<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]--><o:SmartTagType
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="State"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="country-region"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="City"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="place"/>
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:#C4A53C;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:gray;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link="#C4A53C" vlink=gray>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Thomas Jefferson:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>“Because religious belief, or
non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of
religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to
support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine
all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the
clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion.
Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state,"
therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> We have solved
... the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is
compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have
experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every
one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the
inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries.”<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>-- Thomas Jefferson, to the <st1:State
w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Virginia</st1:place></st1:State> Baptists
(1808). This is his second use of the term "wall of separation," here
quoting his own use in the Danbury Baptist letter. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>This wording was several times upheld by
the Supreme Court as an accurate description of the Establishment Clause: <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Reynolds (98 <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> at 164, 1879)<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Everson (330 <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> at 59, 1947)<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>McCollum (333 <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> at 232, 1948)<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Justice Hugo Black:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>"In the words of <st1:place w:st="on">Jefferson</st1:place>,
the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a
wall of separation' between church and state."<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>-- Hugo Black, Everson v. Board of
Education (1947)<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Enough said.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Tom Hansen<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on"><font size=2
color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;
color:navy'>Moscow</span></font></st1:City><font size=2 color=navy
face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>, <st1:State
w:st="on">Idaho</st1:State></span></font></st1:place><font size=2 color=navy
face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<p><font size=2 color=navy face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
color:navy'>"If not us, who?<br>
If not now, when?"<br>
<br>
- Unknown<br>
</span></font><font color=navy><span style='color:navy'> </span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1>
</span></font></div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font size=2
face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'>
vision2020-bounces@moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces@moscow.com] <b><span
style='font-weight:bold'>On Behalf Of </span></b>Sunil Ramalingam<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Wednesday, August 17, 2005
10:20 AM<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> vision2020@moscow.com<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> Re: [Vision2020] Supreme
Court on the Establishment Clause</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<div>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Those
decisions are hiding out along with your explanation of why we went to war in <st1:country-region
w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Iraq</st1:place></st1:country-region>. A
team of archivists are busy searching for them.<br>
<br>
Sunil<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #A0C6E5 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt;
margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt'>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=1
face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:8.5pt;font-family:Tahoma'>
<hr size=1 width="100%" noshade color="#a0c6e5" align=center>
</span></font></div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=1 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:8.5pt;
font-family:Tahoma'>From: <i><span style='font-style:italic'>"Pat
Kraut" <pkraut@moscow.com></span></i><br>
To: <i><span style='font-style:italic'>"vision2020"
<vision2020@moscow.com></span></i><br>
Subject: <i><span style='font-style:italic'>Re: [Vision2020] Supreme
Court on the Establishment Clause</span></i><br>
Date: <i><span style='font-style:italic'>Wed, 17 Aug 2005 10:51:05
-0700</span></i><br>
>What happened to all the decistions used before that to say that it was OK<br>
>to say prayers before public meetings??<br>
><br>
><br>
>----- Original Message -----<br>
>From: "Melynda Huskey" <melyndahuskey@earthlink.net><br>
>To: <vision2020@moscow.com><br>
>Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 4:04 PM<br>
>Subject: [Vision2020] Supreme Court on the Establishment Clause<br>
><br>
><br>
>Kai,<br>
><br>
>In Abington v. Schempp (1963), the Supreme Court held (in an opinion
written<br>
>by Justice Clark):<br>
><br>
>"Second, this Court has rejected unequivocally the contention that the<br>
>Establishment Clause forbids only governmental preference of one religion<br>
>over another. Almost 20 years ago in Everson, supra, at 15, the Court said<br>
>that "[n]either a state nor the Federal Government can set up a
church.<br>
>Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer<br>
>one religion over another." And Mr. Justice Jackson, dissenting,
agreed:<br>
><br>
>" 'There is no answer to the proposition . . . that the effect of the<br>
>religious freedom Amendment to our Constitution was to take every form of<br>
>propagation of religion out of the realm of things which could directly or<br>
>indirectly be made public business and thereby be supported in whole or in<br>
>part at taxpayers' expense.... This freedom was first in the Bill of Rights<br>
>because it was first in the forefathers' minds; it was set forth in
absolute<br>
>terms, and its strength is its rigidity.' <st1:State w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">Id.</st1:place></st1:State>, at 26.<br>
><br>
>"Further, Mr. Justice Rutledge, joined by Justices Frankfurter,
Jackson and<br>
><st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Burton</st1:place></st1:City>,
declared:<br>
><br>
>" 'The [First] Amendment's purpose was not to strike merely at the
official<br>
>establishment of a single sect, creed or religion, outlawing only a formal<br>
>relation such as had prevailed in <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">England</st1:place></st1:country-region> and some of the colonies.<br>
>Necessarily it was to uproot all such relationships. But the object was<br>
>broader than separating church and state in this narrow sense. It was to<br>
>create a complete and permanent separation of the spheres of religious<br>
>activity and civil authority by comprehensively forbidding every form of<br>
>public aid or support for religion.' <st1:State w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Id.</st1:place></st1:State>,
at 31-32.<br>
><br>
>"The same conclusion has been firmly maintained ever since that time,
see<br>
><st1:State w:st="on">Illinois</st1:State> ex rel. McCollum, supra, at pp.
210-211; McGowan v. <st1:State w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Maryland</st1:place></st1:State>,<br>
>supra, at 442-443; Torcaso v. Watkins, supra, at 492-493, 495, and we<br>
>reaffirm it now.<br>
><br>
>"While none of the parties to either of these cases has questioned
these<br>
>basic conclusions of the Court, both of which have been long established,<br>
>recognized and consistently reaffirmed, others continue to question their<br>
>history, logic and efficacy. Such contentions, in the light of the<br>
>consistent interpretation in cases of this Court, seem entirely untenable<br>
>and of value only as academic exercises."<br>
><br>
><st1:place w:st="on">Clark</st1:place> also wrote, on the question of
letting some people "excuse themselves"<br>
>from participation:<br>
><br>
>"But we held in Speiser that the constitutional vice of the loyalty
oath<br>
>procedure discharged any obligation to seek the exemption before
challenging<br>
>the constitutionality of the conditions upon which it might have been<br>
>denied. 357 <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">U. S.</st1:place></st1:country-region>,
at 529. Similarly, we have held that one need not apply<br>
>for a permit to distribute constitutionally protected literature, Lovell v.<br>
><st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Griffin</st1:place></st1:City>,
303 U. S. 444, or to deliver a speech, Thomas v. Collins, 323 U. S.<br>
>516, before he may attack the constitutionality of a licensing system of<br>
>which the defect is patent. Insofar as these cases implicate only questions<br>
>of establishment, it seems to me that the availability of an excuse is<br>
>constitutionally irrelevant. Moreover, the excusal procedure seems to me to<br>
>operate in such a way as to discourage the free exercise of religion on the<br>
>part of those who might wish to utilize it, thereby rendering it<br>
>unconstitutional in an additional and quite distinct respect."<br>
><br>
>Read it all at:<br>
><br>
>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=374&invol=203<br>
><br>
>Melynda Huskey<br>
><br>
><br>
>_____________________________________________________<br>
> List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>
> http://www.fsr.net<br>
>
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<br>
>/////////////////////////////////////////////////////<br>
><br>
>_____________________________________________________<br>
> List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>
> http://www.fsr.net<br>
>
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<br>
>/////////////////////////////////////////////////////</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>