Editor's Note: Throughout these pages I will be adding commentary to the letters and columns by other authors.  My commentary will be in [ bracketed red text ]. - wjh

You are here:
[Home]
-> [Separation]
-> [Articles]
-> [S_Allen#1]

Editor:

Mr. Phillip Allen, I fear that I must attempt to rebut a possible relative. I think your arguments regarding the attitude of the authors of the Constitution and the First Amendment regarding separation of church and states (sic) are significantly, though not entirely, incorrect.

You argue that James Madison supported separation of church and state and that therefore, so did the Constitutional Convention. While Mr. Madison was influential, he only had one vote in the Virginia delegation. Mr. Madison advocated separation of church and state. He also bitterly opposed separation of the legislature into a Senate and a House. He lost twice.

I refer you to Justice Story's "Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States" and to the fact that four of the colonies had established state religions that persistetd after adoption of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The last state supported religion was repealed in, I think, 1890. The original intent of the First Amendment regarding religion is exactly what it says.  Congress was forbidden to establish a national religion; that right was reserved to state sovereignty. Like abortion rights, the doctrine of separation of church and state was created in an act of legislation by the Supreme Court.

It is interesting that you quote Everson v. Board of Education. In that case the Supreme Court held that the state of New Jersey had every right to dispense public money to religious recipients as long as the money was dispensed as part of a general public program. This case is one that I would quote since the modern application of church/state doctrine has gone far beyond avoiding establishment of a state religion and treads heavliy on the ground of prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

Modern doctrine has effectively established athiesm as a state religion. By excluding religious practices from public life, the government has set up laws that prefer athiesm over religion. By supressing religious activites by public employees and terminating them for religious practices, the government has punished people for expressing religious opinions. By using tax moneis to advance secular, atheistic education, the government has levied taxes to advance a religious cause. All of these activites are unconstitutional according to the principles laid out in the Everson decision.

Stuart Allen: Gilroy
Submitted Monday, June 21