FOOD FOR THOUGHT—HOW THE COURTS BEGAN BUILDING A WALL BETWEEN RELIGION AND THE STATE

From: Hank Ashmore
The Deplorable Infidel

 

 

HOW THE COURTS BEGAN BUILDING A WALL BETWEEN RELIGION AND THE STATE

It is a well-known principle of substantive law that the Constitution and the law should be interpreted vary strictly according to the original intent of those who created it. As chief Justice Roger B. Taney stated in Dred Scott v. Sanford, “It {the Constitution] speaks not only in the same words, but with the same meaning and intent with which it spoke when it came from the hands of the Framers. In the case of Barron v. Baltimore, Chief Justice Marshall affirmed that the Bill of Rights in the Constitution was a series of prohibitions against the federal government to prevent it from encroaching on the states.

Applying this to worship, the court’s decision meant that there was a “wall” between the federal government and any “establishment of religion,” just as Jefferson had said. However, in the case of Gitlow v. New York the Supreme Court used certain provisions in the federal Bill of Rights and applied them to the states. The court justified this action on the basis of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that “no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or the property, with due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The opponents of traditional theistic religion and morality saw the Gitlow case as an opportunity to invoke the power of the federal courts to build a wall between each of the states and any form of religious encouragement, even though it was provided indirectly. In other words, they would reverse the Founder’s original policy.

The case of Cantwell v. Connecticut was the first ruling of the Supreme Court in which the “Gitlow doctrine” was applied to religious liberty, and Everson v. Board of Education was the first time the Supreme Court applied the “due process” clause of the Fourth Amendment to make the federal wall of separation apply to religious matters among the individual states. The 5-4 decision in this case was handed down on February 10, 1947, through Justice Hugo Black. Several key factors in Justice Black’s background inclined the Justice to rule unfavorably against religion. Justice Black began his political career in the wake of his successful defense of a Kiu Klux Klansman, who shot and murdered a Catholic priest. He was a former Kladd of the Klavern of the Alabama Ku Klu Klan, who used his klan base to secure a seat in the U.S. Senate and ultimately an appointment on the U.S. Supreme Court. Paul Blanshard was a controversial author, lawyer, humanist, and outspoken critic of Catholicism. Justice Black believed in Blachard’s writings concerning the Catholic Church, and perceived parochial education as a threat to public schools and democratic values.

What this amounted to was the actual breaking down of the federal wall set up by the First Amendment so that the Supreme Court actually usurped jurisdiction over religious matters in the states and began dictating what the states could or could not do with reference to religious questions. Without a doubt, there has been a severe wrenching of the Constitution from the original First Amendment moorings ever since this new trend began.

 

WAKE UP AMERICA BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE!

“If our country is to survive and prosper, we must summon the courage to condemn and reject the liberal agenda, and it better be soon.”

-Walter Williams-

 

AN OPINION FROM THE DEPLORABLE INFIDEL

The modern era application of the non-constitutional doctrine, “a wall of separation between church and state”, derives from Justice Hugo Black’s anti- Catholic bigotry in his Everson v. Board of Education ruling and is preserved by pervasive anti- religious prejudice through organizations such as the ACLU and the Freedom From Religion Foundation and has become a “constitutional principle” through the jurisprudence of an anti-Catholic bigot.

 

A SIMPLE TRUTH FOR TODAY

It must never be unpatriotic to support your country against your government. It must always be unpatriotic to support your government against your country.

Stephen T. Byington


*
*

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s