The Supreme Court's Slightly Belated Rescue of Early Settler Religious Persecution

By States' Liberty Party

"... men and women had been fined, cast in jail, cruelly tortured, and killed" -Everson v. Board of Education

Everson v. Board of Education, a 1947 Supreme Court decision, prohibited, for the first time, the States from establishing religion.  The Court's justification was found in the early settlers and their purported desire to cast off religion from their schools and other public institutions, but the Court can only have assumed they had been  incapable of doing anything more than rid just Congress of performing the oppressive deeds.  Along came the 14th Amendment, believed at the time to be a law granting civil rights to the Negro, but actually, per the 1947 Court, was a law forcing the states to be under the exact same written laws as was the federal government (but selectively, as the Court so desired and ordered). It took another 100 years for either Congress or the Supreme Court to realize this, but fortunately the 1947 Court did and took strong action to protect the early settlers from the horrific religious persecution they had endured.

Had the Nation been lucky enough to have had justice Hugo Black and his 1947 era Court presiding during the first Congress, the chains of religious persecution could have been broken early, homosexual settlers could have come out of the closet and linked spurs, and citizens might have experienced the gratifications favored by Dr. Ruth without guilt or fear of falling into a spiritual blindness. Young girls would have learned the blessings of the rhythm system and abortion clinics, not churches, might have dotted the landscapes of America.

Although violent crime and terrible sexually transmitted diseases might have become epidemic, families may have deteriorated, mental illness increased and children may have become confused into making violent attacks on school mates,  citizens would have been taught that their greater purpose in life is to have fun, live for today, and grab it while you can, certainly noble qualities of a Godless society.

With thought of child foremost only in the Christian mind and fear of child in the thoughts of the modern Dr. Ruth society, we may celebrate the new year of the non-religious nation. Let the Liberal continue to work to see that Courts, not the peoples' legislatures, ensure that babies are not born unnecessarily, and let us be thankful to the Lord of Thomas Jefferson that Republican George Bush is nominating and his party confirming our future judges and justices.

God willing, we have not fallen into the abyss.

Articles on this page first appeared as messages by a States' Liberty Party contributor on the Findlaw legal forum

Everson v. Board of Education:  Prohibition of Christmas Began Here

This year begins with a Sacramento teacher muzzled from speaking the bad word "Christmas" to her 1st Grade Class, because a mentioning of the taboo subject would be Congress establishing a national church in violation of the 1st Amendment Establishment Clause.

Everson v. Board of Education (1947) is the foundation of the federal prohibition of religion in the states. It's justification is as follows:

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.

This is not consistent with 14th Amendment text, required for a federal interference in matters of the states. The clause should read:

The Federal Government cannot set up a church and a state cannot abridge the privileges or immunities of a United States citizen nor deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

The latter statement is an applying of the 14th Amendment to the 1st Amendment. The former, taken from Everson, is an applying of United States law directly to the States, in violation of the Constitution.

An understanding and interpreting of the latter phrase logically translates to the states being without authority to create an establishment of religion that will transcend it's borders (such as more than one state creating a unified state religion), or of a state church having any authority on federal property within the state, because a state cannot abridge the Establishment Clause immunity of US citizens.. The included "due process" clause would require that a state established religion be fair and treat all persons equally, and an implied "substantive due process" protection would allow federal intervention whenever a state church denies a person of their fundamental natural and God given rights.

The "free exercise" clause need be only mentioned here. A liberal interpretation of the clause would prohibit a state church establishment from abridging the freedom of religion enjoyed by United States citizens, but could not on it's face prohibit a state religion.

The following phrase taken from Everson is inaccurately stated:

One of our basic rights is to be free of taxation to support a transgression of the constitutional command that the authorities 'shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'

If the 1st Amendment Establishment Clause stated "authorities" then the statement would have validity, but it does not. It states "Congress". The intent of the 1st Amendment Establishment Clause is clear: Congress shall not establish a church. In fact, the state churches present at the time of ratification of the Constitution were unaffected by the amendment. It therefore has never been a constitutional right of US citizens to be free from a state established religion.

The argument may seem trivial at first, but it is not trivial but is substantial when viewed under the context of the separating of powers of the different governments known as "Federalism".

The Everson decision relied on hardships endured by the settlers for it's justifying of the ban on state religions such as this:

The centuries immediately before and contemporaneous with the colonization of America had been filled with turmoil, civil strife, and persecutions, generated in large part by established sects determined to maintain their absolute political and religious supremacy.

Contemporary philosophies that have no belief in God are not under the Everson religious prohibition, and when we add these to the mix we have Everson becoming what it desired to prohibit: One ideology sanctified by the national government persecuting the others, with state institutions with mandatory attendance requirements demanding obedience to ideas by prohibition of the opposing religious views that discourage a misusing of the reproductive organs and the birth  process for a purpose of obtaining of immediate physical sensations. In fact, in just the three generations since the prohibition of the ideas that had stood as sound principles for thousands of years, those that continue to adhere to them are routinely mocked and scorned, similarly as will occur whenever the state had sanctified one religion over another. Names of prominent nationally recognized figures in the old faith, like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, are laughed at and ridiculed, and they can do little when their ideological adversaries raise the sword of the power of the post-Everson government, denying them an equal right to be heard in institutions of the state, yet who are provided all of the same tax-exempt benefits given to both educational organizations and churches.

Everson, in fact, has made a mockery of the "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment, giving equal protection to all that have no underlying belief in God, and prohibiting entirely those that do. Fairness is defined by the Court as an equal denying speech to those who would speak ill of the prohibited faiths (Lemon test), yet it is doubtful that this is ever enforced, as in a teacher of the new age faiths mocking the prohibited religions and their stern adherence to moral values. The Court's so-called "equality" is nothing more than a prohibiting of all mention of religions, whether it be favorable or unfavorable.

The Supreme Court, in fact, by recently negating a Colorado constitutional amendment which had desired to curtail the "new faith" with a ban on laws giving special treatment to homosexuals, seems now to be transforming itself into members and believers in the modern religion, still agreeing with earlier decisions allowing the states to declare homosexuality a criminal act, yet denying a state from prohibiting special protections to anyone practicing homosexuality.

A special protection for homosexuality and continued singular ban on religion in state institutions requiring mandatory attendance would be a normal furthering of Everson's establishment of the new faith, a Godless society preaching redemption through sexual acts which feel good, and warning of the evils which come to those that follow ancient teachings that teach of self-control,  focus on child and other things lasting beyond the grave (ideas promoted by the state's prohibited undesirables such as Falwell and Robertson or any local pastor).

Everson used this justification:

In efforts to force loyalty to whatever religious group happened to be on top and in league with the government of a particular time and place, men and women had been fined, cast in jail, cruelly tortured, and killed. Among the offenses for which these punishments had been inflicted were such things as speaking disrespectfully of the views of ministers of government-established churches, nonattendance at those churches, expressions of non-belief in their doctrines, and failure to pay taxes and tithes to support them.

One should first understand that the 1st Amendment did not prohibit state religions, just a national religion, and the above passage represents a problem inherent with governments, whether religious or atheist. In fact, in 1947 when it was written, much that is said could have easily been referring to the Soviet Union at the time; an oppressive government harboring no belief whatsoever in religion.

The very charters granted by the English Crown to the individuals and companies designated to make the laws which would control the destinies of the colonials authorized these individuals and companies to erect religious establishments which all, whether believers or non-believers, would be required to support and attend.

Everson's new standard came to require that all (except those with wealth) must "support and attend" institutions prohibiting not only mention of their particular faith but also the underlying religious principles of the faith. Responsible sexual behaviors were not taboo but all of the organizations promoting it were. With the idea of a future spiritual reward for responsible behavior forbidden by law, and with an unborn child to become labeled by law as "not a person", no incentive, short of belief in God may be applied. A Godless belief in the obtaining of physical sensations as the only genuine purpose of living is the state religion.

Catholics found themselves hounded and proscribed because of their faith; Quakers who followed their conscience went to jail; Baptists were peculiarly obnoxious to certain dominant Protestant sects; men and women of varied faiths who happened to be in a minority in a particular locality were persecuted because they steadfastly persisted in worshipping God only as their own consciences dictated. And all of these dissenters were compelled to pay tithes and taxes8 to support government-sponsored churches whose ministers preached inflammatory sermons designed to strengthen and consolidate the established faith by generating a burning hatred against dissenters

These practices became so commonplace as to shock the freedom-loving colonials into a feeling of abhorrence. The imposition of taxes to pay ministers' salaries and to build and maintain churches and church property aroused their indignation.

Modern "colonials" complain of tax money used for the promoting of the homosexual lifestyle, the passing out of condoms in schools with government mandated attendance, and for groups teaching other "Godless" lifestyles, while they pay the same taxes to institutions prohibiting their own beliefs, whether they allow their own children to attend the schools or not.

The people ... reached the conviction that individual religious liberty could be achieved best under a government which was stripped of all power to tax, to support, or otherwise to assist any or all religions, or to interfere with the beliefs of any religious individual or group.

Again, from Everson, and misleading because only Congress was prohibited from establishing a church, and the states, not Congress, were responsible for erecting and maintaining the schools.

Madison ... argued that a true religion did not need the support of law; that no person, either believer or non-believer, should be taxed to support a religious institution of any kind; that the best interest of a society required that the minds of men always be wholly free; and that cruel persecutions were the inevitable result of government-established religions.

Legal scholars say that Madison desired that a Free Exercise Clause, but not Establishment Clause be applied to the states, and this Everson quote indicates it. Madison did not desire that religion and it's principles and values be eliminated from the schools, but only that a particular church not suppress the religions of others.

The preamble to [the Virginia bill on religious liberty written by Jefferson] stated ... that:

'Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either . . .; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical;...

Jefferson's own words on religious liberty and quoted in Everson would today be viewed as illegal by Court decisions founded on Everson, because he references religion throughout his bill on religious liberty. There is also little doubt he would be disturbed by the new "national religion" implanted by the Supreme Court compelling "a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves" (such as sexual freedom issues mentioned above) along with the prohibition of all references to a greater being. This is an outrage; the using of the words of a founder of the country in a way to prohibit a repeating of those very words from expression anywhere in the government. Jefferson's preamble in his Bill on Religious Liberty would be prohibited on Establishment Clause grounds. In fact, Everson, by stating it, has violated it's own interpretation of the clause except when Supreme Court justices deem themselves to be above the same laws that they may hold 1st grade teachers to.

And the statute itself enacted ... nor shall [any man] be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened, in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief. . . .'

The Supreme Court's actions have brought upon us a government which deems the placing of a tile on a Columbine School wall for a school sponsored "healing" project containing the words "God is love" or "Jesus wept" to be that which brings about a "suffering" by those harboring other beliefs, the removal of which is no burden on the beliefs or religion of parents of a slain child, who's tile was singularly taken down and prohibited.

Everson further states that it was not resolving any real problem that existed in the states (yet was compelled to set the unneeded precedent):

The state courts, in the main, have remained faithful to the language of their own constitutional provisions designed to protect religious freedom and to separate religious and governments.