Thomas Paine
(1737-1809; author of Common Sense; key American patriotic writer)
As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of government to protect all conscientious protesters thereof, and I know of no other business
government has to do therewith. (Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776. As quoted by Leo Pfeffer, "The Establishment Clause: The Never-Ending
Conflict," in Ronald C. White and Albright G. Zimmerman, An Unsettled Arena: Religion and the Bill of Rights, Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990, p. 72.)
Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly-marked feature of all law-religions, or religions established by law. Take
away the law-establishment, and every religion re-assumes its original benignity. (Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man, 1791-1792. From Gorton Carruth
and Eugene Ehrlich, eds., The Harper Book of American Quotations, New York: Harper & Row, 1988, pp. 499-500.)
Toleration is not the opposite of intolerance but the counterfeit of it. Both are despotisms: the one assumes to itself the right of withholding liberty of
conscience, the other of granting it. (Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man, p. 58. As quoted by John M. Swomley, Religious Liberty and the Secular State:
The Constitutional Context, Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1987, p. 7. Swomley added, "Toleration is a concession; religious liberty is a right.")
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish [Muslim], appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and
enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit. I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise; they have the same right
to their belief as I have to mine. But it is necessary to the happiness of man that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or
in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe. It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that
mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind as to subscribe his professional belief to
things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime. He takes up the profession of a priest for the sake of gain,
and in order to qualify himself for that trade he begins with a perjury. Can we conceive anything more destructive to morality than this? (Thomas Paine,
The Age of Reason, 1794-1795. From Paul Blanshard, ed., Classics of Free Thought, Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1977, pp. 134-135.)
Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more
than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has
served to corrupt and brutalize mankind. (Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason, 1794-1795. From Gorton Carruth and Eugene Ehrlich, eds., The Harper
Book of American Quotations, New York: Harper & Row, 1988, p. 494.)
Take away from Genesis the belief that Moses was the author, on which only the strange belief that it is the word of God has stood, and there remains
nothing of Genesis but an anonymous book of stories, fables, and traditionary or invented absurdities, or of downright lies. (Thomas Paine, The Age of
Reason, 1794-1795. From Gorton Carruth and Eugene Ehrlich, eds., The Harper Book of American Quotations, New York: Harper & Row, 1988, p.
494.)
The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries that have afflicted the human race have had their origin in this thing
called revelation, or revealed religion. It has been the most dishonorable belief against the character of the Divinity, the most destructive to morality and the
peace and happiness of man, that ever was propagated since man began to exist. (Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason, 1794-1795. From Gorton Carruth
and Eugene Ehrlich, eds., The Harper Book of American Quotations, New York: Harper & Row, 1988, p. 494.)
The adulterous connection of church and state. (Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason, 1794-1795. From Gorton Carruth and Eugene Ehrlich, eds., The
Harper Book of American Quotations, New York: Harper & Row, 1988, p. 500.)
Other Leaders and Thinkers of the Revolutionary Era
"Does not the core of all this difficulty lie in this," Isaac Backus--a Separatist minister turned Baptist--asked rhetorically in replying to a detractor in 1768,
"that the common people [justly] claim as good a right to judge and act for themselves in matters of religion as civil rulers or the learned clergy?" (James A.
Henretta, The Evolution of American Society, 1700-1815: An Interdisciplinary Analysis, Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath and Company, 1973, p. 136.)
Religious matters are to be separated from the jurisdiction of the state not because they are beneath the interests of the state, but, quite to the contrary,
because they are too high and holy and thus are beyond the competence of the state. (Isaac Backus, An Appeal to the Public for Religious Liberty, 1773,
as quoted by Albert Menendez and Edd Doerr, compilers, The Great Quotations on Religious Liberty, Long Beach, CA: Centerline Press, 1991, p. 7.)
That religion, or the duty we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or
violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience. (Patrick Henry, 1736-1799,
American patriot and statesman, Virginia Bill of Rights, June 12, 1776. From Daniel B. Baker, ed., Political Quotations, Detroit: Gale Research, Inc.,
1990, p. 189.)
For the civil authority to pretend to establish particular modes of faith and forms of worship, and to punish all that deviate from the standards which our
superiors have set up, is attended with the most pernicious consequences to society. It cramps all free and rational inquiry, fills the world with hypocrites
and superstitious bigots--nay, with infidels and skeptics; it exposes men of religion and conscience to the rage and malice of fiery, blind zealots, and
dissolves every tender tie of human nature. And I cannot but look upon it as a peculiar blessing of Heaven that we live in a land where everyone can freely
deliver his sentiments upon religious subjects, and have the privilege of worshipping God according to the dictates of his own conscience, without any
molestation or disturbance--a privilege which I hope we shall ever keep up and strenuously maintain. (Samuel West, Dartmouth, MA, Election Sermon,
1776, as quoted by Albert Menendez and Edd Doerr, compilers, The Great Quotations on Religious Liberty, Long Beach, CA: Centerline Press, 1991,
p. 103.)
Ethan Allen (1739-1789), a hero of the American revolution, signaled the combustion [of the "explosion of militant deism"] with the 1784 publication of his
Reason the Only Oracle of Man, a massive (and at times incoherent) denunciation of revealed religion. (Kerry S. Walters, Elihu Palmer's ÔPrinciples of
Nature': Text and Commentary, Wolfeboro, N. H.: Longwood Academic, 1990, p. 27. )
Back in Sunderland, Ethan [Allen] busied himself with his philosophical treatise, which he now called Reason the Only Oracle of Man. The book was
finished, but he was having some difficulty about its publication. He had taken it down to Hartford the year before, and several printers had looked and
shuddered. What was Ethan trying to do, they asked, run them all out of business and get them as well as himself hanged? The book was a wholesale
attack on organized religion. Not so, thundered Ethan as he moved about Hartford. The book was a philosophical statement to which Americans and
others in the world should be exposed, to counteract the cant of the ministers of the Gospel. (Edwin P. Hoyt, The Damndest Yankees: Ethan Allen; & His
Clan, Brattleboro, Vermont: The Stephen Greene Press, 1976, p. 225.)
A Pennsylvania mechanic wrote to the Independent Gazetter in 1784: "All of the miseries of mankind have arisen from freemen not maintaining and
exercising their own sentiments. No reason can be given why a free people should not be equally independent in ... their political as well as their religious
persuasions." (James A. Henretta, The Evolution of American Society, 1700-1815: An Interdisciplinary Analysis, Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath and
Company, 1973, p. 136.)
Is conformity of sentiments in matters of religion essential to the happiness of civil government? Not at all. Government has no more to do with the religious
opinions of men than it has with the principles of the mathematics. Let every man speak freely without fear--maintain the principles that he
believes--worship according to his own faith, either one God, three Gods, no God, or twenty Gods; and let government protect him in so doing, i.e., see
that he meets with no personal abuse or loss of property for his religious opinions. Instead of discouraging him with proscriptions, fines, confiscation or
death, let him be encouraged, as a free man, to bring forth his arguments and maintain his points with all boldness; then if his doctrine is false it will be
confuted, and if it is true (though ever so novel) let others credit it. When every man has this liberty what can he wish for more? A liberal man asks for
nothing more of government. (John Leland, "The Rights of Conscience Inalienable, and Therefore Religious Opinions not Cognizable by Law" [a
pamphlet], New London, Connecticut, 1791. Reprinted in Mortimer Adler, ed., 1784-1796, Organizing the New Nation: The Annals of America, Vol. 3,
Chicago: Encyclopedia Brittanica, 1968, pp. 447-448. Leland was a Baptist minister who refused to support the Constitution until Madison persuaded
him that the Constitution would not undermine religious liberty.)
The liberty I contend for is more than toleration. The very idea of toleration is despicable; it supposes that some have a pre-eminence above the rest to
grant indulgence; whereas all should be equally free, Jews, Turks [Muslims], Pagans and Christians. Test oaths and established creeds should be avoided
as the worst of evils. (Baptist minister John Leland, 1820, as quoted by Samuel Rabinove, "Church and State Must Remain Separate," in Julie S. Bach,
ed., Civil Liberties: Opposing Viewpoints, St. Paul: Greenhaven Press, 1988, p. 53.)
Despite his pre-eminent role in early American deism, [Elihu] Palmer (1764-1806) is scarcely remembered today. He has been overshadowed by his
friend and associate Thomas Paine (1737-1809).... But Palmer was of an entirely different stripe, both personally and intellectually, and his success in
disseminating deistic thought to the American public was not the flash-in-the pan Paine variety.... Palmer was a tireless and eloquent orator, and during the
last decade of his life he stumped from urban New York to the backwaters of Georgia to proselytize for deism. As a result, he reached a far larger
audience than did Paine, who relied almost exclusively on the written word to communicate his message. (Kerry S. Walters, Elihu Palmer's "Principles of
Nature": Text and Commentary, Wolfeboro, N. H.: Longwood Academic, 1990, pp. 5-6. )
[Elihu] Palmer's first major public address after moving to New York was given on Christmas Day 1796. He came out swinging, rejecting the divinity of
Jesus as a "very singular and unnatural" event, and condemning as both immoral and incomprehensible the doctrines of original sin, atonement, faith and
regeneration. The lecture was well attended and widely read when published. Reaction from the Christian establishment was swift and predictably hostile,
but something in Palmer's message caught on with many of his auditors and readers. Invitations to speak poured in from Baltimore, Newburgh and even
Philadelphia. Palmer accepted them all, and in each place he visited he helped organize sister organizations to the New York Deistical Society. From New
England to the Middle Atlantic states, Palmer's campaign against the infamies of ecclesiastical superstition and political authoritarianism inflamed the
imaginations of some and outraged the sense of propriety of others. But an increasing number of people knew of him and what he stood for. (Kerry S.
Walters, Elihu Palmer's ÔPrinciples of Nature': Text and Commentary, Wolfeboro, N. H.: Longwood Academic, 1990, p. 11. )
Twelve centuries of moral and political darkness, in which Europe was involved, had nearly completed the destruction of human dignity, and every thing
valuable or ornamental in the character of man. During this long and doleful night of ignorance, slavery, and superstition, Christianity reigned triumphant; its
doctrines and divinity were not called in question. The power of the Pope, the Clergy, and the Church were omnipotent; nothing could restrain their frenzy,
nothing could control the cruelty of their fanaticism; with mad enthusiasm they set on foot the most bloody and terrific crusades, the object of which was to
recover the Holy Land. Seven hundred thousand men are said to have perished in the two first expeditions, which had been thus commenced and carried
on by the pious zeal of the Christian church, and in the total amount, several millions were found numbered with the dead: the awful effects of religious
fanaticism presuming upon the aid of heaven. It was then that man lost all his dignity, and sunk to the condition of a brute; it was then that intellect received
a deadly blow, from which it did not recover until the fifteenth century. From that time to the present, the progress of knowledge has been constantly
accelerated; independence of mind has been asserted, and opposing obstacles have been gradually diminished. The church has resigned a part of her
power, the better to retain the remainder; civil tyranny has been shaken to its centre in both hemispheres; the malignity of superstition is abating, and every
species of quackery, imposture, and imposition, are yielding to the light and power of science. An awful contest has commenced, which must terminate in
the destruction of thrones and civil despotism; in the annihilation of ecclesiastical pride and domination.... Church and State may unite to form an
insurmountable barrier against the extension of thought, the moral progress of nations, and the felicity of nature; but let it be recollected, that the guarantee
for moral and political emancipation is already deposited in the archives of every school and college, and in the mind of every cultivated and enlightened
man of all countries. It will henceforth be a vain and fruitless attempt to reduce the earth to that state of slavery of which the history of former ages has
furnished such an awful picture. The crimes of ecclesiastical despots are still corroding upon the very vitals of human society; the severities of civil power
will never be forgotten. (Elihu Palmer, Principles of Nature; or, a Development of the Moral Causes of Happiness and Misery Among the Human Species,
3rd ed., 1806; as reprinted in Kerry S. Walters, Elihu Palmer's ÔPrinciples of Nature': Text and Commentary, Wolfeboro, N. H.: Longwood Academic,
1990, pp. 82-83. )
Historians and Others about the American Revolutionary Era (or about several Founding Fathers)
E PLURIBUS UNUM ... is the Latin motto on the face of the Great Seal of the United States; .... This phrase means one out of the many. It refers to the
creation of one nation, the United States, out of 13 colonies. It is equally appropriate to today's federal system. Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and
Thomas Jefferson, members of the first committee for the selection of the seal, suggested the motto in 1776. It can be traced back to Horace's Epistles
[65-8 BCE]. Since 1873, the law requires that this motto appear on one side of every United States coin that is minted. (Donald H. Mugridge,World
Book Encyclopedia, Volume 6 (E), Chicago: Field Enterprises Educational Corporation, 1976, p.2. "E Pluribus Unum" has appeared on most U. S.
coins, beginning in the late 1790s. The motto "In God We Trust" did not appear on any U. S. coin until 1864, when "Its presence on the new coin was
due largely to the increased religious sentiment during the Civil War Crisis," according to R. S. Yeoman, A Guide Book of United States Coins, 38th ed.,
Racine, Wisc.: Western Publishing Co., p. 89. The religious motto did not appear regularly on U. S. paper money until the 1950s.)
[The] manifest object of the men who framed the institution of this country, was to have a State without religion and a Church without politics--that is to
say, they meant that one should never be used as an engine for the purposes of the other.... For that they built up a wall of complete partition between the
two. (Jeremiah S. Black, noted constitutional advocate, Essays and Speeches, D. Appleton and Co., 1885. As quoted by Leo Pfeffer, "The Establishment
Clause: The Never-Ending Conflict," in Ronald C. White and Albright G. Zimmerman, An Unsettled Arena: Religion and the Bill of Rights, Grand Rapids,
Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990, p. 72.)
Social radicalism in America had long been tinged with anticlericalism. The old alliances of church establishments with local aristocracies, and the
widespread assumption of the clergy that God was a disciple of Alexander Hamilton, had antagonized men of liberal inclination; and European deism
obligingly provided plausible arguments from history and philosophy for detesting the clergy and spurning revealed religion. The French Revolution
sharpened the issue when its antireligious excesses provoked preachers throughout the country to warn against too much democracy. The writings of
Ethan Allen, Joel Barlow and Elihu Palmer, and the free-thinking societies which dotted the young nation in the seventeen nineties, were notable
expressions of this republican anticlericalism. (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., American historian, The Age of Jackson, Boston: Little, Brown and Company,
1945, p. 136. Schlesinger won the Pulitzer Prize for History for The Age of Jackson.)
Live-and-let-live, worship-and-let-worship was the essence of religion in this land of vast distances and a hundred religions, of which the most important in
terms of politics was the vaguely Christian rationalism that governed the tolerant minds of men like Jefferson, Franklin, Hamilton, and Washington. (The
last and least skeptical of these rationalists loaded his First Inaugural Address with appeals to the "Great Author," "Almighty Being," "invisible hand," and
"benign parent of the human race," but apparently could not bring himself to speak the the word "God.") (Clinton Rossiter, American historian, "The
United States in 1787," 1787: The Grand Convention, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1987 (first ed., 1966), p. 36.)
Religion. Whatever else it might turn out to be, the Convention would not be a "Barebone's Parliament." Although it had its share of strenuous Christians
like Strong and Bassett, ex-preachers like Baldwin and Williamson, and theologians like Johnson and Ellsworth, the gathering at Philadelphia was largely
made up of men in whom the old fires were under control or had even flickered out. Most were nominally members of one of the traditional churches in
their part of the country--the New Englanders Congregationalists and Presbyterians, the Southerners Episcopalians, and the men of the Middle States
everything from backsliding Quakers to stubborn Catholics--and most were men who could take their religion or leave it alone. Although no one in this
sober gathering would have dreamed of invoking the Goddess of Reason, neither would anyone have dared to proclaim that his opinions had the support
of the God of Abraham and Paul. The Convention of 1787 was highly rationalist and even secular in spirit. (Clinton Rossiter, American historian, "The
Men of Philadelphia," 1787: The Grand Convention, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1987 (first ed., 1966), pp. 147-148.)
One of the embarrassing problems for the early nineteenth-century champions of the Christian faith was that not one of the first six Presidents of the United
States was an orthodox Christian. (Mortimer Adler, 1902- , American philosopher and educator, ed. "Chapter 22: Religion and Religious Groups in
America," The Annals of America: Great Issues in American Life, Vol. II, Chicago: Encyclopedia Brittanica, 1968, p. 420.)
Many of the states [in the period between the Revolution and the adoption of the U. S. Constitution], in order to obviate any suggestion of a religious
establishment, prohibited all clergymen from sitting in the legislation. (Gordon S, Wood, The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787, New York:
W. W. Norton & Co., 1972 [orig. publ. 1969], pp. 158-159 [footnote]. Wood cites the state constitutions of Maryland, Virginia, Delaware,
Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Georgia, New York, South Carolina, and New Hampshire.)
At the time of the Revolution all the colonies, including Rhode Island, imposed restrictions and disabilities upon some sects, thus practicing at best only a
limited form of toleration, not freedom of religion--much less separation of Church and State. Moreover, Roger Williams' cogent and prophetic arguments
in behalf of religious freedom were forgotten in the eighteenth century; they could not exert any influence on those who finally worked out the doctrine of
religious freedom enshrined in the national Constitution. In any case, it would have been exceedingly difficult for Williams to have spoken to Jefferson and
the other Virginians who fought for religious freedom. To Williams the Puritan, the great justification for freedom of religion was the preservation of the
purity of the Church; to the deistic Virginians, the important goal was the removal of a religious threat to the purity and freedom of the State. (Carl N.
Degler, Out of Our Past: The Forces That Shaped Modern America [Revised ed.], New York: Harper & Row, 1970, p. 20.)
In the eighteenth century the American principle of separation of Church and State was indeed an audacious experiment. Never before had a national state
been prepared to dispense with an official religion as a prop to its authority and never before had a church been set adrift without the support of the state.
Throughout most of American history the doctrine has provided freedom for religious development while keeping politics free of religion. And that,
apparently, had been the intention of the Founding Fathers. (Carl N. Degler, Out of Our Past: The Forces That Shaped Modern America [Revised ed.],
New York: Harper & Row, 1970, p. 96.)
So fluid had been the conditions of American life toward the end of the eighteenth century, and so disorganizing the consequences of the Revolution, that
perhaps as many as ninety percent of the Americans were unchurched in 1790. (Richard Hofstadter, Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, New York:
Alfred A. Knopf, 1974, p. 82.)
In the mid-eighteenth century, America had a smaller proportion of church members than any other nation in Christendom. American religious statistics are
notoriously unreliable, but it has been estimated that in 1800 about one of every fifteen Americans was a church member ... (Richard Hofstadter,
Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1974, p. 89.)
The group which, along with Calvinist Congregationalists, made the greatest contribution to American cultural and political development was one that in
1787 could be called religious only by a most generous definition of the term. Variously called deists, humanists, and rationalists, they accepted the
existence of God so long as He kept His hands out of human affairs. Strongly anti-clerical, they were at best indifferent to organized religion. One
indication of their influence on the course of American development is the fact that none of the first seven Presidents was at the time of his election a
member of any church, and, perhaps even more important, that the two basic documents of American freedom, the Declaration of Independence, and the
Bill of Rights, breathe the spirit of deistic humanism. (Leo Pfeffer, God, Caesar and the Constitution: The Court as Referee of Church-State Confrontation,
Boston: Beacon Press, 1975, pp. 7-8.)
The phrase "establishment of religion" must be given the meaning that it had in the United States in 1791, rather than its European connotation. In America
there was no establishment of a single church, as in England. Four states had never adopted any establishment practices. Three had abolished their
establishments during the Revolution. The remaining six states--Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Maryland, South Carolina; and
Georgia--changed to comprehensive or "multiple" establishments. That is, aid was provided to all churches in each state on a nonpreferential basis, except
that the establishment was limited to churches of the Protestant religion in three states and to those of the Christian religion in the other three states. Since
there were almost no Catholics in the first group of states, and very few Jews in any state, this meant that the multiple establishment practices included
every religious group with enough members to form a church. It was this nonpreferential assistance to organized churches that constituted "establishment of
religion" in 1791 and it was this practice that the Amendment forbade Congress to adopt. (C. Herman Pritchett, Constitutional historian, 1977, as quoted
by John M. Swomley, Religious Liberty and the Secular State: The Constitutional Context, Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1987, pp. 26-27.)
From the start the [American] colonies had been alive with religious controversies, doctrinal disputes, sectarian splits and secessions, revivalism and
evangelism, the importation of new creeds and dogmas from Europe, along with their carriers--alive also with rationalistic, deistic, and atheistic
counterattacks on religion. Roman Catholics early gained a foothold in Maryland and elsewhere, but could not win their political and religious rights against
the overpowering Protestant majority. Only one force united all these believers, disbelievers, mystics, pietists, schismatics, dissenters, establishmentarians
and disestablishmentarians: a belief in religious liberty. (James MacGregor Burns, The American Experiment: Vineyard of Liberty New York: Vintage
Books, 1983, pp. 7-8.)
There had been a "very wintry season" for religion everywhere in America after the Revolution. Ninety percent of the people lay outside the churches.
Political events eclipsed religion, as people concentrated on establishing the new nation and winning the War of 1812. The outstanding men of the country
such as Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe were statesmen, not ministers. Embracing the rationalism and deism of the Enlightenment, the Founding Fathers
instituted religious freedom and welcomed conflict among the churches as a positive good--as the way to differentiate truth from error. (James MacGregor
Burns, The American Experiment: Vineyard of Liberty New York: Vintage Books, 1983, p. 493.)
The authors of our present Constitution and our Bill of Rights were extremely concerned with [separation of church and state] .... So much so, that I
believe it would generally go undisputed, that the major political contribution of our constitutional system, which they fashioned, is the concept of
separation of Church and State. (Robert L. Cord, "Church-State relations: Where is the Supreme Court; Going?," speech at Northeastern University,
Boston, June 28, 1985; from Vital Speeches of the Day, October 1, 1985, p. 752.)
To answer these questions [regarding separation of church and state], the United States Supreme Court has, without significant deviation, looked to
American history. If little else about Supreme Court Church-State cases is clear, there should be no disagreement about the fact that all of the Court's
precedent setting Church-State opinions invoke the intentions of the Founding Fathers and our nation's early history to justify the meaning and scope which
the Court assigns to the First Amendment. Playing historian, the Court has determined what the concept of Church-State separation meant to those
constitutional giants who made it part of our Supreme Law. (Robert L. Cord, "Church-State relations: Where is the Supreme Court Going?," speech at
Northeastern University, Boston, June 28, 1985; from Vital Speeches of the Day, October 1, 1985, p. 752. It is only fair to note that Cord goes on to
assert that the Court has misjudged the intentions of the founders and misinterpreted history. Many of the passages quoted in this compilation appear to
contradict his conclusion. )
Of the eleven states that ratified the First Amendment, nine (counting Maryland) adhered to the viewpoint that support of churches should be voluntary,
that any government financial assistance to religion constituted an establishment of religion and violated its free exercise. (Thomas Curry, The First
Freedoms: Church and State in America to the Passage of the First Amendment, New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1986, p. 220. As cited by Leo Pfeffer,
"The Establishment Clause: The Never-Ending Conflict," in Ronald C. White and Albright G. Zimmerman, An Unsettled Arena: Religion and the Bill of
Rights, Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990, p. 73 [footnote].) |
