Out for your perusal

I got a letter from a constituent/friend asking for my opinion. I thought it was a good question so I throw it out to you. Have at it.





Here is a very short history of the evolution of "church and state" interpretation;

In the beginning (1644), Roger Williams preached a sermon and used the words "separation of church and state". Roger Williams founded a colony (Rhode Island) where religious freedom was not restricted by a governing body. This was in contrast to other places Mr. Williams had resided, such as England and the Massachusettes colony.

In 1802, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury, Connecticut Baptist Society because these people had heard a rumor that the Congregationalist denomination was about to become the state religion. Mr. Jefferson used the term "separation of church and state" as an interpretation for the first amendment establishment clause. He wanted to assure the Danbury baptists that the Government did not have the right to favor one denomination over another.

The 1879 Reynolds vs U.S. case involved polygamy. The Separation of Church and State language was upheld in the decision which outlawed polygamy in Utah or anywhere else in this country.

In 1947 Justice Hugo Black blew the separation of church and state language totally out of proportion in a case (Everson vs Board of Education) which involved transportation funds for Parochial student. Mr. Black was a former KKK member who did not like Catholics.

Mr. Blacks words "We cannot approve the slightest breach" (in regard to c&s separation) have been used as an excuse to build "precept on top of precept" in regard to religious and educational issues for almost 60 years. McCollum vs Board of Education (1948) and Engel vs Vitale (1962) stand as prime examples of the restrictions on religious activities in educational institutions.

I see the teaching of evolution as a similar process. Instead of building "precept upon precept", evolutionist build "supposition upon supposition". I was recently taken to task for referring to evolutionism as Darwinism. It was explained to me that modern evolutionists do not like to be called Darwinists. The modern explanations bear little resemblance to those which Darwin espoused. The explanations offered 30 years in the future will probably bear little resemblance to those offered now.

Judicial precepts which get us farther away from our original Constitution. "Scientific" suppositions which get us farther away from common sense. Does this sound like a valid comparison? Or are a few verses of the old "kool-aid" jingle in order?