Revisiting the Use of the Metaphor of a Wall of Separation between Church and State



With the possible exception of some poor soul who has been living in a cave for the past eighty years, virtually every American is aware of the "Wall of Separation between Church and State" (the "Wall Metaphor"). It has been used to try to summarize the relationship between the government and religion under the United States Constitution. Yet, as most everyone also knows (except for the aforementioned cave-dweller), the Constitution does not use the words "wall" or "separation" of church and state. This post will give a brief examination of the source of the Wall Metaphor and why it has been misused since 1947.

Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptist Association

The Wall Metaphor entered into the Constitutional lexicon as a result of two court decisions regarding the First Amendment and religion: First, in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878), and later in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947).  Both of these decisions relied upon an 1802 letter written by President Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. The letter is not long, and is repeated here in its entirety.
To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut. 

Gentlemen The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing. 

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & 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 & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. 

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem. 

Th Jefferson Jan. 1. 1802.
Reynolds v. the United States use of Jefferson's Wall

In Reynolds, the Supreme Court examined whether it was Constitutional to apply a law prohibiting polygamy against Mr. Reynolds, a member of the Mormon church, who claimed that he was exercising his freedom of religion when he married more than one women. The Supreme Court, per Chief Morrison Justice Waite, evaluated the legal issue by examining the work of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson with respect to promoting religious freedom in Virginia in 1784, i.e., prior to the enactment of the Constitution. When pushing for religious freedom in Virginia, Jefferson persuaded the House of Delegates of that state that it could not interfere with the free exercise of religion unless the exercise of particular religious practices "break out into overt acts against peace and good order." Chief Justice Waite noted that he believed that the distinction between beliefs and bad acts should inform the basis of understanding the First Amendment's religious provisions.

After quoting from a portion of the second paragraph of Jefferson's letter, Chief Justice Waite noted the importance of the letter with respect to the free exercise of religion by noting that "it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order." He, with a unanimous court, ruled that the practice of polygamy was odious and an offense against society. Therefore, polygamy was not beyond the reach of the federal government to regulate because it was (and remains) a practice which constituted "overt acts against peace and good order."

What is critical to understanding the use of the Wall Metaphor in Reynolds is that Reynolds is a Free Exercise case. If you are unfamiliar with that terminology, the Religion protection found in the First Amendment has two clauses. The first states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" which is generally known as the Establishment Clause. This is the clause that is really about whether and to what extent the United States government can support a state religion (although it has been expanded well beyond that original purpose by Supreme Court decisions). The second clause reads, "Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]." This is known as the "Free Exercise Clause."

As a Free Exercise case (i.e., whether the attempt to prohibit polygamy in the territories under control of the United States government unduly infringe upon Reynolds' right to freely practice his religious beliefs), Reynolds uses the Wall Metaphor effectively and meaningfully.

The Over-reach of Everson v. the Board of Education

The Wall Metaphor remained pretty much on the back burner between 1878 and 1947 largely because the First Amendment, by its own terms, represents only a restriction on the acts of Congress. Since Congress did not have the power to pass legislation concerning religion inside of the various states, the court did not have much opportunity to make many decisions regarding the scope of the First Amendment until Everson in 1947. By that time, the court had begun to expand the scope of the First Amendment through the process of incorporation whereby various provisions of the first eight amendments of the United States Constitution were incorporated into the "liberty" interest of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Explaining the process by which most of the first eight amendments became incorporated is beyond the scope of this post, but those interested may want to review by reading "The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment: The Evolution of the Absorption Doctrine" by Alex B. Lacy, Jr. from the Washington and Lee Law Review, (1966) Vol. 23, Issue 1, pp. 37 and following.  All one needs to know is that by the time Everson reached the court, it was already well established that many of the rights found in the first eight amendments to the Constitution applied against the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.

In Everson, Justice Hugo Black in a 5-4 decision held that a New Jersey law which permitted reimbursements of money to parents who sent their children to school on buses operated by the public transportation system which served to benefit children who attended a Roman Catholic school did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Justice Black, in what is among the greatest over-reaching statements in Supreme Court history, gave a broad definition of the meaning of the Establishment Clause, concluding by citing the Wall Analogy in Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.
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 entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. 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." Reynolds v. United States, supra, at 98 U. S. 164.
Justice Black closed his opinion with a bit of additional overkill that would forever color discussions of how far apart the First Amendment required church and state to remain separate: "[The Wall of Separation of Church and State] must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach." One might think that the fact that the Board of Education won the case shows that the wall was not so high and impregnable as the Black stated, but I suspect that the case was decided in favor of the parties who received a small benefit religiously because the court was using the case to set a principle. It is much of what happened in Marbury v. Madison where the Supreme Court grabbed the larger prize of gaining the power of judicial review while giving the administration of Thomas Jefferson the smaller prize of winning the case as a means of keeping Jefferson from complaining. Here, the parties receiving tax-subsidized bus rides that happened to help students get to religious schools received the victory in the case, so they didn't complain too much when Justice Black extended the Wall Metaphor to Establishment Clause cases, and then compounded the injury by making broad reaching, unsupported statements about the limits of the Establishment Clause.

As noted above, Everson, unlike Reynolds was an Establishment Clause case. This makes a huge difference because, as I shall argue below, the Wall Metaphor was not intended to be applied to Establishment Clause cases, and its inappropriate use in Everson has led to an improper understanding of the true, intended nature of church/state relationships under the First Amendment.

Jefferson may not be the best authority

Through these two decisions, and primarily through the decision of Everson, the Wall Metaphor became the understanding of the meaning of both of the First Amendment's religion clauses. The question arises: is the Wall Metaphor sufficiently firm and grounded to support the weight that the Supreme Court has laid upon it? I believe that the answer is no for a few reasons.

First, while it is certainly true that Jefferson was a fighter for religious freedom and authored the Virginia Bill for Religious Liberty, Jefferson had no part in the drafting of the United States Constitution or the First Amendment. Jefferson was serving as minister to France during the Constitutional Convention, and he was not part of the First Congress that drafted the First Amendment. Thus, while Jefferson was clearly an important thinker and the primary drafter of the Declaration of Independence, he was not directly involved in passage of the Amendment with which his letter concerned. Thus, it is difficult, but not impossible, to look to him for the authoritative explanation of the purpose of the First Amendment's provisions. *Second, there are only limited notes about the passing of the First Amendment, but nowhere in the notes available of the discussions is any reference to any of the Congressmen who drafted the First Amendment referring to a wall of separation. As noted by David Barton of Wallbuilders.com:
The Congressional Records from June 7 to September 25, 1789, record the months of discussions and debates of the ninety Founding Fathers who framed the First Amendment. Significantly, not only was Thomas Jefferson not one of those ninety who framed the First Amendment, but also, during those debates not one of those ninety Framers ever mentioned the phrase “separation of church and state.” It seems logical that if this had been the intent for the First Amendment – as is so frequently asserted - then at least one of those ninety who framed the Amendment would have mentioned that phrase; none did.
Jefferson's response, moreover, was not written as some deep philosophical understanding of the meaning of the First Amendment. Rather, he wrote a letter that was intended to be published in newspaper as a political document as evidenced by the fact that (1) he ran a draft of the letter past his political advisors, (2) his first draft of the letter shows a much more overtly political bent, and (3) he intended to publish the letter in response to attacks that had been made on him. See, 'A Wall of Separation' by James Hutton.

The Wall Metaphor was originally applied only to a Free Exercise Situation

 Jefferson's letter itself is addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in response to their concerns that the government would be interfering with their association. The Association wrote:
Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty – That Religion is at all times and places a Matter between God and Individuals – That no man ought to suffer in Name, person or effects on account of his religious Opinions – That the legitimate Power of civil Government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbour: But Sir our constitution of government is not specific. Our antient charter, together with the Laws made coincident therewith, were adopted as the Basis of our government at the time of our revolution; and such had been our laws & usages, & such still are; that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation; & therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights: and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power & gain under the pretence of government & Religion should reproach their fellowmen – should reproach their chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion Law & good order because he will not, dares not assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.
What the Danbury Baptists were saying (in the rather stilted language of the time) is that they believed that the protection of religious liberty was part of the God-given rights as free men - as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. However, they were concerned that by mentioning religious freedom in the First Amendment, it could be interpreted to mean that religious rights were granted by government. They were appealing to Jefferson for his assurances that government (and specifically Jefferson as president) would not "assume the prerogative" of God and attempt to legislate the church. Thus, the focus of the Danbury Baptist Association in writing to Jefferson, as well as Jefferson's response back to that organization, was that the government had no right to interfere with the church or religious belief. i.e., the people had the right to freely exercise their religion and that the government was without power (except where the person or church "works ill to his neighbour") to regulate the church. The Danbury Baptists concerns had nothing to do with the church's ability to influence the state. In fact, the very act of writing to the President (and his response) constitutes prima facie evidence that both parties believed it to be perfectly permissible for the church to try to influence the state.

The substance of Jefferson's letter shows that he was responding to the concerns voiced by the Danbury Baptists. He begins his letter by agreeing that religion should be beyond the scope of the government by saying, "religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship." He the continues to make the belief/practice distinction that Chief Justice Waite fleshed out in Reynolds. After using the Wall Metaphor, Jefferson resorted to natural law theory - a theory that most of the founding fathers took for granted. He stated that he would work to "restore to man all his natural rights," (which would include the right to worship God without government interference) "convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties," i.e., true worship of God will not lead someone to engage in practices that would disrupt the social peace so the government should never have a reason to interfere with such practices.

Roger Williams' Wall

Incidentally, Thomas Jefferson was not the first to use the "wall" metaphor in describing the relationship which should exist between church and state. Roger Williams, the founder of Rhode Island, used the same phrasing when discussing the relationship between church and state in 1644. Williams wrote that the Christian Church is separate from the world, and "when they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of Separation between the Garden of the Church and the Wildernes of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall it selfe, removed the Candlestick, &c. and made his Garden a Wildernesse, as at this day." ["Mr. Cotton's Letter Lately Printed, Examined and Answered," Roger Williams, 1644, London, from "The Complete Writings of Roger Williams," Vol. I, edited by Reuben Aldridge Guild, Russell & Russell Inc., New York: 1963, page 108.]

While some see Williams' language as simply reinforcing the view that there should be a high, impenetrable wall between church and state, this does not appear to be the way Rev. Williams' intended his phrase to be understood. In Religious Liberty by John T. Noonan and Edward McGlynn Gaffney, they point out that Rev. Williams' wall was a rather one-sided one. The wall existed not to protect the wilderness of the world (i.e., a "howling wilderness, in frost and snow") from the church, but the beautiful garden of the church from the wilderness of the world.
The wall or hedge, which God himself would break down if a gap was allowed in it, was thought of as a structure protecting the holiness of the church, keeping it from contamination by the world. [Religious Liberty (2001), p. 125.]
It is likely that the metaphor from the writings of the pre-eminent founder of the State of Rhode Island would have been known to Thomas Jefferson, and it is quite likely that he understood it in much the same way.

Conclusion

While I have, in the past, advocated that the Wall Metaphor be removed from the Constitutional discussion just as Justice Rehnquist stated in the meme, above, I now believe that it is actually better to understand it and use it consistent with the manner in which Jefferson almost certainly intended when he used it in the letter to the Danbury Baptists, and in the manner in which Williams originally used the phrase in his 1644 letter. Specifically, I believe that the Wall Metaphor is only useful when dealing with situations involving the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution. It helps to remind the state that it cannot reach into the church or into the lives of individual practitioners unless the practices of those churches or church members are violative of good order. However, the use of the metaphor in Establishment Clause cases is inappropriate because the metaphor was neither used nor originally intended to be used in that context.

The wall as used by Jefferson and as understood by Williams was and is one-sided to limit the reach of the state into the dealings of the church and church members. It was not designed to limit the church's ability to influence the state.

Comments

Joe Hinman said…
are you trying to garner support for the idea of allowing churches to make contribution of political campaigns?
BK said…
Um, no. I don't see anywhere in there where I mentioned anything about churches making contributions to political parties. So, no. I am merely pointing out that the wall of separation metaphor is being used incorrectly from how it was intended.
BK said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
im-skeptical said…
You are saying that Sharia Law is fully consistent with the US Constitution.

I don't think so.
BK said…
No. Why do you jump to such ridiculous conclusions?
BK said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
im-skeptical said…
OK. So, you think an Islamic religious institution can't impose their beliefs by the power of government. How about Mormons? How about Baptists? What exactly do you mean by a church being able to influence government?
BK said…
It has the right to petition government the same as anyone else. It's ideas are worthy of consideration. It should not be dismissed simply because it comes from religious principles.
im-skeptical said…
Every person has the right to petition government. Institutions are not people.
Joe Hinman said…
m-skeptical said...
You are saying that Sharia Law is fully consistent with the US Constitution.

I don't think so.

I don't either. what a ridiculous conclusion to jump to.
Joe Hinman said…
m-skeptical said...
Every person has the right to petition government. Institutions are not people.

so where's the problem? The only problem i can see with BK's idea is if it was taken to extremes and used to justify churches making political contributions,I did not think he was going there and gave him the chance to get it out that he's not. He did so what's the problem?
im-skeptical said…
Of course you didn't think he was going there. You don't see the implication of his argument any more than he does.

He is arguing that churches should be able to influence government. He sees it as something innocuous. I don't. When I point out that it implies that some OTHER religion might influence government in a way that you don't like, he will insist that's not what is meant by influencing government. What he really means is that HIS church should be able to influence government, because he doesn't have a problem with that.

The problem is that when ANY church gains influence in the halls of government, they are trying to impose their beliefs in some way (and you can't deny that). And this means that those of us who don't agree with their religious beliefs are being denied our own religious freedom. Government MUST remain strictly impartial with respect to ALL religions in order to assure that EVERYBODY has freedom of religion.
Joe Hinman said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe Hinman said…
When I point out that it implies that some OTHER religion might influence government in a way that you don't like, he will insist that's not what is meant by influencing government. What he really means is that HIS church should be able to influence government, because he doesn't have a problem with that.

Not only is Bill not na idiot but he;s also a lawyer so I think he's used to the idea that one's position can have implications beyond what he think it does,.I was in college debate where we have plans and plan attacks all the time,so none of this is difficult of either of us to grasp.

The problem is that when ANY church gains influence in the halls of government, they are trying to impose their beliefs in some way (and you can't deny that). And this means that those of us who don't agree with their religious beliefs are being denied our own religious freedom. Government MUST remain strictly impartial with respect to ALL religions in order to assure that EVERYBODY has freedom of religion.


obviously religious people have to have the same right to express views as you do or it's a limitation upon their civil libertines, The same argument can be made against atheism as an influence While i am against churches being able to donate money to Canadians i think there's a fine line where you can't restrict the rights of religious people to look out for their own first amendment rights.
Joe Hinman said…
Of course you didn't think he was going there. You don't see the implication of his argument any more than he does.

If I don't see the implication they why did I raise the issue?

He is arguing that churches should be able to influence government. He sees it as something innocuous. I don't.

I don't either. I know what the implications of his positions are. I doubt that he takes it that far. If he does he wont make an open appeal here, not because he's sneaky but because we have an agreement in the cadre not to discuss politics on the blog.

I have been following the proposal to allow churches to give money to candidates and I am against it and I will work actively to stop it in congress as actively as I can.

One more thing in case you want to shoot your mouth off about what you think I don't understand, I will say this only once:


I used to be a communist but now just a social democrat. I've been a political activist since 1968 when I was in 6th grade and undertook my first political action against the war in Vietnam. I worked in the central America solidarity movement, in the committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador in Dallas Texas I was spied on my the FBI. I am actively working as a member of the resistance to Trump's agenda. there is very little you can tell me about Politics.




BK said…
You know, its funny. All my post really said is that the Wall of Separation metaphor in inappropriately applied to Establishment Clause cases and that Everson was an overreach in both extending it to Establishment Clause cases and that its definition of what the Establishment Clause meant was unfounded. You are the ones who are trying to follow the implications. I am not making any implications at this point other than saying that the path we are on is incorrect.

im-skeptical is flat out wrong on his personal v. institution right to speak and influence government. If that were true, there would be no advocacy organizations that could speak to government on behalf of people who have shared interests. There's more to be said on your comments, but I will hold them for another time.

Why don't you stop worrying about where it is going and focus on the question: is the Wall of Separation being applied incorrectly? My contention it that it clearly is. What that means for the Establishment Clause will be the subject of a future post, but that future post only becomes relevant if my thesis is correct that the Wall Metaphor is being inappropriately used.
Joe Hinman said…
'm-skeptical is flat out wrong on his personal v. institution right to speak and influence government. If that were true, there would be no advocacy organizations that could speak to government on behalf of people who have shared interests. There's more to be said on your comments, but I will hold them for another time."

>>I agree with that much as far as it goes. What that means in the long run just depends upon specifics. My point is skeptical thinks there's a monolithic christian voice lining up behind the conservative evangelicals,or that they are the only kind of Christians, That;snot the case it's not the case it's not going to happen,

history proves that we have a to have a secular space to prevent religious war. This is what saved western civ in the religious wars of the 16th century.
Joe Hinman said…
speaking as a historian not from a legal stand point, western society was consumed with religious war in the 16th century brought on by Protestant reformation but that's not all it was about, it really had to do with sharing of temporal power and the collapse of the feudal system. The wars were extremely brutal and cruel they probably would have destroyed western society completely if they had not created a secular space in which all sides were allowed to coexist in a neutral way. That is not necessarily the same concept as wall of separation between church and state. Both of those metaphors,space and wall are about limiting power and sharing a vocabulary.
Anonymous said…
From the conclusion:

BK: Specifically, I believe that the Wall Metaphor is only useful when dealing with situations involving the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution. It helps to remind the state that it cannot reach into the church or into the lives of individual practitioners unless the practices of those churches or church members are violative of good order. However, the use of the metaphor in Establishment Clause cases is inappropriate because the metaphor was neither used nor originally intended to be used in that context.

This does read as though you object to the state interferring with religion, but not the other way around. Rather than a wall, a one-way mirror.

You say in these comments that that is not the case. Can you explain what it is about a "wall" between church and state that you are objecting to?

Pix
BK said…
Pix, you might try reading what I wrote. I give the answer in the post.
im-skeptical said…
BK,

You say the answer is in the post. I will remind you of what you said:
The wall as used by Jefferson and as understood by Williams was and is one-sided to limit the reach of the state into the dealings of the church and church members. It was not designed to limit the church's ability to influence the state.

So you think it is ridiculous that I should conclude that you don't have a problem with a church using the power of government to impose its own beliefs and practices upon the rest of us? How is that inconsistent with your own statement? Forgive me if I take you at your word.
BK said…
What you conclude from what I said is your business. I cannot control your flights of imagination. However, your conclusion is inconsistent with my own statement because all I said is that the Wall of Separation Metaphor was not designed for that purpose. It was originally used to limit government reach into the church, and the Supreme Court's extending it to church reaching into the state is an inappropriate extension based upon how it was originally used and its original understanding. Does that mean that the floodgates open up and anything goes? Only in your world of leaping to conclusions.
Joe Hinman said…
This has nothing to do with where I think you are coming from Bill, but how can you limit government messing with church but allow the church to mess with the government, one would eventually lead to the other, you can't have a one way wall.
J. P Holding said…
Looks like IMS has been banging his head against the wall for a while now.
BK said…
Joe, that's another story for another day. Right now, all I am establishing is that the Wall Metaphor is not being used as appropriate or as intended when applied to Establishment Clause cases. How the Establishment Clause should be understood is another post which will require a bit more set up than what I want to do in comments.
BK said…
Oh, one more thing. Your comment illustrates why the Wall Metaphor should not be used. When we talk about a "wall," it is natural to think of it as being a solid thing through which nothing should pass. But that isn't what was intended by the First Amendment. The Wall is useful only when speaking about the state reaching into the church. It does a very poor job of illustrating the relationship of the church to the state when you are speaking about Establishment Clause cases. But again, I will write a post in the future about that issue. For now, my only point is that the Wall Metaphor is being applied incorrectly when applied to Establishment Clause cases, but that does not mean that the church is unfettered in its efforts to effect the state. To jump from the idea that the Wall Metaphor is being incorrectly applied to conclusion of both Pix and im-skeptical that stopping the use of the Metaphor means that we will have some type of disguised theocracy is sloppy thinking and unwarranted.
im-skeptical said…
The one-way interpretation is a tortured mis-representation of the first amendment. I'm sure that many religionists would love to believe that that the inter-mixing of church and state can exist in a one-sided manner as you describe. Joe is correct in this case. One inevitably leads to the other. And that was understood by Jefferson, as well as Madison, who wrote the amendment.
BK said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
BK said…
As I thought more about your comment, I realized that it is more of the same. I am making a simple point. It is that the Wall Metaphor is inappropriately applied to the Establishment Clause cases. But you can't seem to keep your eye focused on the ball. You have to try to push forward and make assumptions about what might happen if the court stops viewing the First Amendment as a wall. I guess I am wondering, do you care at all about truth?
Anonymous said…
You appear to be saying the Wall Metaphor is inappropriate, but are desperately trying to avoid admitting what would be appropriate. Why is that? Some of us are highly suspicious that that is because you have a reason to keep it secret, and we are guessing that reason is you want religion to be free to influence government.

Until you make clear your position - and that is, make clear what you think the relationship between church and state should be - I for one will continue to think that, despite your objection that I am jumping to conclusions.

Do I care about the truth? Absolutely. Please tell us the truth. Not the half truth that you think the wall metaphor is wrong, but the whole truth - what you think it should be

What do you think the relationship between church and state should be?
BK said…
"Some of us"? You mean you and Pix who are the only two people still commenting. Really not too concerning to me.

"Desperately trying to avoid admitting what is appropriate"? No, but just as I wouldn't try to teach someone who doesn't know basic math any type of calculus, so I am not willing to go beyond the basics of legal reasoning with you until you understand what I am saying.

You accuse me of desperately trying to avoid, but no one here has seriously responded or countered my post. No one has seriously attempted to show that the Wall Metaphor is being used incorrectly because it was incorrectly applied in Everson. Instead, you want to try to drive ahead to the ramifications because that's how you think. You are interested only in what is the end result -- is it something you like or dislike. But legal reasoning doesn't work that way. It is about the process. And so far, you have shown no concern about the process because you are only concerned with where it leads and your personal likes and dislikes. That is what I meant when I asked you if you cared at all about truth. You have demonstrated once again that you don't care about truth.

No, I am not going to go forward in these comments because where it leads is not yet relevant to what I have said. The question on the table is whether the Wall Metaphor has been used as originally intended. I have stated why and shown why. No one has countered what I have said, so I assume that you cannot. So, unless you are actually going to discuss whether the Wall Metaphor was used appropriately in Reynolds and Everson, the conversation is over.
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
im-skeptical said…
With all due respect, your myth-of-separation is just a myth. The wall is a perfectly good metaphor, because it means what it implies. Jefferson's words are quite appropriate, and not misunderstood, except by religionists. Instead of your revisionist version of history that attempts to re-interpret the meaning of the Constitution, you should listen to the words of James Madison, the author of the first Amendment.
Anonymous said…
I@ see we have reached the point in the discussion where dissenting voices are deleted.

I guess that is one way to win an argument.

Who would have guessed Christians would do that?

Pix
BK said…
I told you that unless you wanted to discuss the issue raised in the post, i.e., whether the use of the Wall Metaphor for Establishment Clause cases was warranted, that the conversation was done. Your voice wasn't dissenting. It was continuing to discuss irrelevant issues which I have said over and over is not the point of this post. I have no obligation to give you the final word, and if you don't want to discuss what the post is about, go elsewhere.
BK said…
So, im-skeptical, thanks for pointing out in your article that Madison doesn't mention the Wall of Separation. Of course I am interested in what Madison says, but I will respond to your post at some other time. Too busy right now to waste any more time on this.
im-skeptical said…
Madison doesn't use that metaphor. But he makes it absolutely clear that he believes in COMPLETE separation between church and state.

Popular posts from this blog

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesus, Jonah and U2’s Pride in the Name of Love

How Should I Be A Sceptic -- belief and reason

Kierkegaard's Knights of Faith and the Account of Abraham

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

Bayes Theorem And Probability of God: No Dice!

The Meaning of the Manger

The Origin of Life and the Fallacy of Composition

If Christianity were true, would you become a Christian?