That doesn’t seem relevant. It’s not at all a novel interpretation, and Jefferson’s letter shows that. There’s a long history of separation at the federal level, including the establishment clause in the first amendment and the “no religious test” clause in the Constitution. Granted, these were only gradually seen as applying to the states, but that happened long before 1947.
Still looking for support of your claim that the motivation for Black’s decision was exclusion of Catholics and Jews from government. It seems on the face of it to be an absurd claim, since, again under the “no religious test” clause, any such exclusion would be unconstitutional.
There is no prior connection of the language of separation of church and state to the First Amendment. Unless you have a citation for that. Jefferson was not talking about the Establishment Clause. He was making a promise to political constituents. And you conveniently neglect to mention that the First Amendment A) only applied to the federal government (state governments all had established religions at the time of the Bill of Rights and nobody cared) and B) only applied to having an official established church like the established churches in Europe, not the vast, absurdly extremist application it has today AFTER 1947 to virtually everything receiving public funds.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.[1]
Read again, this time more carefully. Incidentally, the application of the First Amendment to the states was a ruling of the Supreme Court in 1925, based on the “equal protection” clause of the 14th Amendment. Nothing to do with Justice Black.
True, toleration in Maryland temporarily was struck down only five years after its enactment. By 1654, the conflict in England was over, but postwar hysteria flooded the colony like a tidal wave. Cromwell was seated firmly in England’s saddle; only death would dislodge him. Zealous Maryland Puritans, caught in the emotional frenzy, swept away the Act of Toleration and put Catholics, Jews, Quakers, Atheists, and all dissenters under disabilities as oppressive as any imposed in America.
I will also note that the similar phrasing appeared in a dissent authored by Justice Wiley Rutledge.
The Everson decision itself concluded that there was no First Amendment violation in a ruling that almost entirely benefitted Catholics.
Further, Black directly - and correctly - attributed the phrase to Jefferson.
In light of these facts it seems that the claims of Black’s importance are unjustified and the claims concerning his motivation are - in this case - simply false.
Complete rubbish. Again the framer’s intent counts. Read Madison’s Memorial and Remonstrance. Even paying a stipend to preachers was considered establishment.
@BenKissling, can you provide a reference for his motivation for separation of church and state? Otherwise you’re just reinforcing the general principle that anything said by a YEC should be treated with extreme skepticism.