Selective Memory re: "Wall of Separation"

As Christopher Hitchens often put it: "Mr. Jefferson: Build up that wall!"

I would not expect Hitchens to have had any other attitude about religion, but then his lack of of confidence that evidence for God exists is telling, because the evidence is based on faith, which is nothing but another sense [like our acknowledged 5; being a sixth - and there are others that empirical science is beginning to recognize as available to us which are common in other animals]. Too many consider faith and belief to be synonymous, but they are not alike. We can believe anything we choose, whether true, or not. Faith truly operates only when something is true already, but we just do not recognize it. It is an internal fully tactile sense, that is the testtation of the Holy Spirit. Many people feel it without knowing what it is or what it is telling us, because all senses are informative if we know how to read them. Hitchens was unaware of any of this.

Congressman Jamie Raskin [D-MD8] chose to try to correct a 16-year-old high school student on the student's claim that among the US founding fathers, were 55 of 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence who identified as being of Judeo-Christian ethic [and 6 of whom also signed approval of the Constitution as constitutional delegates. Raskin claimed they should not have said this because the 1st Amendment denies establishment of religion.

A 66 year-old man trying to correct a 16-year-old ought to be certain of the truthfulness of his opinion before holding such an erroneous opinion. Sorry to correct the 66- year-old, but I'm 76, and know the meaning of the 1st Amendment with regard to establishment. Having a Judeo-Christian ethic, as most of our founding fathers admit to having, is not an action to establish a religion, particularly one that was established thousands of years ago [in the case of Judaism] and over 2,000 years ago in the case of Christianity. Very well established by the time Jasime Raskin was born. The young man was correct, and adequately argued his point to the shame [though that shame was not felt by Raskin, continuing to believe he was correct] of a Congressman who swears an oath to that Constitution he fails to understand.

Praying does not establish religion, established so many years ago, which is why every day of session, in Raskin's own chamber, and in the Senate, prayer is offered, so why not students and teachers in a school? Mention of God in a classroom does not establish a religion. Establishment is to set-up, create, or bring about the permanent existence of something. Like a religion. So, after something is already set up, created, or brought about that many years ago, is it suddenly not in existence until someone talks about it? Maybe if Raskin forgot to put his head on some morning before he went to work, he might understand what "establish" means. But he does not have to worry about his head being like his car keys, so maybe the concept is lost on him.

“…that although the United States government cannot promote religion, it also cannot be religion’s adversary.”

Prayer exclusively (or predominately) to one deity by government agents in their official capacity is an endorsement and promotion of religion.

The absence of government endorsement of religion is not adversarial.

'Not adversarial' doesn't mean tolerating Christian nationalists pushing the line either. Keep religion personal.

an endorsement and promotion of religion.

The point of the 1A is neither "endorsement," nor "promotion." pls look up the meaning of "establish;" the word that is ion the manedment. Words mean things. It is neither of those other concepts, so let's not put words in the Founders' mouths, huh? Also might read the Federalist Papers, in which Hamilton, Madison, and Jay described the choice of Constitutional rendering. Once upon a time, this stuff was part of school curricula. That is, until the whacks took over education with feel-good & DEI education. .

The point of the 1A is neither "endorsement," nor "promotion." pls look up the meaning of "establish

You attempt to oversimplify the debate, but the courts themselves disagree. They have long held "establishment" as literally establishing a national religion (your position) as well other less explicit actions where government support constitutes establishment. [1]

You ignore that up until the seventh decade of the 18th century, the colonial governments did... what?

Contributed public funds of government to religions, just as the public did, because they know that religion was partner with government, using their shared, though different means to help improve the peoples' lives. At that point t in time, those monies were diverted to support the revolution effort against Britain. That's the fly in the ointment of the separation claim. Oops.

You ignore that up until the seventh decade of the 18th century, the colonial governments did... what? Contributed public funds of government to religions, [...]

You mean up until the Colonies officially declared independence from England? The Declaration famously rejected the divine right of Kings and passionately argued governments derive their authority from the consent of the governed.

Within a few years of the Constitution being raitified, the First Amendment built an implicit wall between religion and government. It no longer made sense to have gods working for government or government working for gods. The timing is no coincidence - it was an intentional collective decision built from the realizations contemporary events brought on.

You might read more of Madison; in particular his letters to various individuals, particularly with regard to what government and religion did in tandem [not an "implicit wall" as you describe, even after 1776. Interesting reading.

Nothing I've read about Madison would lead me to believe he would agree with OP:

"We are teaching the world the great truth that Governments do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion Flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Government."

- James Madison

You will note that I advised NOT "reading about Madison," but rather READING MADISON. Read from the horse's mouth, not some idiot historian's opinion.

When and where did Madison offer the quote you gave, because here's one that occurred in 1832, when Madison was finished with government, retired on his plantation. This is part of a letter to Rev. Jasper Adams, with whom Madison conversed by letter several times:

"The simple question to be decided is whether a support of the best and purist religion, the Christian religion itself, not so far at least as pecuniary means are involved, to be provided for by the government rather than being left to the voluntary provisions of those who profess it. The existing character, distinguished, as it is by its religious features, and the lapse of time now more than 50 years since the legal support of religion was withdrawn, sufficiently to prove that it does not need the support of government, and it will scarcely be contended that the government has suffered by the exemption of religion from its cognizance or its pecuniary aid."

If, in fact, your quote is accurate, obviously in later years he had a falling out with "a wall of separation."

My quote came from a letter from James Madison to Edward Livingston in 1822. Full letter attached here.

Your quote is spliced from the letter you mention from 2 separate paragraphs to suggest a different tone and meaning than the original letter. Madison was responding to (arguing against) a sermon of Adams. Here is the full letter. I believe you have been duped because Madison isn't arguing against separation in that letter, my friend.

Nice try, but a single clause of the last sentence of the quote in my #12 reveals no other conclusion: "...it will scarcely be contended that the government has suffered by the exemption of religion from its cognizance or its pecuniary aid."

Madison's late-life view is the government has suffered needlessly by exempting religion; by "the wall of separation." Who's been duped? It isn't me, my friend. How much clearer can Madison be? This is not word salad.

Nice try, but a single clause of the last sentence of the quote in my #12 reveals no other conclusion: "...it will scarcely be contended that the government has suffered by the exemption of religion from its cognizance or its pecuniary aid."

This means that the government has not been harmed or weakened by keeping itself separate from religion and refusing to fund it. Here is a modern translation: "Hardly anyone can argue that the government has been damaged by keeping its hands off religion and refusing to give it financial support."

You can be forgiven for misunderstanding this phrase by itself given the archaic terms, but when your understanding doesn't match the rest of the letter it should set off alarm bells. Did you read the letter you referenced??

Separation of church and state has seen the rise of China. Even though China produces more Bible than many countries put together. The state does not quote the Bible in its policy.

Debby wrote:

Separation of church and state has seen the rise of China. Even though China produces more Bible than many countries put together.

What? I'm not following.

The state does not quote the Bible in its policy.

Even if that were true, it wouldn't mean state actors arent capable of favoring a specific religion. For instance, Dan Patrick states an individual among the ranks of his political opposition is "going to hell" for holding religious views which differ from his own.

Secondly, there are many instances of legislation attempting to advance Christianity explicitly citing the Bible. I am thinking of bills like Senate Bill 10 in Texas which requires a Protestant version of the 10 cammandments to be displayed in schools (if donated). Also, in Texas, the mandatory reading list includes excerpts from the Bible.

I gave China as an example where separation of church and state is working.

Debby wrote:

I gave China as an example where separation of church and state is working.

I dont believe China has separation of church and state.

When China turned communist it separated religion from the state. Yet China prints 75% of the worlds bibles.

Debby wrote:

When China turned communist it separated religion from the state. Yet China prints 75% of the worlds bibles.

This is simply not true. China closely polices religious activity and forces a short list of state approved religions to sync with Chinese culture and morality. China is considered one of the most restrictive nations regarding religious liberty.

https://hrwf.eu/world-2026-annual-report-of-the-united-states-commission-on-international-religious-freedom/

China officially recognizes and permits only five religions: Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Protestantism, and Catholicism. All permitted religious organizations must register with state-sanctioned patriotic associations and align with Chinese Communist Party (CCP) policies. Practices outside these official structures face strict regulation or prohibition.

"wah-wah"

Yes, the west could learn a lot from the Chinese model...Trump has.

Today there are over a 100 million Christian’s in China. Yet the Government of China does not promote Christianity.

Clubs is clubs.

Ping Pong is a similarly popular distraction.

And no doubt there are christian ping pongers in China.

Tai Chi also.

China has successfully separated church and state. As should be seen as the

perfect model for others wanting to do the same.

Yes as I agreed, the Chinese system is tolerant of leisure activities, and regards religious fantasy fiction as such.

China recognizes 5 religions. Buddhism, Taoism (Daoism), Islam, Catholicism, and Protestantism.

For sure, the Chinese will be reasonably good at recognition...They are actaully quite a bright lot.