I was attending a Baptist Church and began to research the beginning of the Church after reading Letters To The Editir from three Pastors. One stating there was no separation, the other two saying there was.
I have always been a strong believer of separation. I knew I was in the wrong Church. They do not follow what Roger Williams and I knew. Not all Baptist Churches are the same and they have a great division at the Baptist Convention.
I will read your article. Thanks
One stating there was no separation, the other two saying there was...I have always been a strong believer of separation.
If you are referencing the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment, the historical evidence demonstrates there was not a complete or absolute "separation" between religion and government. The U.S. Supreme Court, in upholding the Nebraska legislature's practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer, recited a long, historical record of the government acknowledging religion in the case of
Marsh v. Chambers. From the opinion:
"The opening of sessions of legislative and other deliberative public bodies with prayer is deeply embedded in the history and tradition of this country. From colonial times through the founding of the Republic and ever since, the practice of legislative prayer has coexisted with the principles of disestablishment and religious freedom. In the very courtrooms in which the United States District Judge and later three Circuit Judges heard and decided this case, the proceedings opened with an announcement that concluded, "God save the United States and this Honorable Court." The same invocation occurs at all sessions of this Court.
The tradition in many of the Colonies was, of course, linked to an established church, but the Continental Congress, beginning in 1774, adopted the traditional procedure of opening its sessions with a prayer offered by a paid chaplain. Although prayers were not offered during the Constitutional Convention, the First Congress, as one of its early items of business, adopted the policy of selecting a chaplain to open each session with prayer. Thus, on April 7, 1789, the Senate appointed a committee "to take under consideration the manner of electing Chaplains." On April 9, 1789, a similar committee was appointed by the House of Representatives. On April 25, 1789, the Senate elected its first chaplain. A statute providing for the payment of these chaplains was enacted into law on September 22, 1789
On September 25, 1789, three days after Congress authorized the appointment of paid chaplains, final agreement was reached on the language of the Bill of Rights. Clearly the men who wrote the First Amendment Religion Clauses did not view paid legislative chaplains and opening prayers as a violation of that Amendment, for the practice of opening sessions with prayer has continued without interruption ever since that early session of Congress. It has also been followed consistently [p789] in most of the states, including Nebraska, where the institution of opening legislative sessions with prayer was adopted even before the State attained statehood.
Standing alone, historical patterns cannot justify contemporary violations of constitutional guarantees, but there is far more here than simply historical patterns. In this context, historical evidence sheds light not only on what the draftsmen intended the Establishment Clause to mean, but also on how they thought that Clause applied to the practice authorized by the First Congress -- their actions reveal their intent. An Act passed by the first Congress assembled under the Constitution, many of whose members had taken part in framing that instrument, . . . is contemporaneous and weighty evidence of its true meaning.
Internal citations omitted.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/463/783
Justice Scalia highlighted the same evidence as the majority opinion in
Marsh, along with additional historical facts, in his dissenting opinion in McCREARY COUNTY, KENTUCKY, et al., PETITIONERS v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES. Justice Scalia's dissent makes a very compelling argument the Establishment Clause never did create a complete and absolute separation between government and religion.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1693.ZD.html
