However, this clause is still much debated today, and the Supreme Court of the United States is often asked to clarify the meaning of what is known as the Establishment Clause and the issue of separation of church and state.

It was not until 1802 that the phrase “separation of Church and State” became synonymous with the Establishment Clause. Thomas Jefferson coined the phrase in a letter written to the Danbury Baptist Association in which Jefferson defended his decision to not proclaim national days of fasting and thanksgiving, as the two presidents before him — Washington and Adams — had done.

The Constitution states that Congress “should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”; thus building a wall of eternal separation between Church & State, ” he wrote.

LINK

Now, under the Bush administration, and we examine “Faith based Charities”, and the government’s support thereof, it brings forth constitutional issues that are alarming and represent the epitome of “Taxation without Representation.” It’s common knowledge the Supreme Court is stacked by right-wing conservative Justices, who, in their allegiance to the Bush administration and bolstered by their own religious beliefs, have become exactly what President Bush and the conservative majority stated they were attempting to halt, “Activist Federal Judges!”

This sham of what should be an impartial group of Justices has ruled that Americans cannot oppose the President’s “faith based initiatives” in a decision that was based on religion rather than our own Constitution and Bill of Rights:

Taxpayers can’t challenge faith-based program, justices rule

By The Associated Press
06.25.07

WASHINGTON — Ordinary taxpayers cannot challenge a White House initiative that helps religious charities get a share of federal money, the Supreme Court ruled today.

The 5-4 decision in Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation blocks a lawsuit by a group of atheists and agnostics against eight Bush administration officials, including the head of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.

In dissent, Justice David Souter said the Court should have allowed the taxpayer challenge to proceed.

The majority “closes the door on these taxpayers because the executive branch, and not the legislative branch, caused their injury,” wrote Souter. “I see no basis for this distinction in either logic or precedent.”

“Here, there is no dispute that taxpayer money in identifiable amounts is funding conferences, and these are alleged to have the purposes of promoting religion,” Souter wrote. “When executive agencies spend identifiable sums of tax money for religious purposes, no less than when Congress authorizes the same thing, taxpayers suffer injury.” MUCH MORE

When we look at the dollar amounts that are involved, it staggers the imagination to understand that agnostics and atheists, also Americans and who supposedly are guaranteed equal protection under our laws, see their tax dollars given out to religious groups that benefit neither of the above mentioned groups, which are sizable, albeit not the majority of the population:

Transformation from Secular to Religious Government

 1  |  2  |  3  |  4