The Court has consistantly ruled that religious symbols/messages that are part of a historical display or overall secular purpose are perfectly acceptable. But when the intent or purpose is or could appear to be, purely religious, then that is getting into the realm of endorsement.
It meant fat fingered typing and bad spell-check. It should have been "wall of separation." You claimed Everson was the first reference to Jefferson's Wall of Separation from the Danbury Baptists letter. It was Reynolds, and the Everson Court was citing Reynolds with that reference.In plain English, please. I don't even know what you're talking about.Originally Posted by pinqy
That's odd. You talk about Everson being the first mention of the Wall of Separation, but the reference to it is "In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page 164. " directly citing Reynolds.If you're going to claim the Court in Everson cited Reynolds--and I'm not claiming to know it did not-- give the exact citation to support your claim, instead of expecting me or someone else to comb through the whole damned decision trying to figure out what you're talking about. And while you're at it, tell us exactly what proposition you think the Court cited Reynolds for. I'm not going to waste much time disproving assertions you can't be bothered to support with specific references. But just from a quick search, I don't see any citation to Reynolds in Everson, nor is it obvious why the principle Reynolds stands for would have been important in Everson.
My point was that your claim that "The "wall of separation" language from Thomas Jefferson's letter of reassurance to a nervous religious group was never the law until 1947" was false. It was first used by the SCOTUS in Reynolds in 1878....69 years earlier than your claim. That makes a difference.