# And did THIS violate the seperation of church and state? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 28, 2000, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-did-this-violate-the-seperation-of-church-and-state/31006 "2000-08-28T05:26:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2000, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-did-this-violate-the-seperation-of-church-and-state/31006/1 "2000-08-28T05:26:55Z")
I don’t believe the founding fathers were talking about seperating church and state when they wrote the first amendment, but seeing everyone else seems to, try this one on for size: I went to public school. In the 8th grade I had a shop teacher. We all knew he was very religious, but he didn’t say much about his beliefs. Except one day, after clean up, we had about 15 minutes of class left. The teacher announced that a very good friend of his had come to town and stopped by the school to see him. He introduced his friend to the class. We collectively said “hi”. Then the teacher sat down as his friend started talking religion. He started talking how we all could go to heaven if we repented to Jesus, and that if we didn’t we were all going to hell. He then asked us if we knew what hell would be like. Then he started talking about how much easier our lives will be be if we prayed to God every day. “Pray to him children, pray”. This went on until the bell rang when we all left the room with big question marks over our heads.😕 “What the hell was that?” By best friend Rob asked. Hey, I was raised rather religiously and that even made me uncomfortable. Nothing ever came of this. The teacher did not get in any trouble what so ever. Should he have? An important fact is, the teacher never said a word, just sat there as his friend spoke (preached?). And teachers were allowed to have visitors at that school. Was the teacher guilty of violating the seperation of church and state? By the way, this is 100% a true story. This really happened! ---
**Author:** ![MysterEcks](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f475e1/32.png) [@MysterEcks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MysterEcks)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2000, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-did-this-violate-the-seperation-of-church-and-state/31006/2 "2000-08-28T06:02:06Z")
**pkbites** said. > [@](#): > > Was the teacher guilty of violating the seperation of church and state? He sure was. He intentionally allowed his friend to spread religious propaganda–it doesn’t matter whether he himself said anything or not. > [@](#): > > The teacher did not get in any trouble what so ever. Should he have? He sure should have. ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2000, 8:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-did-this-violate-the-seperation-of-church-and-state/31006/3 "2000-08-28T08:33:33Z")
> [@](#): > > I don’t believe the founding fathers were talking about seperating church and state when they wrote the first amendment Weren’t the founding fathers mostly religious men, anyway? Ah, well… To address the OP… yes, the teacher should have gotten in trouble. Even if he didn’t know in advance that his friend was going to be so preachy, he should have stopped him once his friend started, if you know what I mean. It was his friend, his guest, and he was responsible for him. ---
**Author:** ![Rog668](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b487fb/32.png) [@Rog668](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rog668)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2000, 8:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-did-this-violate-the-seperation-of-church-and-state/31006/4 "2000-08-28T08:49:16Z")
(This is my first post on Straight Dope. I gotta say - this is a fantastic site!) I considered waiting around until someone is willing to give a different opinion, but I strongly believe that the teacher should have faced some sort of consequence for that. It’s my understanding that when a teacher brings in a “guest speaker”, that speaker is just another tool to teach, like a book. Exposing said speaker to the kids for an entire fifteen minutes is, in my opinion, the equivalent of whipping out a bible and _forcing_ all the kids to read it for the same amount of time. As a side note, many references have been made to the intent of the founding fathers when they wrote the first amendment. Did they intend to specifically make/enforce separation of church and state, were they religious, etc.? And I’d just like to make a quick blanket statement - WHO CARES? Listen, I dig TJ and the boyz as much as anyone, but the Constitution and all of the ideas behind our democracy were founded upon the concept that every man’s opinion is just that - an opinion. For us to immortalize the views of about 40 white guys and constantly ask ourselves “WWTFFD?” (Just in case - “What Would The Founding Fathers Do?” bugs me. We need to stop basing our actions and our society on the moral standards from two hundred years ago that no longer apply in the same way they used to. I apologize if I didn’t stay on topic. Thanks for readin’! - Rog One more thing just occured to me. Wow, have the guidelines for teachers evolved in the last 50 years or so. Wasn’t so long ago a teacher could smack their kids around, let alone spread the gospel… ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2000, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-did-this-violate-the-seperation-of-church-and-state/31006/5 "2000-08-28T14:58:35Z")
> [@](#): > > I don’t believe the founding fathers were talking about seperating church and state when they wrote the first amendment Thomas Jefferson is the guy who came up with the concept of a “wall of separation” between church and state. Maybe my history is a little rusty, but I’m pretty sure he was a founding father. 😉 Welcome to the board **Rog668**. I agree that we shouldn’t be obsessed the views of the founding fathers on every Constitutional issue. I believe the Founding Fathers intended the Constitution to be a living instrument, capable of being adapted to changing times. That is why they used somewhat vague language. Take the ban on “cruel and unusual punishment.” What constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment?” Why didn’t they just spell out the specific punishments they were banning? Because the mores of society change over time. What might have been an accepted punishment in the past might be “cruel and unusual” under today’s standards. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2000, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-did-this-violate-the-seperation-of-church-and-state/31006/6 "2000-08-28T15:21:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by pkbites \* > \*\* > Was the teacher guilty of violating the seperation of church and state? > \*\* Oh, Hell yeah (no pun intended). So far no one has disagreed here so it hasn’t turned into a debate yet. But I would point out this: what if this friend had come in and preached Confucianism in an Alabama High School? Not only would he have been censured, he probably would have been pilloried. Pk, I’m curious as to the geography we’re talking about. Where was your H.S.? Interesting aside - where I grew up (very small rural town in Maine), the community was predominantly Catholic. While in 4th or 5th grade, I, and the only other non-Catholic student, would go sit in the hall with our study materials while the rest of the class received catechism. This was a Public School circa 1975. It didn’t concern me much at the time, being only 10 years old, but it struck me later that this was a monumental melding of church and state. ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2000, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-did-this-violate-the-seperation-of-church-and-state/31006/7 "2000-08-28T15:28:05Z")
**spoke-:** > [@](#): > > Thomas Jefferson is the guy who came up with the concept of a “wall of separation” between church and state. Maybe my history is a little rusty, but I’m pretty sure he was a founding father. There may be a difference between what he personally believed in and what the framers meant when they wrote the Constitution. It is conceivable that Thomas Jefferson **would have** made such a separation, had he had enough public support for it. But it is clear from the actions of the founding fathers at the time that they did not intend for that amendment to mean a “wall of separation” between church and state, and it is disingenous to suggest otherwise based on sentiments contained in Jefferson’s private correspondence. > [@](#): > > I believe the Founding Fathers intended the Constitution to be a living instrument, capable of being adapted to changing times. That is why they used somewhat vague language. Take the ban on “cruel and unusual punishment.”… There are some words and concepts, such as “cruel and unusual punishment” that are inherently subjective, and as such, may allow for interpretation. But to ram completely new concepts into the Constitution that were not part of the intention of the writers renders the Constitution almost meaningless. And if, as seems obvious to me, the First Amendment does not call for a separation of Church and State, then implementing such separation on these grounds amounts to judicial legislation. ---
**Author:** ![Freedom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Freedom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freedom)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2000, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-did-this-violate-the-seperation-of-church-and-state/31006/8 "2000-08-28T15:54:16Z")
Since I disagreed in the previous post, I wanted to make sure I checked in here and agreed with the rest of you on this one. I think the line has to fuzzy, but this incident is WAAAAY overboard. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2000, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-did-this-violate-the-seperation-of-church-and-state/31006/9 "2000-08-28T16:13:48Z")
**IzzyR** , you seem to have some familiarity with history and with the law. Therefore, I’m sure you are also aware that the founding fathers never intended the Bill of Rights (consisting of the first ten amendmendments to the Constitution) to be an exhaustive list of rights. In fact, there was some opposition to the Bill of Rights on that basis. There was a fear that if the drafters listed a set of rights that it would be misconstrued as an exhaustive list. Therefore they included the 9th Amendment which expressly states: > [@](#): > > The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. For more on the history of this amendment click [here](http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment09/). I would argue that, regardless of the wording of the First Amendment, the founding fathers would have recoiled at the notion of public employees (teachers) foisting their religious views upon a captive audience of school children. I think the founding fathers would have agreed that one of the rights “retained by the people” would be the right to choose one’s own path in matters of religion, without the fear of coercion by government employees. Don’t you agree? ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2000, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-did-this-violate-the-seperation-of-church-and-state/31006/10 "2000-08-28T16:30:10Z")
**spoke-** > [@](#): > > I think the founding fathers would have agreed that one of the rights “retained by the people” would be the right to choose one’s own path in matters of religion, without the fear of coercion by government employees. Don’t you agree? Sure. My comments were directed solely at the post that they addressed, not at the OP. ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2000, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-did-this-violate-the-seperation-of-church-and-state/31006/11 "2000-08-28T21:38:38Z")
This was in middle school, not high school. It was in West Bend, Wisconsin, a small city of approx. 20,000 at the time (1975). Very Republican town, but few bible thumpers. WB is 34 miles due north of Milwaukee. I would say that was in the top 3 of the strangest things I saw as a kid. That man was very emotional as he preached, to the point of almost (almost!) crying. Really freaked us out. My best friend spent the next 4 years imitating the guy whenever we wanted to have a good laugh. ---
**Author:** ![ElwoodCuse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/edb3f5/32.png) [@ElwoodCuse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElwoodCuse)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2000, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-did-this-violate-the-seperation-of-church-and-state/31006/12 "2000-08-29T02:21:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Rog668 \* > \*\* > > We need to stop basing our actions and our society on the moral standards from two hundred years ago that no longer apply in the same way they used to. > > \*\* Right on. Especially with gun laws. When the second amendment was written, the right to bear arms meant you kept a musket over the fireplace (that took forever to reload and was terribly inaccurate). But people these days take it to mean that it’s their right (no, duty) to carry nothing short of a UZI or AK-47 to protect themselves. Whatever. ---
**Author:** ![Road\_Rash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a8b319/32.png) [@Road\_Rash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Road_Rash)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2000, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-did-this-violate-the-seperation-of-church-and-state/31006/13 "2000-08-29T02:35:08Z")
Actually, the founding fathers were around during the age of enlightenment. Sure they made references to a “Creator”, but many of them were pretty unapolagetically un-religious. Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Patrick Henry made comments in their day which would have got them voted or shamed out today. They were diests. They believed in a supreme being, but not one that violates natural law. They did not rigidly interpret the Bible, or necessarily believe that Jesus was necessarily divine. Science and salon philosophy drove them. ---
**Author:** ![Rog668](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b487fb/32.png) [@Rog668](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rog668)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2000, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-did-this-violate-the-seperation-of-church-and-state/31006/14 "2000-08-29T12:09:59Z")
Elwood: Right back atcha, right on. It amazes me that the second amendment is even considered an ARGUMENT these days in regards to gun control. If the standard were pocket nukes would some people still think the second amendment protects every shmuck’s right to have one under his pillow? ---
**Author:** ![Sterra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8c91f0/32.png) [@Sterra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sterra)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2000, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-did-this-violate-the-seperation-of-church-and-state/31006/15 "2000-08-29T13:11:41Z")
you cant hold a nuke therefore its not included:) ---
**Author:** ![Surgoshan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Surgoshan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Surgoshan)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2000, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-did-this-violate-the-seperation-of-church-and-state/31006/16 "2000-08-30T00:16:50Z")
Actually, asmodean… In theory, at least, it would be possible to construct a small, hand-held thermonuclear device (use chemical explosives to squeeze radioactive materials into a dense enough mass to cause fission, which in turn drives a fusion reaction). I mean, all you need, in theory, is the right density, not the right mass. however, the government doesn’t want small bombs, it wants big bombs. 1. Yes he did violate the separation of church and state. 2. Regardless of what the many deist FF’s wanted, I think it’s wrong for any church to meddle in government. Period. Churches are based entirely on faith. So each thinks it has the Truth, and almost entirely disagree with one another about that Truth. The government doesn’t (or at least **shouldn’t** ) pretend to have the Truth (politicians often do, but compromises downgrade Truth into Workability). Want church in government? Fine, and I want to sacrifice your child to Cthulu. You say I’m wrong? Prove you’re right. 3. As to the SECOND amendment. I think a handgun or shotgun is reasonable home protection. (deadly, right? Without being too easily capable of mass murder, right?) As for on the street protection, take along a Born Again Christian, he’ll accost and drive away almost ANYONE. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2000, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-did-this-violate-the-seperation-of-church-and-state/31006/17 "2000-08-30T01:09:14Z")
I had an experience similar to the one described in the OP, in my 12th grade Government class. The only difference was, it wasn’t about promoting a religion, it was about promoting a controversial stance on abortion. Abortion, being a hot-button topic, certainly merits discussion in a class on American Government. So, our teacher brought in someone who showed a short movie about abortion. The situation quickly degenerated: [ul] [li]The person showing the movie was a priest or minister.[/li][li]The movie was called _Assignment: Life_.[/li][li]The movie very quickly devolved into anti-abortion propaganda. The teacher did not intervene and try to stop the movie when this became obvious. (I guess if he could “ignore” a priest and a title like “Assignment: Life,” he would have no problem turning a blind eye to the movie itself.)[/li][li]The teacher didn’t even intervene when the movie started showing really sickening footage of abortions being performed. The first abortion had an allegedly “unconscious” woman screaming and shaking madly as a doctor vacuumed the small foetus from her uterus.[/li][li]I got up and left when the movie threatened to show me a saline abortion.[/li][/ul] Needless to say, our teacher turned out to be strongly anti-abortion. And to this day I can’t help feeling that he knew _exactly_ what he was doing by showing us that film. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2000, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-did-this-violate-the-seperation-of-church-and-state/31006/18 "2000-08-30T16:20:43Z")
It rattles my noggin at the incessant attempts of religion, specifically christianity in this country, to finagle their way into our school systems. This has been _repeatedly_ knocked down by the Supreme Court of the United States as unconstitutional. Yet even now there is a case being brought by the ACLU and others to prevent the display of the Ten Commandments in schools in both Kentucky and Indiana. Those states are trying to manage this via some fancy footwork by saying the Ten Commandments is educational and will be displayed along with The Declaration of Independence and other documents. The legal opinions I’ve heard so far believe that this won’t wash either and will be tossed out by the courts. To help clear up the confusion I see here on the “separation of church and state” concept see the following quotes from the Supreme Court case _School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)_. There are, of course, a bunch of other decisions regarding this but this case has enough of the court’s opinion from all cases to apply. The Majority Opinion was written by Justice Clark. All of the quotes below were pulled from the following site: [http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/](http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/) (Highlighting done by me to enhance salient points) > [@](#): > > **The government is neutral, and, while protecting all, it prefers none, and it disparages none.** > Mr. Justice Jackson, in dissent, declared that public schools are organized on the premise that secular education can be isolated from all religious teaching so that the school can inculcate all needed temporal knowledge and also maintain a strict and lofty neutrality as to religion. The assumption is that, after the individual has been instructed in worldly wisdom, he will be better fitted to choose his religion. Some more detail follows… > [@](#): > > Before examining this “neutral” position in which the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment place our Government, it is well that we discuss the reach of the Amendment under the cases of this Court. > > First, this Court has decisively settled that the First Amendment’s mandate that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” has been made wholly applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. Twenty-three years ago, in Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 , 303 (1940), this Court, through Mr. Justice Roberts, said: > > The fundamental concept of liberty embodied in that [Fourteenth] Amendment embraces the liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment. The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment [p\*216] has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws. [n8] > > **In a series of cases since Cantwell, the Court has repeatedly reaffirmed that doctrine, and we do so now.** Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 108 (1943); Everson v. Board of Education, supra; Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 , 210-211 (1948); Zorach v. Clauson, supra; McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 (1961); Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961), and Engel v. Vitale, supra. > > Second, this Court has **rejected unequivocally** the contention that the Establishment Clause forbids only governmental preference of one religion over another. Almost 20 years ago in Everson, supra, at 15 , the Court said that [n]either a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or **prefer** one religion over another. > > And Mr. Justice Jackson, dissenting, agreed: > > There is no answer to the proposition . . . that the effect of the religious freedom Amendment to our Constitution was to take every form of propagation of religion out of the realm of things which could directly or indirectly be made public business, and thereby be supported in whole or in part at taxpayers’ expense. . . . This freedom was first in the Bill of Rights because it was first in the forefathers’ minds; it was set forth in absolute terms, and its strength is its rigidity. > > Further, Mr. Justice Rutledge, joined by Justices Frankfurter, Jackson and Burton, declared: > > **The [First] Amendment’s purpose was not to strike merely at the official establishment of a single sect, creed or religion, outlawing only a formal relation such as had prevailed in England and some of the colonies. Necessarily, it was to uproot all such relationships. But the object was broader than separating church and state in this narrow sense. It was to create a complete and permanent separation of the spheres of religious activity and civil authority by comprehensively forbidding every form of public aid or support for religion.** > > Id. at 31-32. The same conclusion has been firmly maintained ever since that time, see Illinois ex rel. McCollum, supra, at pp. 210-211 ; McGowan v. Maryland, supra, at 442-443; Torcaso v. Watkins, supra, at 492-493, 495, and we reaffirm it now. > > **While none of the parties to either of these cases has questioned these basic conclusions of the Court, both of which have been long established, recognized, and consistently reaffirmed, others continue to question their history, logic and efficacy. Such contentions, in the light of the consistent interpretation in cases of this Court, seem entirely untenable, and of value only as academic exercises.** Religion is especially kept out of schools because the students may be deemed a captive audience. Attempts by some school districts to say that students who wish to opt out of prayer sessions and what not have also been rejected by the courts. Kids strive fro homogenization…they want to fit in. The court feels it is too much to expect to have the (let’s say) one Hindu kid to bolt from the room everytime a christian prayer is said. Rare is the child who embraces his or her differences in the face of being ostracized by his or her peers. In answer to our FF’s being religious folk the court had this to say about it… > [@](#): > > In Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 , 313 (1952), we gave specific recognition to the proposition that “[w]e are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.” The fact that the Founding Fathers believed devotedly that there was a God and that the unalienable rights of man were rooted in Him is clearly evidenced in their writings, from the Mayflower Compact to the Constitution itself. This background is evidenced today in our public life through the continuance in our oaths of office from the Presidency to the Alderman of the final supplication, “So help me God.” Likewise, each House of the Congress provides through its Chaplain an opening prayer, and the sessions of this Court are declared open by the crier in a short ceremony, the final phrase of which invokes the grace of God. Again, there are such manifestations in our military forces, where those of our citizens who are under the restrictions of military service wish to engage in voluntary worship. Indeed, only last year, an official survey of the country indicated that 64% of our people have church membership, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, Statistical Abstract of the United States (83d ed.1962), 48, while less than 30% profess no religion whatever. Id. at p. 46. It can be truly said, therefore, that today, as in the beginning, our national life reflects a religious people who, in the words of Madison, are earnestly praying, as . . . in duty bound, that the Supreme Lawgiver of the Universe . . . guide them into every measure which may be worthy of his [blessing. . .]. > > Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, quoted in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 , 71-72 (1947) (Appendix to dissenting opinion of Rutledge, J.). [p\*214] > > This is not to say, however, that religion has been so identified with our history and government that religious freedom is not likewise as strongly imbedded in our public and private life. Nothing but the most telling of personal experiences in religious persecution suffered by our forebears, see Everson v. Board of Education, supra, at 8-11 , could have planted our belief in liberty of religious opinion any more deeply in our heritage. It is true that this liberty frequently was not realized by the colonists, but this is readily accountable by their close ties to the Mother Country. [n5] However, the views of Madison and Jefferson, preceded by Roger Williams, [n6] came to be incorporated not only in the Federal Constitution but likewise in those of most of our States. This freedom to worship was indispensable in a country whose people came from the four quarters of the earth and brought with them a diversity of religious opinion. Today authorities list 83 separate religious bodies, each with membership exceeding 50,000, existing among our people, as well as innumerable smaller groups. Bureau of the Census, op. cit. supra, at 46-47.