophy, and it was determined that our government must not
only be separate and isolated from religious faith and practice, but that
this arrangement was a necessary component of true religious freedom.

           This is the view of credible historians, academics, legal
commentators, judges, and the Founding Fathers themselves.  However
important, and to what degree these people held their own personal
religious beliefs, they agree that such practices are a private affair, and
that one cannot be free to  hold and practice their own religion, unless
they are free from having someone else's beliefs imposed upon them.  This
is the essence of the separation of church and state: freedom *from*
government-imposed religion. It is this principle, and not the doctrines of
any particular faith, that form the basis for the peace that America has
enjoyed from the spiritual tyrannies and violence that plague other parts
of the world to this day.


           In their own words:

"The greatest achievement ever made in the cause of human progress is the
 total and final separation of church and state. If we have nothing else to
 boast of, we could lay claim with justice that the first among the nations
 we of this country made it an article of organic law that the relations
 between man and his maker were a private concern, into which other men
 have no right to intrude.  To measure the stride thus made for the
 Emancipation of the race, we have only to look back over the centuries that
 have gone before us, and recall the dreadful persecutions in the name of
 religion that have filled the world."
  [David Dudley Field (1805-1894) in describing 'American Progress in
  Jurisprudence,' as quoted in Anson Phelps Stokes, Church And State In The
  United States Vol I, p. 37]


          "The United States have adventured upon a great and noble
 experiment, which is believed to have been hazarded in the absence of all
 previous precedent - that of total separation of church and state.  No
 religious establishment by law exists among us.  The conscience is left
 free from all restraint and each is permitted to worship his maker after
 his own judgement... Such is the great experiment which we have tried; our
 system of free government would be imperfect without it.",
               [Pres. John Tyler, 10th US President and
                supporter of state/church separation]


          "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state
 is absolute- where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he
 be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his
 parishoners for whom to vote--where no church or church school is granted
 any public funds or political preference--and where no man is denied public
 office merely because his religion differs from the president who might
 appoint him or the people who might elect him."
                [President John F. Kennedy]


          "The twin doctrines of separation of church and state and liberty
 of individual conscience are the marrow of our democracy, if not indeed
 America's most magnificent contribution to the freeing of Western man."
             [Clinton Rossiter, American historian]


          "In addition, the New York Supreme Court, in a well known case
 (Miami Military Institute v Leff 129 Misc. 481, 220 N.Y.S. 799, 810) said
 of the principle of religious freedom that it, 'has always been regarded by
the American people as the very heart of its national life.'  This would be
difficult to maintain in a democracy without constitutional separation of
church and state.
   [Anson Phelps Stokes, Church And State In The United States Vol I, p. 34]





    From the November 24, 1997 Charlotte city council meeting:

       Audience participant Nick Cilali:

       Claim: Alleged George Washington farewell address:  "of all
the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity religion and
morality are indispensable supports..."

       Rebuttal: According to text of Washington's Farewell Address
in 1796, he did make this statement, and goes on to say that patriotism and
morality cannot exist without religious principles.  He does not specify
which religion.  Washington was a Deist, like Franklin and Jefferson, and
never mentioned Christ in any of his writings.

              Note that this statement does not in any fashion imply that
government must be involved in religion or morality, only that it depends
on it.  Quite to the contrary, Washington was deeply committed to religious
freedom and the separation of church and state- so much so that when many
clergymen complained that the Constitution lacked mention of Jesus Christ,
Washington responded:

        "...the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little
         political direction."


       Claim: Alleged John Adams:  "it is religion and morality alone
which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand..."

       Rebuttal: This implies absolutely nothing regarding the
promotion or recognition of religion by the government.  To the contrary,
John Adams was a staunch supporter of religious freedom and of separation of
church and state.  His specific position was:

        "Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling
         with religion."

              Like many other Founders, Adams goes much further in his
private letters, which were never intended to be made public.  Despite
public statements on the value of religion and morality, many of the
Founders were not Christians.  John Adams writes to fellow Deist Thomas
Jefferson:

        "I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal
         example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has
         preserved--the Cross.  Consider what calamities that engine of
         grief has produced!"


        Claim:  Alleged Thomas Jefferson from the Jefferson Memorial
monument in Washington DC: "God who gave us life gave us liberty and can
the liberty of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only
firm basis---- a conviction in the minds of people that they are the gift
of God..."

        Rebuttal:  Jefferson did say this, but it has nothing whatsoever
to do with  the issue of government support of religion. This quotation
is taken from a famous letter in which he argues against slavery;
Jefferson claimed that slavery violated a person's God-given freedom,
although he also owned slaves.

              Jefferson's unorthodox views on religion, as well as his
distaste for Christianity, were well-known even in his own day, and he was
often scorned by clergy as an "atheist".  In his private letters, he writes
to Dr. Woods:

         "I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the
          world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity)
          one redeeming feature.  They are all alike founded on fables and
          mythology."

              Few of the other Founders were as strong or prolific
supporters of the principle of separation of church and state as Jefferson.
His most famous statement, where he popularized that phrase as an
interpretation of First Amendment principles, was to the Danbury Baptist
Association, who asked him to issue a Thanksgiving proclamation;

         "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely
          between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for
          his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of
          government reach actions only, and not opinions, 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 prohibiting the free
          exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between
          church and State."

              His other pronouncements on the proper role of government are
equally explicit:

         "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as
          are injurious to others.  But it does me no injury for my
          neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God.  It neither
          picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

         "...no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious
          worship ministry or shall otherwise suffer on account of his
          religious opinions or belief, but all men shall be free to profess
          and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion,
          and that the same shall in no wise.. affect their civil capacities."

         "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the
          propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is
          sinful and tyrannical."

         "..our civil rights have no dependance on our religious opinions,
          any more than our opinions in physics or geometry"

         "I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by
          the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions,
          their doctrines, discipline, or exercises."

         "I am for freedom of religion and against all maneuvers to bring
          about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another."


              These were not idle words.  Jefferson's administration
included absolutely no religious proclamations of any kind.  He responded
to reaction over this by explaining:

         "I know it will give great offense to the clergy, but the advocate
          of religious freedom is to expect neither peace nor forgiveness
          from them."

              Additionally, Jefferson made it quite clear that religious
liberty included all people, not only Christians:

         "The bill for establishing religious freedom, the principles of
          which had, to a certain degree, been enacted before, I had drawn
          in all the latitude of reason & right.  It still met with
          opposition; but, with some mutilations in the preamble, it was
          finally passed; and a singular proposition proved that it's
          protection of opinion was meant to be universal.  Where the
          preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan
          of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed
          by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure
          from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;"
          the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that
          they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection,
          the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohametan, the
          Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."

              To claim Thomas Jefferson as an advocate of government
involvement with church doctrine, based on vague endorsements of religion
and morality, is not only incorrect, but perverse in the extreme.


        Claim: Preamble to the constitution of the state of North Carolina:
"grateful to almighty God, the sovereign ruler of nations....and
acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those
blessings..."

        Rebuttal: The current Preamble to the Constitution of North
Carolina, does contain this wording.  A preamble, however, is merely an
introduction and carries no legal weight.  The 14th Amendment to the United
States Constitution subordinates all State laws at all levels to the
federal Constitution; additionally, the NC Constitution explicitly
subordinates itself to the U.S. Constitution in Article I section (5).

Explicitly religious mandates within the NC Constitution, such as Article
VI Sec. (8), have been found unconstitutional and struck down.  This
section, "Disqualifications of office", disenfranchising "First, any person
who shall deny the being of Almighty God.", was overturned by Voswinkel v.
Hunt (1979).  All other legally binding sections of the NC Constitution are
subject to the same provisions of the First Amendment.


        Councilman Don Reid:

        Claim:   Councilman Don Reid, who made no quotes from the founding
fathers but asserted, "This country was built on Judeo-Christian
principles, the basis of which is the Ten Commandments, no one can deny
that..."

        Rebuttal: The Constitution of the United States and the legal
system which comes from it, was influenced by many sources, but primarily
the philosophical works of Locke, Hume, and Rousseau- thinkers most
commonly associated with the "Age of Enlightenment".  This radical new
worldview affected nearly every aspect of life, including traditional
"Judeo-Christian" doctrines, particularly the relationship between
spiritual establishments and temporal government.  The uniquely American
approach involved a complete separation.  ("The Enlightenment in America"
by Ernest Cassara, 1988, University Press of America")

              Reid is merely echoing the long-debunked "Christianity is
part of common law" theme, without bothering to think it through.  Our
system of law is noted, quite to the contrary, to its complete and total
lack of recognition and special status for religious doctrines of any kind.


        Coucilman Tim Sellers:

        Claim: Alleged quote from George Washington's farewell
address:  "let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be
maintained without religion... Reason and experience both forbid us to
expect that national morality can prevail in the exclusion of religious
principle..."

        Rebuttal: Washington was well-known for making any numbers of
quotes which led many people to infer that he was a practicing Christian;
he often spoke on religious themes, and he often attended the Episcopal
churches in Philadelphia, although he always left before the communion was
administered, arousing controversy among the congregation.

              This "Farewell Address" is the last and best known speech in
which he advocates religious sentiment, however even it conspicuously fails
to endorse Christianity, or any other brand of religion.  Those who knew
him well, knew that he was in fact, a Deist.  Even the ministers of the
churches he attended commented upon Washington's refusal to take communion,
and his silence regarding his belief in Christianity.


        Claim: Alleged quote from Patrick Henry:  "It cannot be
emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded,
not by religionists but by Christians, not on religion but on the Gospel of
Jesus Christ."

        Rebuttal: This quote has not been traced back to an original
source, and is a questionable quote used by David Barton.  Based on other
quotes made by Patrick Henry, it is not inconsistent with his general
opinions. His claim to fame rests in the founding of the nation of
Virginia, his battle with Jefferson and Madison in trying to keep
Christianity as the legally established religion of the Nation of Virginia,
and his efforts in trying to keep the Constitution from being ratified.  He
lost both of those battles with Madison.

              If his claim is true, then it is odd that the primary legal
document which defines the government of this nation has no references
whatsoever to Jesus Christ or any deity whatsoever, basing its authority
instead on "We the people."


        Claim: Alleged quote from U.S. Supreme court decision Church of
Holy Trinity v. United States (1892): "Our laws and our institutions must
necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of
Mankind, it is impossible that it should be otherwise....Our civilization
and institutions are emphatically Christian..."

        Rebuttal: This is yet another inaccurate statement from David
Barton, and he has admitted that this quote appears nowhere in the Trinity
v. United States case.

              This case was not a church/state separation case but rather
on whether an alien labor law passed by Congress in 1887 referred to only
manual labor and not professional or skilled labor.  In the non-legally
binding *obiter dictum*, or "footnote" section, Justice Brewer went off on
a tangent and wrote a completely unrelated  discourse on religion and this
nation:

         "These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume
          of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that
          this is a Christian nation."

              This case is frequently cited as by organizations seeking to
amend the Constitution to include an endorsement of Christianity.  To
correct this misinterpretation, Justice Brewer himself wrote a book in 1905
to correct the record, titled "The United States: A Christian Nation".  He
explains:

         "But in what sense can [the United States] be called a Christian
          nation?  Not in the sense that Christianity is the established
          religion or the people are compelled in any manner to support
          it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides
          that 'congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
          religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' Neither
          is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in
          fact or in name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have
          free scope with in its borders.  Numbers of our people profess
          other religions, and many reject all."

         "...Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of
          Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise
          engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either
          politically or socially.  In fact, the government as a legal
          organization is independent of all religions."

              Whatever his ideas about the United States as a Christian
nation may have been, that did not include any official endorsement or
special status for religion by government, and this position is reflected
in other legal decisions he made.


        Claim: Alleged quote from John Adams, second President of the United
States: "We have no government armed with the power capable of containing
human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was
made for the governance of a moral and religious people.  It is wholly
inadequate for the governance of anything else."

        Rebuttal: This remark has absolutely nothing to do with government
support for religion, nor does it in any way specify Christianity or any
other religion.

              See the previous remarks on John Adams.


        Claim:  Alleged quote from James Madision: "We have staked
the whole future of American civilization and political institutions to our
capacity to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

        Rebuttal: This is yet another unverified quote spread by David
Barton. According to Church & State magazine (July/August 1996), "Christian
nation", Barton has issued a statement admitting that certain quotations
attributed to prominent historical figures in his 1992 book  Myth of
Separation, are either false or, at best, questionable, and he admits that
this is one of the most controversial among them.

              In fact, no such quote has ever been found among any of James
Madison's writings. None of the biographers of Madison, past or present
have ever run across such a quote, and most if not all would love to know
where this false quote originated.  Apparently, David Barton did not check
the work of the secondary sources he quotes.  Robert Alley, a distinguished
historian at the University of Richmond, has recently made an attempt to
track down the origin of this quote. You can read about his effort in
"Public Education and the Public Good," William and Mary Bill of Rights
Journal,, Summer 1995, pp. 316-318.

              Madison makes his position regarding church/state separation
quite clear in his statement, "A Memorial and Remonstrance", addressed to
the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, in 1785:

        "What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on
         society?  In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual
         tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances
         they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny;
         in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of
         the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have
         found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries.  A just
         government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."

              In his letter to Rev. Jasper Adams in the Spring of 1832, he
once again makes his position regarding government's proper role quite
clear:

         "[I]t may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line
          of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil
          authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and
          doubts on unessential points.  The tendency to unsurpastion on one
          side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance
          between them, will be best guarded agst. by an entire abstinence
          of the Gov't from interfence in any way whatsoever, beyond the
          necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect
          agst. trespasses on its legal rights by others."


        Councilman Mike Jackson:

        Claim: Alleged charge to the framing committee of the first
constitution in America  in the state of Connecticut in 1639:  "to frame a
constitution as near the law of God as they can."

        Rebuttal: This is irrelevant to our current system of laws.  In
fact, the early colonies were theocracies with established churches;
Anglican in the south and Congregationalist in New England. Even Rhode
Island, founded as an experiment in religious freedom, limited full
citizenship to Trinitarian Protestants.  Our present system, with
separation of church and state, is a deliberate departure from these and
earlier European governments.

              Our current Constitution was noteworthy in its absence of
religious recognition, and this formed the basis for much intense debate
and opposition to its ratification.  Rev. Doctor Wilson, in an 1831 sermon
protested that it almost seemed as though God had been deliberately
excluded from the origins of the new government:

         "... the Constitution was framed and God was neglected. He was not
          merely forgotten. He was absolutely voted out of the Constitution.
          The proceedings, as published by Thompson, the secretary, and
          the history of the day, show that the question was gravely debated
          whether God should be in the Constitution or not, and after a solemn
          debate he was deliberately voted out of it... There is not only in
          the theory of our government no recognition of God's laws and
          sovereignty, but its practical operation, its administration,
          has been conformable to its theory."


        Claim: Alleged quote from John Quincy Adams, sixth President of the
United States: "The highest glory of the American Revolution was that it
connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government
with the principles of Christianity."

        Rebuttal: John Quincy Adams was not a "Founder", nor was he
involved in any way with the writing of the Constitution or the Bill of
Rights.  Nor did he ever make any public admission that he followed the
Christian religion.

              This quote is taken from the first edition of David Barton's
videotape, "America's Godly Heritage".  The original source for this quote
is the book "The Pulpit of the American Revolution 1860" by John Wingate
Thornton.  This particular quote attributed to John Quincy Adams is not
documented with footnotes, nor is it even enclosed in quotation  marks as
all other quotes in the introduction to this book- instead, it reads like
Thornton's own conclusion about what John Quincy Adams believed.  These
words are not documented nor attached to a date, and have not been traced
back to an original source.  Elsewhere in this book, Adams' father, John
Adams, is quoted properly with footnotes and quotation marks.  In the
absence of proper documentation, this quote should be considered
questionable at best.


        Claim: Alleged quote from James Madison: "Religion is the
basis and foundation of our government."

        Rebuttal: James Madison was sympathetic to religion, but he
was also a staunch support or state-church separation.  As the First
Amendment's author, he shared Jefferson's broad reading of the amendment.

              Madison vetoed a bill in 1811 passed by Congress that simply
gave a charter to an Episcopal church within the District of Columbia.  The
bill referred to the functions of this particular church in dispensing
charity and education to the neighboring poor.  Madison's veto stated that
the legislation violated the First Amendment and "would be a precedent for
giving to religious societies as such a legal agency in carrying into
effect a public and civic duty."  The bill, he contended, would blur, and
indeed erase, "the essential distinction between civil and religious
functions."  That same year Madison vetoed legislation that would have
given federal land to a Baptist church in the Mississippi Territory.

Clearly, the establishment of a national church was not at stake, but
Madison stated the bill violated the First Amendment, comprising "a
precedent for the appropriation of funds of the United States for the use
and support of religious societies."  He also, unsuccessfully, opposed the
appointing of chaplains to Congress.

              Whatever his opinions may have been on the relationship of
religion to the foundation of government, he clearly did not include
religion as part of its workings.  In a letter to Edward Livingston on July
10, 1822, he wrote:

        "Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation
         between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance;
         and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every
         past one has done, in showing that religion and Govt (sic) will both
         exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together"


         Claim:  Alleged quote from founding father Roger Sherman who
lobbied George Washington to declare the Thanksgiving holiday an allegedly
justified it, "as warranted by the number of precedents in the Holy Writ,
for instance, the solemn thanksgiving and rejoicing which took place at
the time of Solomon after the building of the holy temple,...this example
was worthy of Christian imitation on the present occassion."

         Rebuttal: Washington and Adams both did declare Thanksgiving
proclamations, with Jefferson breaking this new tradition with his famous
letter to the Danbury Baptists.  John Adams later, in his retirement,
regretted re-starting this practice after Jefferson's totally secular
administration.


         Claim:   U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (served
1811-1845) in a Harvard speech in 1829: "There has never been a period of
history which common law has not recognised Christianity as lying (sic) as
its foundation."  Another misquote: "we are not to attribute this
prohibition of national religious establishment in the First Amendment to
religion in general and especially to Christianity which none can hold in
more reverence than the framers of the Constitution... the general if not
universal sentiment was that Christianity should receive encouragement
from the state."

         Rebuttal:  This second statement is a classic example of
quoting a source out of context.  In 1851, while serving as the Dane
Professor of Law at Harvard University, he published his Commentaries on
the Constitution of the United States, which included a short section on
religious liberty. In the opening pages of this section Story argued for
the importance of religious faith for good government, and then proceeded
to claim that:

           "Probably at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and
            of the amendment to it, now under consideration [i.e., the
            First Amendment], the general, if not the universal sentiment
            in America was, that christianity ought to receive encouragement
            from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private
            rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship."
               [p. 593]

                 All Story is claiming here is that, at the time of the
adoption of the Constitution, there was widespread sentiment for aiding
Christianity. What Story does not claim here is that the Constitution
empowered the federal government to give such aid. Indeed, only a few pages
latter in his Commentaries he explicitly denies that the federal government
had such power:

           "It was under a solemn consciousness of the dangers from
            ecclesiastical ambition, the bigotry of spiritual pride, and
            the intolerance of sects, thus exemplified in our domestic,
            as well as in foreign annals, that it was deemed advisable to
            exclude from the national government all power to act upon the
            subject. The situation, too, of the different states equally
            proclaimed the policy, as well as the necessity of such an
            exclusion. In some of the states episcopalians constituted the
            predominant sect; in other presbyterians; in others,
            congregationalists; in other, quakers; in others again, there
            was close numerical rivalry among contending sects. It was
            impossible, that there should not arise perpetual strife and
            perpetual jealousy on the subject of ecclesiastical ascendancy,
            if the national government were left free to create a
            religious establishment.  The only security was in extirpating
            the power. But this alone would have been an imperfect security,
            if it has not been followed up by a declaration of the right
            of the free exercise of religion, and a prohibition (as we have
            seen) of all religious tests."  [pp. 596-597]

                 Story clearly believed, along with Madison, Jefferson, and
other founders, that the federal government had no ability whatsoever to
aid religion, and thus was a separationist, irregardless of his other
opinions regarding religious morality or common law.


         Claim:  U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Church of Holy Trinity
vs. United States: "no purpose of action against religion can be imputed to
any legislation state or national because this is a religious people, this
is a Christian nation."

         Rebuttal:  See the above analysis of Justice Brewer's
statement in this case.

              I do not have the text of that case, so I cannot verify the
existence of this statement.  However, on its face, it appears to imply
that legal prohibitions against interfering with religion are based on an
establishment of religion.  Any competent jurist would base such a defense
on the "free exercise" clause of the First Amendment.


         Other claims:  U.S. Supreme Court ruling in United States vs.
McIntosh: "We are a Christian people according to one another the equal
right of religious freedom acknowledging with reverence the duty to
obedience of the will of God."

        Unidentified 1952 U.S. Supreme Court ruling: "The first amendment,
however, does not say that in every and all respects there shall be
separation of church and state, otherwise the state and religion would be
alien to each other, hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly... We are a
religious people whose institutions presuppose the existence of a Supreme
Being... We find no Constitutional requirement which makes the government
hostile to religion or throw its weight against the efforts to widen its
scope or influence."

        U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart: "metaphors like the wall
of separation, a phrase nowhere to be found in the Constitution.."

        U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Renquist: "the wall of separation
between church and state is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor
useless as to guide judging.  It should be frankly and explicitly
abandoned."

        Rebuttal:  The U.S. Supreme Court, like all other
institutions, is subject to mistakes, misinterpretations, and influence by
ideologues of all stripes.  Various justices have, over time made these and
many other similar statements in their opinions.

              The court as a whole, however, has been decisive in its
support and application of the principle of separation of church and state
as a founding bedrock principle of American law.  And, although some like
Justice Rehnquist openly sneer at this principle, his own colleagues on the
bench have rendered important First Amendment decisions that depend upon
and affirm this important and necessary component of religious freedom.

Some important and famous examples are:

"If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is
 that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox
 in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or
 force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."
-----Robert H. Jackson, West Virginia State Board of
     Education v  Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 1943


"The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at
 least this:  neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.
 Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one
 religion over another.  Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or
 remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or
 disbelief in any religion."

"No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious
 activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form
 they may adopt to teach or practice religion."

"Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly,
 participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice
 versa.  In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of
 religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between
 church and state.'"

"[The First Amendment] requires the state to be a neutral in its
 relations with groups of believers and non-believers."
-----Hugo L. Black, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, majority opinion
     in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)


"The principle that government may accommodate the free exercise of religion
 does not supersede the fundamental limitations imposed by the Establishment
 Clause, which guarantees at a minimum that a government may not coerce
 anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise, or otherwise
 act in a way which "establishes a [state] religion or religious faith,
 or tends to do so."
------Supreme Court, Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 678


"The Establishment Clause, unlike the Free Exercise Clause, does not depend
 upon any showing of direct governmental compulsion and is violated by the
 enactment of laws which establish an official religion whether those laws
 operate directly to coerce nonobserving individuals or not."
------U.S. Supreme Court, Wallace v. Jaffree (1985)


"Lemon v. Kurtzman, is not only that government may not be overtly hostile to
 religion, but also that it may not place its prestige, coercive authority,
 or resources behind a single religious faith or behind religious belief in
 general, compelling nonadherents to support the practices or proselytizing
 of favored religious organizations and conveying the message that those
 who do not contribute gladly are less than full members of the community."
------U.S. Supreme Court, Texas Monthly v. Bullock


"It is beyond dispute that, at a minimum, the Constitution guarantees that
 government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion
 or its exercise..."

"The lessons of the First Amendment are as urgent in the modern world as
 the 18th Century when it was written. One timeless lession is that if
 citizens are subjected to state-sponsored religious exercises, the State
 disavows its own duty to guard and respect that sphere of inviolable
 conscience and belief which is the mark of a free people,"
------Supreme Court Justice Kennedy for majority,
      Lee v.Weisman, 1992


"If the historic landmark on the hill in Boerne happened to be a museum or an
 art gallery owned by an atheist, it would not be eligible for an exemption
 from the city ordinances that forbid an enlargement of the structure.
 Because the landmark is owned by the Catholic Church, it is claimed that
 RFRA gives its owner a federal statutory entitlement to an exemption from
 a generally applicable, neutral civil law.  Whether the Church would
 actually prevail under the statute or not, the statute has provided the
 Church with a legal weapon that no atheist or agnostic can obtain.  This
 governmental preference for religion, as opposed to irreligion, is
 forbidden by the First Amendment..."
------Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, in his opinion
      striking down the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act", 1997

      ####

For more information:  Wayne Aiken  (919) 954-5956