Frank Breslin, retired teacher of history and languages, explains here why the Founders of our nation insisted on separation of church and state.
He begins:
“We have a long tradition in America of the Separation of Church and State that prohibits government’s promotion of religion, on the one hand, and interference with its free exercise, on the other. In their refusal to establish a state church or to favor one religion over another, the Founding Fathers did not think that religion was bad, but that there was something amiss in human nature, a certain tendency, a will to power, a lust for domination, that always bore watching.
“It was a virus that lay dormant until its host came to power, whereupon that person or group of persons became suddenly rabid with a mania that sought to punish or persecute everyone not of their fold or persuasion. Paradoxically, the guise under which this malady manifested itself, as the history of Europe made only too plain, was that of religion.
“The Founders thought that religion, something good in itself, could be used for good or bad ends, and, unless preventive measures were taken, it could induce in the susceptible a form of madness so malignant and destructive as to destroy the very essence of religion itself. By persecuting whoever refused to accept their religion or whose lives were deemed as insufficiently righteous, those now in power imposed a religious tyranny so suffocating in its totalitarian grip, scope, and detail that one immediately thinks of barbed wire and concentration camps.
“”Nothing was ever made straight with the crooked timber of humanity,” was Immanuel Kant’s take on such would-be utopians in their spiritual Gulags. Even something as pure and noble as religious feeling, given the weak human vessels in which it was housed, could become tragically twisted, bringing into the world unspeakable horrors.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Reblogged this on logging entries in my life and commented:
This is why we pay attention to history and the true thoughts of our forefathers. If we pervert history to fit our own desires and lusts for power, we destroy the true legacy of those who came before…the mistakes, lessons and vision.
j
LikeLike
And then we have this:
On February 7, 2002, President George W. Bush announces his plan to federally fund faith-based initiatives.
Bush started his day at a National Prayer Breakfast held in the ballroom of the Washington Hilton Hotel, where he explained the basic philosophy behind his plan. In service to others, he said, we find deep human fulfillment. And as acts of service are multiplied, our nation becomes a more welcoming place. Later that day, he announced the new policy from the Oval Office with leading members of Congress and the press in attendance. Bush proposed that faith-based organizations should assume a greater role in providing social-service programs without breaching the separation of church and state. He suggested that government should not discriminate against faith-based programs, but it should encourage them to flourish. Under his plan, religious groups could receive federal funding to implement programs usually carried out by secular non-profit organizations.
A devout Christian, Bush’s plan applied to a multitude of denominations in order to, in his words, unleash these fantastic armies of compassion which exist all across the country. The new policy received bipartisan support, including kudos from leading Senators Joseph Liebermann and Rick Santorum. The senators agreed with Bush that individuals and couples should receive tax breaks for donations to faith-based charities as well as secular organizations.
Bush’s plan to federally fund faith-based programs upset die-hard secularists and debate over the efficacy and constitutionality of the program continued into his second term. While a study by the PEW Forum on Religion and Public Life revealed that approximately 70 percent of Americans prefer that government agencies provide the majority of aid to the needy and poor, the same number supported the right of church organizations to apply for federal funding for their social programs. From http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/president-george-w-bush-announces-plan-for-faith-based-initiatives
LikeLike
He also banned stem cell research, the findings of which may be the key to unlocking a cure for a variety of diseases. He did this “on religious grounds.”
LikeLike
Let’s not forget the Obama has continued faith based initiatives.
LikeLike
We were always told that it was the Wisdom Of Experience (WOE).
LikeLike
The US on a national level may have been setup as a country without a state church but the states existed before the constitution and there was nothing in that constitution creating anything like modern secularism at the state level.
LikeLike
Mr. Breslin makes some good points but neglects to mention the importance of federalism.. The first amendment prohibited Congress (that is, the federal government) from making any law with respect to the establishment of religion. But the states were left free to establish churches, as some states did, or to require, as my state of Delaware did, that office holders must profess belief in the Holy Trinity. Most states eventually decided to discontinue their religious tests, although a few persisted until well into the 20th century. The intent of the first amendment was to limit the federal government, not to establish secular progressivism as a national creed..
LikeLike
One could have said almost the same thing about NJ (my home state).
LikeLike
You are correct. Atheists are excluded from public office in more than one state.
Arkansas, Article 19, Section 1: No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.
Maryland, Article 37: That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.
Mississippi, Article 14, Section 265: No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.
North Carolina, Article 6, Section 8 The following persons shall be disqualified for office: Any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.
South Carolina, Article 17, Section 4: No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.
Tennessee, Article 9, Section 2: No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.
Texas, Article 1, Section 4: No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.
http://americanhumanist.org/HNN/details/2012-05-unelectable-atheists-us-states-that-prohibit-godless
LikeLike
These are enforceable. Presumably no one’s trying to enforce them, either, which is the only explanation I can imagine for why they haven’t been struck down in court. Sadly not surprising that these state legislatures haven’t repealed them, though.
LikeLike
Sorry, meant “unenforceable.”
LikeLike
This is always an interesting and important topic. I realize it’s the HuffPo (and I violated one of my personal rules by clicking on a HuffPo link), but it would be nice to have citations in an article that purports to describe the “intent” of “the Founders,” as I’m not aware of any clause in the Bill of Rights for which the intent of its drafters was clear.
LikeLike