<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Palatino">A more balanced reading comes from Wikipedia, where there is an extended discussion. In its opening statement there is the following:</font><div><br></div><div>The metaphor [a wall of separation between church and state] was intended, as The U.S. Supreme Court has currently
interpreted it since 1947, to mean that religion and government must
stay separate for the benefit of both,<i><b> including the idea that the
government must not impose religion on Americans nor create any law
requiring it</b></i> (my emphasis). It has since been in several opinions handed down by the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Supreme_Court" title="United States Supreme Court" class="mw-redirect">United States Supreme Court</a>,<sup id="cite_ref-0" class="reference"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States#cite_note-0"><span>[</span>1<span>]</span></a></sup> though the Court has not always fully embraced the principle.<sup id="cite_ref-1" class="reference"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States#cite_note-1"><span>[</span>2<span>]</span></a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-2" class="reference"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States#cite_note-2"><span>[</span>3<span>]</span></a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-3" class="reference"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States#cite_note-3"><span>[</span>4<span>]</span></a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-4" class="reference"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States#cite_note-4"><span>[</span>5<span>]</span></a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-5" class="reference"><span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States#cite_note-5">[</a></span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States#cite_note-5">6</a><span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States#cite_note-5">]</a></span></sup></div><div><sup id="cite_ref-5" class="reference"><br></sup></div><div style="font-size: 14px; "><sup id="cite_ref-5" class="reference"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States</a></sup></div><div><sup id="cite_ref-5" class="reference"><br></sup></div><div><sup id="cite_ref-5" class="reference"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Palatino" size="3"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 12px; ">The wish to control and impose religion on others, i.e. thought control, is the reason for the cited high court's decisions. Madison was perhaps the chief proponent, with Jefferson, of the "wall of separation". Of course, Estabrook et al. tries to disparage this interpretation, claiming that these writers of the Constitution were just anti-democratic wealthy men (as reflected in the first amendment and the rest of the Constitution). </span></font></sup></div><div><sup id="cite_ref-5" class="reference"><font class="Apple-style-span" size="3"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 12px;"><br></span></font></sup></div><div><sup id="cite_ref-5" class="reference"><font class="Apple-style-span" size="3"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 12px;">--mkb</span></font></sup></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" size="2"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 10px;"><br></span></font></div><div><sup id="cite_ref-5" class="reference"><span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States#cite_note-5"></a></span></sup><font class="Apple-style-span" size="2"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 10px;"><br></span></font><div><div>On Oct 20, 2010, at 5:53 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Wayne is quite right. In fact the First Amendment was designed in
part precisely to <i><b>prevent</b></i> <i><b>Congress from
interfering</b></i> in those states where religion (= a church
organization) <i><b>was established</b></i> (= supported by tax
money): Congress was prohibited by this amendment from separating
church and state in the six states that had established religions (=
state churches) in 1787.<br>
<br>
The separation of church and state, an Enlightenment goal, was
slowly achieved in the US as the various state churches were
disestablished (allowing us actually to use the word
"antidisestablishmentarianism"). But the Bill of Rights was always
meant as a limitation on the power of the federal government - a
price for the ratification of the largely anti-democratic and
pro-elite Constitution of 1787.<br>
<br>
See McConnell, <i>The Origins and Historical Understanding of Free
Exercise of Religion</i>, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1409, 1437 (1990)<br>
<br>
<br>
On 10/20/10 5:34 PM, E. Wayne Johnson wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4CBF6E6A.8030306@pigs.ag" type="cite">First
Amendment:
<br>
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
<br>
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right
of the people peaceably to assemble,
<br>
and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
<br>
<br>
Christine is certainly not wrong and knows how to read.
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 10/21/2010 2:18 AM, Robert Naiman wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Republican Christine O'Donnell challenged
her Democratic rival Tuesday
<br>
to show where the Constitution requires separation of church and
<br>
state, drawing swift criticism from her opponent, laughter from
her
<br>
law school audience and a quick defense from prominent
conservatives.
<br>
[...]
<br>
The subject of religion and the law came up during their debate
at
<br>
Widener University Law School as O'Donnell criticized Coons for
saying
<br>
that teaching creationism in public school would violate the
<br>
Constitution.
<br>
<br>
O'Donnell questions separation of church, state
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/19/AR2010101902501.html">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/19/AR2010101902501.html</a>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>Peace-discuss mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a><br>http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss<br></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>