separation of church and state tee

Originally cited in a letter from Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, this small footnote in history was used by Justice Hugo Black in the case of Everson v Board of Education (1947) to justify that: "(New Jersey) Cannot exclude individual Catholics, Lutherans, Mohammedans, Baptists, Jews, Methodists, Non-believers, Presbyterians, or the members of any other faith, because of their faith, or lack of it, from receiving the benefits of public welfare legislation. While we do not mean to intimate that a state could not provide transportation only to children attending public schools, we must be careful, in protecting the citizens of New Jersey against state-established chirches, to be sure that we do not inadvertently prohibit New Jersey from extending its general state law benefits to all its citizens without regard to their religious belief." (From Black's Majority Opinion). However, according to his biographer Roger K. Newman, Black wrote this opinion not to protect the use of public funds so much as to undercut the true meaning of the religion clauses within the constitution. It is also possible that, as a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, Black had a fear of Catholic influence within the United States and taylored his decision to prevent any further Catholics from influencing the course of the country. The original meaning of the religious clause of the constitution was such that the United States federal government would not set up a church such that all citizens were required to be a follower or in essence be treated as a second class citizen (it should be noted, however, that at the time of the Bill of Rights some states did have individual state religions). Now, the meaning of the religious clause has been destorted such that the people do not have a freedom to practice their religion but have an imagined freedom from being exposed to anyone else's religion. It is especially shown where persons of a Christian upbringing voice opposition to abortion or gay marriage, with the 'sepertation of church and state' group shouting that an elected individual should leave any sort of religious upbringing they had at home and make decisions with a complete lack of religious influence at all. Furthermore, the appointment of officials such as John Roberts to the Supreme Court has shown that religious litmus tests have become more important than the candidates actual qualifications. This act of testing a candidate or appointee for their religious belief is a much more direct violation of the constitution than the imagined 'Seperation of Church and State' freedom. Article VI, clause 3 of the constitution specifically states: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; _but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States._