This story was previously titled "Farewell, Justice Souter, defender of Mr. Jefferson's wall"
Farewell, Justice Souter, defender of Mr. Jefferson's wall »
Posted By scott4261 5 months ago in Political OpinionIf you believe with Thomas Jefferson that the First Amendment builds "a high wall of separation between Church & State," then you will sorely miss Justice David H. Souter when he retires from the U.S. Supreme Court this month.
Few justices in recent memory have been more vigorous in defending Mr. Jefferson's wall against increasingly successful efforts by some on the Court to dismantle it brick by brick.
At the heart of Souter's Jeffersonian argument is the conviction that government entanglement with religion has been a leading source of repression and conflict throughout history. Maintaining government neutrality toward religion, therefore, is not only a limitation on government — it's also an indispensible condition for full religious liberty.
When the Supreme Court first applied the First Amendment's establishment clause to the states in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education, the justices invoked Jefferson to affirm a "high and impreg-nable" wall ensuring government neutrality that neither promotes nor inhibits religion.
But by the time Justice Souter joined the Court in 1990, Jefferson's wall was considerably lower and full of holes....
(Click below for complete op-ed):
Read Full Story at statesmanjournal.com »
443 Views Share Story 33 Comments Report
Submitted By:
scott4261
I had been spending way too much time on propeller. Some of the recent changes have made it more user friendly.
.....I don't do ...
Who Also Submitted:
Other Related Articles:
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 33 (view all)
-
94%
scott42615 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This an excellent op-ed concerning Justice David Souter's retirement and his determination to slow the erosion of Jefferson's wall implicit in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Reply
Now I know I'll automatically receive negs from Endoscoppy, DaneL, and a few others on the right who insist that the United States is a "Christian nation" and who insist that the separation of church and State is but a product of "liberals trying to rewrite U.S. History" ....so let's look at the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Now what is it about the separation of church and State that is left up to interpretation here? Thomas Jefferson was quite clear that religion and government function best when one does not interfere with the other. Have we forgotten the religious tyranny which brought the pilgrims to this continent in the first place?
I find it ironic that the Southern Baptist Convention are among the most vocal deniers of the separation of church and State, when in fact they were its most vocal proponents (for precisely the reason that Jefferson expressed) until the 1980s... -
100%
deathray5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
when christian evangelicals and fundamentalists in the United States talk about the first amendment, particularly the free exercise clause, it's always code for "we are the majority and get to decide for everyone else"
Reply
talk about the tyrrany of the majority.-
91%
Natureboy5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"when christian evangelicals and fundamentalists in the United States talk about the first amendment, particularly the free exercise clause, it's always code for "we are the majority and get to decide for everyone else""
Reply
Except that they are not the majority. They are a bunch of flat-earthers who would like to be the majority.
-
-
93%
scott42615 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have to commend the propeller gods here:
Reply
Thank you for separating Politics into Political News and Political Opinion. And thank you for the ability to edit the story within the first five minutes of submission!
Good job, guys! It's getting better here all the time!-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive1 Reply
-
-
-
-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive1 Reply
-
-
-
8%
lloydm655 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There is no such thing as seperation of church,and state.How about seperation of God,and children.That was the intent of the courts in the first.You know that adults can do as they please,but little have to be brain washed at an early age.We will all see God in time,those who believe,and those who don't.I would not want to be the parent,or judge who forbid little children to come unto the lord as he requested.He that cares not for his is worse than an infidel.
Reply-
100%
jordan115 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yep, there's a separation all right. You'd know that if you studied, but you won't. So I just dropped by to give your statement the 'thud' that it deserves. Never good to allow such silliness as yours to go unchallenged.
Reply
Start reading ALL of Jeffersons writings. No fair taking comments out of context. You gotta read ALL of what he said.
Oh, the 'god' thing; that's for your personal belief. We're not a theocracy. -
100%
Dionys5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"There is no such thing as seperation of church,and state.How about seperation of God,and children.That was the intent of the courts in the first.You know that adults can do as they please,but little have to be brain washed at an early age.We will all see God in time,those who believe,and those who don't.I would not want to be the parent,or judge who forbid little children to come unto the lord as he requested.He that cares not for his is worse than an infidel."
Reply
Look everyone. Some anti-Catholic neo-Christian Protestant. Look quickly.
-
-
-
20%
lloydm655 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I did not say you couldn't attend church.I just wonder why little children are treated different.You see I don't care if a child prays in school,or at at lunch table, or not none of my business. I just can't believe it's against the law.A travisty of justice.a criminal offence.
Reply-
100%
smithichie5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There is a reason you shouldn't believe it's against the law for a child to pray at a lunch table, because it's not against the law.
Reply
Children can pray, children can organize prayer groups, children can display religious symbols, it's the teachers and other staff who are representatives of the State who are not supposed to be doing those things. -
100%
ADAGUY5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"I don't care if a child prays in school,or at at lunch table"
Reply
Let me ask you this. What if the person directing the prayer, (the teacher) happens to be a muslim, or a devil worshiper, or a member of any other religion besides Christian. THEN WOULD YOU CARE?
Prayer should be left up to the family. Not the teacher, not the school. -
100%
jordan115 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
don't care if a child prays in school,or at at lunch table, or not none of my business. I just can't believe it's against the law>>>>
Reply
You shouldn't believe it, because it is NOT true. Children can pray all day long in school. Who the heck told you they couldn't?
-
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.