Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.origins
From: pn8886@thor.albany.edu (NICHOLLS PHILIP A)
Subject:  Re: [talk.origins]  Is this legal?
Message-ID: <1994Mar18.202655.931@sarah.albany.edu>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 94 20:26:55 GMT

>Allen J. Newton (anewton@alturia.abq.nm.us), speaking about the
>First Ammendment, wrote:
>
>>That clause was historically intended to keep the State out of the Church
>>("make no law respecting an establishment of"), not to keep the Church out of
>>the State

In Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. I, 15-16, Justice Black writes:

   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 to remain away from
   church against his will or force him to profess a belief or 
   disbelief in any religion.  No person can be punished for enter
   -taining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for
   church attendence or non-attendence.

   . . . In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause was intended
   to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."

As we see, the origin of the phrase "separation of chruch and State,"
or more precisely, separation between church and State, has its origins
in the writings of Thomas Jefferson, the man who authored the First 
Amendment.  Jefferson's intent is clear -- the state cannot meddle in
the affairs of the church and the church cannot meddle in the affairs
of state.  There are historical reasons for this which someone else
has already elaborated on.

In 1971 the Supreme Court (Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 US 602, 612-613)
applied the following test to laws with respect the the First Amendment:

   First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; 
   second, its principal or primary effect must be one that
   neither advances nor prohibits religion ...; finally, the
   statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement
   with religion." [Stone v Graham, 449 US at 40]


Clearly the author of the First Amendment and at least three decisions
of the Supreme Court disagree with your interpretation of the First
Amendment.

-- 
Philip Nicholls                   "To ask a question,
Department of Anthropology         you must first know
SUNY Albany                        most of the answer."
pn8886@thor.albany.edu