(M. Clark) wrote:
:|I cannot cast the first stone but please research your ideas more to
:|avoid coming to armchair conclusions. Another poster, in fact, just
:|voiced a concern similar to yours and volunteered a list of Jefferson
:|writings that the Court has supposedly known about. But it just so
:|happens that one of the Jefferson writings I have been posting for the
:|last few months does NOT appear to be referenced on that list. Indeed,
:|this extract, shown below, is actually the clearest writing (IMO)
:|showing that the States have the constitutional power to address
:|religious issues. Here's the particular extract:
:|
:|"In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is
:|placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general
:|government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the
:|religious exercises suited to it; but have left them as the Constitution
:|found them, under the direction and discipline of State or Church
:|authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies." --Thomas
:|Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural Address, 1805. ME 3:378
:|
:|So here I've been, expressing my concern for months that the Supreme
:|Court has possibly overlooked important Jefferson writings in deciding
:|church/state separation cases. A rebuttal which supposedly shows all
:|the Jefferson letters that the Court has always been aware of is
:|volunteered with the presumption that the Court couldn't have overlooked
:|any of Jefferson's writings. But low and behold, the above inaugural
:|address appears to be missing from the list. So not only is the list
:|incomplete (I still stand to be corrected about this) but such a
:|troubling omission raises the possibility of other errors concerning
:|this list. For example, maybe the Court actually didn't know about
:|other key references indicated on the list. Again, such errors would
:|reflect the possibility of a major error on the part of the Supreme
:|Court in interpreting the Constitution where church/state separation
:|issues are concerned.
LOL, I honestly can't believe you actually posted this, well on second
thought I can believe you would say the above.
Worse yet, you might even believe the above
I am going to burst your bubble again.
I will start with this
You see this:
--Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural Address, 1805. ME 3:378
Do you have any idea what that means?
ME
Jefferson on Politics & Government: Contents
The Papers of Thomas Jefferson. The designation in the form, "ME 12:345,"
refers to the location in The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial
Edition) ...
etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeffcont.htm
The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (ME)
Memorial Edition (Lipscomb and Bergh, editors)
20 Vols., Washington, D.C., 1903-04.
You see what year those books were published?
1903-1904. So in other words, the above mentioned set of books containing
this inaugural address in 3:378 (Volume 3, page 378), the same address
that you are so enamored and claims has been unknown has in fact been in
the public realm for approx 100 years.
Let me tell you a fact of life.
That set of books can be found in the Library on the Third Floor of the US
Supreme Court Building, also a hundred yards to so away in the Library of
Congress. They can also be found in just about any and every major
university library in this country as well as most public libraries of any
size. Most law school libraries as well as many smaller colleges and
community colleges across the country have the same set of books
In addition to all of that since the one is Jefferson's 2nd Inaugural
Address it is published in books specifically containing the inaugural
addresses of all the President, from Washington to the current Bush. On top
of that there are volumes published that contain all the addresses, the
annual addresses inaugural addresses etc of all the Presidents.
Point being, there is no way in hell his inaugural addresses were unknown.
There is no way that any man could have reached the USSC as a justice on
same without at some point in time in his education he would not have been
exposed to the inaugural addresses of the main presidents, men like
Washington, maybe Adams, for sure Jefferson, probably Lincoln, etc
At some point in his elementary education, high school, college or law
school he would have been required to have studied it. No man could have
been hired to clerk for a Supreme Court Justice that didn't have a very in
depth education and be among the brightest, top of class etc. That man too
would have been exposed to the same at some time or another.
We aren't talking about some obscure letter here, we are talking about
something that is very common can be found in multiple publications and
something that is frequently required reading on some level of a persons
normal education.
Sorry, but your assertion doesn't even pass the giggle test.
With regards to the list which I provided let me include the following:
************************************************************
THE RELIGIOUS CORRESPONDENCE of THOMAS JEFFERSON
(In Context) Compiled by Emmett F. Fields
ABOUT THIS BOOK
The purpose of this book is to present the religious ideas of
Thomas Jefferson as they appear in his writings. The religious quotes
are kept in their original context in the letters, and the entire letter is
reproduced in compressed type with the religious quote in normal size
type and bolded. By reproducing the letters in this way there can be
no claim that the quotes were taken out of context so as to make
Jefferson seem to say what he did not say.
The most famous ‘out of context’ religious quote of Thomas
Jefferson is to be found in the Jefferson Memorial in Washington
D.C. Around the rotunda of the Jefferson Memorial, in large gold
letters, is the quote: “I HAVE SWORN UPON THE ALTAR OF
GOD, ETERNAL HOSTILITY AGAINST EVERY FORM OF
TYRANNY OVER THE MIND OF MAN.” The quote was taken,
completely out of context from a letter that Jefferson wrote to Dr.
Benjamin Rush September 23, 1800. The quote put in its original
context says just the opposite of the pious sentiment it is made to say.
In his letter to Dr. Rush Jefferson is talking about the Christian clergy
who were working against his being elected President by saying
Jefferson was an infidel. The complete quote says: “The returning
good sense of our country threatens abortion to their (the
Christian clergy) hopes, and they believe that any portion of
power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their
schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar
of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the
mind of man.” So we see that in his letter Jefferson is saying that the
“tyranny over the mind of man” that he is opposed to are the schemes
of the Christian clergy, and the god he is referring to is the god of
Deism, not the god of the Christians.
The schemes of the clergy was not a peculiarity of Jefferson’s
time only, those schemes continue today and is the reason for this
rather extensive study of Jefferson’s religious statements as found in
his letters. Today there are Christian folks who have been told that
Jefferson was a believing Christian -- if not actually an Evangelical
Christian -- these misinformed Christians are victims of the “schemes
of the clergy” of today. There is no better antidote than the very
words of Mr. Jefferson himself. Therefore, in the following pages the
letters of Jefferson, and those letters to Jefferson from friends that he
discussed his religious ideas with, are carefully headed by the source
of the letters.
The truth is, of course, that Thomas Jefferson’s religious
views were almost identical to those of his friend Thomas Paine, and
for the best statement of the Deism at the time of the Founding of the
United States one needs to read Thomas Paine’s ‘The Age of Reason.’
Incidentally, Thomas Paine was the first person to write the words;
“The United States of America.”
So the purpose of this book is to let the truth be known about
the religious beliefs of Mr. Thomas Jefferson. If the reader is aware
of any Jefferson letter that has a significant statement of his religious
opinions, and the letter is from a reliable source and can be
authenticated, please send a copy of the letter to Bank of Wisdom and
it will be verified and included in future issues of this work. Letters
concerning this work can be sent to; Bank of Wisdom, P.O. Box 926,
Louisville, KY 40201.
Emmett F. Fields
Bank of Wisdom.
A Few Words
The letters of this first Chapter are Jefferson's earlier
correspondence, from his school days until 1800. These were the
years of the American Revolution, when Jefferson, and those dear to
him, were often in danger from the British, I diligently searched but
could find no letter seeking divine aid or protection for himself or
others, nor was prayer for National success or guidance asked from
any "Higher Power" found.
I am attempting to reproduce all the letters that Thomas Jefferson
wrote that contained any significant reference to religion, religious
beliefs, or observations concerning religious belief in Europe and
America.
I expect that this work will continue to grow indefinitely as more
Jefferson letters that contain religious thoughts and ideas are found.
We ask that if the reader knows of any letter of Thomas Jefferson not
published here, that makes a significant reference to religion, please
send a copy of the letter, or the quote, and the exact source from
which the letter or quote was obtained, and if its authenticity can be
verified it will be add to future issues of this CD-ROM.
In this work Jefferson speaks for himself, I have not chosen among
his letters and published only those that suits my own prejudices,
ALL letters referring to religion that I have found have been included,
and all such letters will be added that can be found and authenticated.
Some interesting sidelights on Mr. Jefferson:
Thomas Jefferson was born on April 13, 1743 in a house built
upon four hundred acres of land that his father, Peter Jefferson, had
bought from his good friend and in-law, William Randolph, for the
total price of, "Henry Weatherbourne's biggest bowl of arrack punch."
Jefferson did not want his birthday celebrated as a national holiday
and so kept the date a secret, and asked his family not to reveal it to
the public. Jefferson was, in many ways, a very private man. He was
especially a private man in his religious opinions, keeping them much
to himself and sharing them only with close friends and a few other
persons he considered trustworthy. Yet, occasionally, some letter of
his would find its way into print and he would fear that it would
become known to, and seized upon by, the clergy and made a source
of trouble against him. In these private letters Jefferson expressed
much the same thoughts on religion that was publicly expressed by
his good friend Thomas Paine.
We will begin with a letter that Jefferson wrote in 1763 when he
was 20 years of age. It contains, perhaps, more youthful philosophy
than religion, but the two, religion and philosophy, were never far
apart in Jefferson's mind. From this letter of 1763 I was unable to find
a letter concerning religion until 1786. I have searched diligently for
some mention of religion that Jefferson wrote during the
Revolutionary war, 1776 - 1783, at a time of high stress and danger
for himself, his new nation, and his beloved wife and children. This
absence of religious thought during crisis would not be unusual for
Thomas Jefferson. For him religion was not an emotional thing, he
did not call upon his god in times of emergency -- that was not the
kind of god he had. To him religion was a thing of deep thought and
conviction, he believed firmly that his god would judge him by his
actions and deeds, not by any outward show of piety or religious
affiliations. He hoped, but was not entirely convinced, that he would
again meet his loved ones in a life beyond the grave -- but if he should
meet his friends in a heavenly world beyond the grave, he seemed
very skeptical that he would find many of the clergy there.
Emmett F. Fields
Bank of Wisdom
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, I will email Emmett and send him the copy if Jefferson's 2nd Inaugural
Address so, if he feels it qualifies he can include it in any updated
version of the AMERICA: The Historic Facts
(The most important CD-ROM produced in America)
Http://www.bank-of-wisdom.com
***********************************************************
You have been harping on this crap for months, but what you have not done,
not even once, provided a single shred of evidence to support your wacky
theory of yours. You just offer your stupid opinion and even a watered down
version of it, in that you frequently use works like "has possibly
overlooked," "maybe they didn't know about," "about a possible screw up at
the Supreme Court" and so on.
Yet those pointing out "you are full of it" have provided historical and
legal documentation showing precisely what the courts studied and examined
in Everson, which defined the Establishment Clause.
What that evidence has shown is that Jefferson was only one of many sources
that was studied and that he wasn't even the primary source that credit
can be given to for the definition of the establishment clause.
The two letters that you think are so fantastic and cast doubt on the
validity of the entire church state establishment clause jurisprudence of
the past 57 years or so are non factors and not because they were not known
about but because they were unimportant to legally defining the
Establishment Clause, for creating a rule of law for that clause.
That is the one thing you have overlooked is those letters are unimportant
with regards to legally defining, setting forth the meaning, i.e. rule of
law with regards to the Establishment Clause.
Why was that? Because the court was using the Everson case to incorporate
the Establishment Clause against the states. They knew full well what they
were doing. They also know the prior to this incorporation, what Jefferson
had said in those two letters had been true. Religious matters had been
left in the hands of the states prior to the incorporation of the Free
Exercise clause and now the pending incorporation of the Establishment
Clause. Incorporation of various aspects of the BORs against the states
via the 14th amendment had been going on since the late 1800s. The Free
Exercise Clause had already been incorporated against the states 5 or 6
years earlier.
You can argue about the constitutionality of incorporation till the cows
come home if you like, it's not going to change. It exists and is going to
continue to exist. The USSC has rejected any arguments that it is
unconstitutional.
* Fourteenth Amendment
http://candst.tripod.com/14thamend.htm
**********************************************************
One final point, what exactly was cited in defining the Establishment
Clause:
FROM THE MAJORITY OPINION OF EVERSON PAGES 8-16
A large proportion of the early settlers of this country came here
from Europe to escape the bondage of laws which compelled them to support
and attend government-favored churches. The centuries immediately before
and contemporaneous with the colonization of America had been filled with
turmoil, civil strife and persecutions, generated in large part by
established sects determined
[p*9]
to maintain their absolute political and religious supremacy. With the
power of government supporting them, at various times and places, Catholics
had persecuted Protestants, Protestants had persecuted Catholics,
Protestant sects had persecuted other Protestant sects, Catholics of one
shade of belief had persecuted Catholics of another shade of belief, and
all of these had from time to time persecuted Jews. In efforts to forc
loyalty to whatever religious group happened to be on top and in league
with the government of a particular time and place, men and women had been
fined, cast in jail, cruelly tortured, and killed. Among the offenses for
which these punishments had been inflicted were such things as speaking
disrespectfully of the views of ministers of government-established
churches, non-attendance at those churches, expressions of nonbelief in
their doctrines, and failure to pay taxes and tithes to support them. [n5]
These practices of the old world were transplanted to, and began to
thrive in, the soil of the new America. The very charters granted by the
English Crown to the individuals and companies designated to make the laws
which would control the destinies of the colonials authorized these
individuals and companies to erect religious establishments which all,
whether believers or nonbelievers, would be required to support and attend.
[n6] An exercise of
[p*10]
this authority was accompanied by a repetition of many of the old-world
practices and persecutions. Catholics found themselves hounded and
proscribed because of their faith; Quakers who followed their conscience
went to jail; Baptists were peculiarly obnoxious to certain dominant
Protestant sects; men and women of varied faiths who happened to be in a
minority in a particular locality were persecuted because they steadfastly
persisted in worshipping God only as their own consciences dictated. [n7]
And all of these dissenters were compelled to pay tithes and taxes [n8] to
support government-sponsored churches whose ministers preached inflammatory
sermons designed to strengthen and consolidate the established faith by
generating a burning hatred against dissenters.
[p*11]
These practices became so commonplace as to shock the
freedom-loving colonials into a feeling of abhorrence. [n9] The imposition
of taxes to pay ministers' salaries and to build and maintain churches and
church property aroused their indignation. [n10] It was these feelings
which found expression in the First Amendment. No one locality and no one
group throughout the Colonies can rightly be given entire credit for having
aroused the sentiment that culminated in adoption of the Bill of Rights'
provisions embracing religious liberty. But Virginia, where the established
church had achieved a dominant influence in political affairs and where
many excesses attracted wide public attention, provided a great stimulus
and able leadership for the movement. The people there, as elsewhere,
reached the conviction that individual religious liberty could be achieved
best under a government which was stripped of all power to tax, to
support, or otherwise to assist any or all religions, or to interfere with
the beliefs of any religious individual or group.
The movement toward this end reached its dramatic climax in
Virginia in 1785-86 when the Virginia legislative body was about to renew
Virginia's tax levy for the support of the established church. THOMAS
JEFFERSON [EMPHASIS ADDED BY ME]
[p*12]
and James Madison led the fight against this tax. [JEFFERSON DIDN'T
HE WAS IN EUROPE AT THE TIME.-BUCKEYE] Madison wrote
his great Memorial and Remonstrance against the law. [n11] In it, he
eloquently argued that a true religion did not need the support of law;
that no person, either believer or nonbeliever, should be taxed to support
a religious institution of any kind; that the best interest of a society
required that the minds of men always be wholly free, and that cruel
persecutions were the inevitable result of government-established
religions. Madison's Remonstrance received strong support throughout
Virginia, [n12] and the Assembly postponed consideration of the proposed
tax measure until its next session. When the proposal came up for
consideration at that session, it not only died in committee, but the
Assembly enacted the famous "Virginia Bill for Religious Liberty"
originally written by THOMAS JEFFERSON
[EMPHASIS ADDED BY ME]. [n13]
The preamble to that Bill stated, among other things, that Almighty
God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by
temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to
beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are
[p*13]
a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who
being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by
coercions on either . . . ; that to compel a man to furnish contributions
of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and
tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of
his own religious persuasion is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of
giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would
make his pattern. . . .
And the statute itself enacted
That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious
worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained,
molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on
account of his religious opinions or belief. . . . [n14]
This Court has previously recognized that the provisions of the First
Amendment, in the drafting and adoption of which Madison and Jefferson
played such leading roles, had the sameobjective, and were intended to
provide the same protection against governmental intrusion onreligious
liberty as the Virginia statute. Reynolds v. United States, supra, at 164;
Watson v.Jones, 13 Wall. 679; Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 342. Prior to
the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the First Amendment did not apply
as a restraint against the states. [n15] Most of them did soon provide
similar constitutional protections [p*14] for religious liberty. [n16] But
some states persisted for about half a century in imposing restraints upon
the free exercise of religion and in discriminating against particular
religious groups. [n17] In recent years, so far as the provision against
the establishment of a religion is concerned, the question has most
frequently arisen in connection with proposed state aid to church schools
and efforts to carry on religious teachings in the public schools in
accordance with the tenets of a particular sect. [n18] Some churches have
either sought or accepted state financial support for their schools.
Here again, the efforts to obtain state aid or acceptance of it have not
been limited to any one particular faith. [n19] The state courts, in the
main, have remained faithful to the language of their own constitutional
provisions designed to protect religious freedom and to separate religions
and governments. Their decisions, however, show the difficulty in drawing
the line between tax legislation which provides funds for the welfare of
the general public and that which is designed to support institutions which
teach religion. [n20]
The meaning and scope of the First Amendment, preventing establishment of
religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, in the light of its
history and the evils it
[p*15]
was designed forever to suppress, have been several times elaborated by the
decisions of this Court prior to the application of the First Amendment to
the states by the Fourteenth. [n21] The broad meaning given the Amendment
by these earlier cases has been accepted by this Court in its decisions
concerning an individual's religious freedom rendered since the Fourteenth
Amendment was interpreted to make the prohibitions of the First applicable
to state action abridging religious freedom. [n22] There is every reason to
give the same application and broad interpretation to the "establishment of
religion" clause. The interrelation of these complementary clauses was well
summarized in a statement of the Court of Appeals of South Carolina, [n23]
quoted with approval by this Court in Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679, 730:
The structure of our government has, for the preservation of civil liberty,
rescued the temporal institutions from religious interference. On the other
hand, it has secured religious liberty from the invasion of the civil
authority.
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
[p*16]
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 [EMPHASIS ADDED
BY ME], 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 164.
NOTES 5-23
5. See, e.g., Macaulay, History of England (1849) I, cc. 2, 4; The
Cambridge Modern History (1908) V, cc. V, IX, XI; Beard, Rise of American
Civilization (1933) I, 60; Cobb, Rise of Religious Liberty in America
(1902) c. II; Sweet, The Story of Religion in America (1939) c. II; Sweet,
Religion in Colonial America (1942) 320-322.
6. See e.g., the charter of the colony of Carolina, which gave the
grantees the right of patronage and advowsons of all the churches and
chapels . . . together with licence and power to build and found churches,
chapels and oratories . . . and to cause them to be dedicated and
consecrated according to the ecclesiastical laws of our kingdom of England.
Poore, Constitutions (1878) II, 1390, 1391. That of Maryland gave to the
grantee Lord Baltimore the Patronages, and Advowsons of all Churches which
.. . . shall happen to be built, together with Licence and Faculty of
erecting and founding Churches, Chapels, and Places of Worship .
.. . and of causing the same to be dedicated and consecrated according to
the Ecclesiastical Laws of our Kingdom of England, with all, and singular
such, and as ample lights, Jurisdictions, Privileges, . . . as any Bishop .
.. . in our Kingdom of England, ever . . . hath had. . . .
MacDonald, Documentary Source Book of American History (1934) 31, 33. The
Commission of New Hampshire of 1680, Poore, supra, II, 1277, stated:
And above all things We do by these presents will, require and comand our
said Councill to take all possible care for ye discountenancing of vice and
encouraging of virtue and good living, and that, by such examples ye
infidle may be invited and desire to partake of ye Christian Religion, and
for ye greater ease and satisfaction of ye sd loving subjects in matters of
religion, We do hereby require and comand yt liberty of conscience shall be
allowed unto all protestants; yt such especially as shall be conformable to
ye rites of ye Church of Engd shall be particularly countenanced and
encouraged.
See also Pawlet v. Clark, 9 Cranch 292.
7. See, e.g., Semple, Baptists in Virginia (1894); Sweet, Religion
in Colonial America, supra, at 131-152, 322-339.
8. Almost every colony exacted some kind of tax for church support.
See e.g. Cobb, op. cit. supra, note 5, 110 (Virginia); 131 (North
Carolina); 169 (Massachusetts); 270 (Connecticut); 304, 310, 339 (New
York); 386 (Maryland); 295 (New Hampshire).
9. Madison wrote to a friend in 1774:
That diabolical, hell-conceived principle of persecution rages among some.
.. . . This vexes me the worst of anything whatever. There are at this time
in the adjacent country not less than five or six well meaning men in close
jail for publishing their religious sentiments, which in the main are very
orthodox. I have neither patience to hear, talk, or think of anything
relative to this matter; for I have squabbled and scolded, abused and
ridiculed, so long about it to little purpose, that I am without common
patience. So I must beg you to pity me, and pray for liberty
of conscience to all. I Writings of James Madison (1900) 18, 21.
10. Virginia's resistance to taxation for church support was
crystallized in the famous "Parsons' Cause" argued by Patrick Henry in
1763. For an account, see Cobb, op. cit. supra, note 5, 108-111.
11. II Writings of James Madison, 183.
12. In a recently discovered collection of Madison's papers,
Madison recollected that his Remonstrance met with the approbation of the
Baptists, the Presbyterians, the Quakers, and the few Roman Catholics,
universally; of the Methodists in part, and even of not a few of the Sect
formerly established by law. Madison, Monopolies, Perpetuities,
Corporations, Ecclesiastical Endowments, in Fleet, Madison's "Detached
Memorandum," 3 William and Mary Q. (1946) 534, 551, 555.
13. For accounts of background and evolution of the Virginia Bill
for Religious Liberty see, e.g., James, The Struggle for Religious Liberty
in Virginia (1900); Thom, The Struggle for Religious Freedom in Virginia:
The Baptists (1900); Cobb, op. cit. supra, note 5, 74-115; Madison,
Monopolies, Perpetuities Corporations, Ecclesiastical Endowments, op. cit.
supra, note 12, 554, 556.
14. 12 Hening, Statutes of Virginia (1823) 84; Commager, Documents
of American History (1944) 125.
15. Permoli v. New Orleans, 3 How. 589. Cf. Barron v. Baltimore, 7
Peters 243 .
16. For a collection of state constitutional provisions on freedom
of religion see Gabel, Public Funds for Church and Private Schools (1937)
148-149. See also 2 Cooley, Constitutional Limitations (1927) 960-985.
17. Test provisions forbade officeholders to "deny . . . the truth
of the Protestant religion," e.g., Constitution of North Carolina (1776) §
330II, II Poore, supra, 1413. Maryland permitted taxation for support of
the Christian religion and limited civil office to Christians until 1818,
id. I, 819, 820, 832.
18. See Note 50 Yale L.J. (1941) 917; see also cases collected 14
L.R.A. 418; 5 A.L.R. 8, 9; 141 A.L.R. 1148.
19. See cases collected 14 L.R.A. 418; 5 A.L.R. 879; 141 A.L.R.
1148.
20. Ibid. See also Cooley, op. cit. supra, note 16.
21. Terrett v. Taylor, 9 Cranch 43; Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679;
Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333; cf. Reynolds v. United States, supra, 162;
Reuben Quick Bear v. Leupp, 210 U.S. 50.
22. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 ; Jamison v. Texas, 318
U.S. 413; Largent v. Texas, 318 U.S. 418; Murdock v. Pennsylvania, supra;
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 ; Follett
v. McCormick, 321 U.S. 573; Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 . Cf. Bradfield
v. Roberts, 175 U.S. 291.
23. Harmon v. Dreher, Speer's Equity Reports (S.C. 1843), 87, 120.
******************************************************************
As you can see from above, Jefferson is cited or quoted very little.
He is mentioned once with Madison, who is cited and mentioned quite a few
times. He is mentioned again with an excerpt from his Statute for Religious
Freedom He is mentioned once more with the quote given in Reynolds v.
United States, supra, at 164.
Madison is mentioned or cited or quoted more than Jefferson. There is a
array of other sources that are cited, mentioned etc.
The evidence does not support your assertions all these many months that
church state separation was based on Jefferson or any of his famous church
state writings, per se.
:|Given the above scenario, I'm sure everybody here can appreciate my
:|concern
You have no concern, you enjoy trolling. You have found a button you can
push knowing full well that odds are great that there will be reply to your
button pushing.
:}about a possible screw up at the Supreme Court concerning
:|Jefferson's writings a little better now.
:|
:|M. Clark, internet troll and nit case.
.
|
