Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor accused the court’s conservative members of trying to “dismantle the wall of separation between church and state” in a blistering dissent that was released on Tuesday.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Carson v. Makin, holding that the government could not prevent its citizens from receiving taxpayer-funded financial aid for private religious instruction.

“U.S. Supreme Court just ruled in a 6-3 decision that preventing school choice families from taking their children’s taxpayer-funded education dollars to religious private schools violated the Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment,” said school choice advocate Corey DeAngelis in a tweet announcing the decision.

“This Court continues to dismantle the wall of separation between church and state that the Framers fought to build,” Sotomayor wrote in her dissent. “In just a few years, the Court has upended constitutional doctrine. shifting from a rule that permits States to decline to fund religious organizations to one that requires States in many circumstances to subsidize religious indoctrination with taxpayer dollars.”

It’s obvious that one of our Supreme Court justices doesn’t even know what the phrase “separation of church and state” means in its truest sense.

Understanding the circumstances in which the phrase “separation of church and state” was penned will help us grasp what it originally meant. Those who came to America in order to create a more perfect union did not want everyone to fall into the traps that existed in England.

The concept of the separation of religion and state does not imply that one cannot discuss religious matters within a government capacity or bring up political issues in a religious setting. It would be entirely misinformed to suggest either of those things.

The first thing to know is that the separation of church and state is not something that is in the Constitution. It was a term that was coined by Thomas Jefferson afterwards.

The Congressional Record (required by the Constitution in Art. i, Sec. 5, ¶ 3) contains all the official words and acts that occur in congressional chambers. Those records therefore include the discussion of the ninety Founders in the first federal Congress who, from June 8 to September 25, 1789, framed the First Amendment.22 In those lengthy discussions that spanned months, the Founders repeatedly explained that they were seeking to prevent what they had experienced under Great Britain: the legal establishment by the national government of a single religious denomination in exclusion of all others (whether Catholic, Anglican, or any other). Very simply, their oft-repeated intent was that Congress could not officially establish any one denomination in America; or, in the wording proposed by James Madison, “nor shall any national religion be established.”

(Significantly, the word “religion” in the Founders’ First Amendment discussions was often used interchangeably with the word “denomination.” For example, the original version of the First Amendment introduced in the Senate on September 3, 1789, stated, “Congress shall not make any law establishing any religious denomination.” The second version stated, “Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination.” The third version was very similar, declaring, “Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination in preference to another.” The final version passed on that day declared, “Congress shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Clearly, the word “religion” had been used interchangeably with “denomination” throughout their discussions, and this is why the First Amendment prohibited the national government from establishing any single “religion,” or denomination.)

LearntheTheology | Daily Wire


Daniel is a conservative syndicated opinion writer and amateur theologian. He writes about topics of politics, culture, freedom, and faith.

View all posts


Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  • Behold!

    The results of putting activist, political hacks within such a decisive governing body whose one main task is simply to properly interpret the laws during disputes between parties.

    • No, nooo, NO! She was a hand picked dyed in the wool rabid Marxist!

      …Idiot? No! …Traitor? Yes!

    • Yes, this supposedly “intelligent latina” is either dumb as a box of rocks, or just as anti-Constitution, anti-American as we all knew she was, from the day she was nominated by fraudbama.

  • Sotomayor is mistaking the court’s decision as the Court’s having misunderstanding of the Separation Clause when the actual fact kid that she has misunderstood the Free Exercise Clause. On top of that there is no “Wall of Separation” which prohibits what has for over200 years been a comfortable coexistence between government and faith-based organizations.

    The only reason we are having a debate about it is the unholy coexistence between loons like M.M. O’hare and six Liberal, Justices who legislated from the Bench.

    • Absolutely! And the when she hits the bottom step, throw her communist asssss out of the country along with the rest of the democrap party!

  • Sotomayor is one of, if the the most unqualified justice in the Supreme Court. She doesn’t uphold her oath of office and deliberately twists our Constitution to suit her leftist ideology. Unfortunately, these were the reasons the Manchurian president nominated her in the first place. Worse, the GOP didn’t have the votes, nor the will, to fight her nomination – just like they didn’t when biden nominated Jackson who released pedophile criminals.

  • Sorry, there is no “separation of church and state” mentioned anywhere in the Constitution>
    I will give anyone $1000.00 if you can show me it.

  • Our Founders also encouraged the Church to engage in politics, but, prevented the government from interfering in the Church. This is the reason politicians gave the Church a 501 tax exemption, in order to keep the Church out of politics. Any Church that got itself involved in government affairs was threatened with the removal of their 501 exemption. Unfortunately, many didn’t interfere, and worse, over time, many Churches came to believe the deceptive political rhetoric of the separation of Church and state. And today, the only thing about our Constitution that students in public school learn are the twisted lies told them by their leftist teachers, the liberal media, and from SCOTUS unconstitutional “opinions.” In fact, most citizens don’t know that SC Justices are to give their “opinions” not rulings or that the President is supposed to be a watchman on Federal judges who violate our Constitution.

  • First of all, Well done to Daniel for checking the historical record on the discussions regarding the First Amendment. We need to do the same for the Second Amendment, because that subject is another major issue of our time. It is being debated in the context of the meaning of the Bill of Rights. Basically, that Bill is a list of examples of rights and powers not being ceded to the federal government to have any jurisdiction over; that government being one of limited and delegated powers – “few and defined,” in the rather authoritative words of the man fairly called the Father of the Constitution, James Madison, and as emphasized in the 9th and 10th Amendments. In our federal form of government, most domestic matters remain in the hands of the several States, as codified in their state constitutions. Thus, we have been misled for a very long time in this country about ‘our constitutional rights’. Just as with the issue of abortion, the issue of ‘bearing arms’ is properly a state, not a federal, matter (with a nod to the status of state militias and their ‘well regulation’). I understand that some commentators on this issue talk about how we are ‘born with certain rights,’ as referenced in the Declaration of Independence; but that is a prevailing value, or sentiment, until such things are codified, under the rule of law, via our constitutions, state and federal. So, if conservatives are going to demand that we live by the rule of law in the matter of abortion – and return its jurisdiction to its rightful location in the States – then they need to do the same in regards to other such issues. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. And note: I also understand that some (a lot of) commentators talk about how the Bill of Rights got turned on its head wholesale by the 14th Amendment, and made to apply FROM the FEDERAL government to the STATES (under a fancy judicial-sounding term called ‘incorporation’) . But that is a nonsense. The 14th Amendment only applies to some very specific issues, named therein.
    What a can of worms this is. But it must be dealt with. We either live by and under the rule of law or we don’t. The alternative is living by arbitrary law. Also known as tyranny.

  • “Congress shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This is the basis of the misnomer “separation of church and state.” Sotomayor has either never read the Constitution, or else endeavors to ignore or misinterpret the parts that do not agree with her biased, ill-informed world view. It is a travesty that a person with her ingrained bigotry and inability to adjudicate fairly and logically sits on the highest court of the land. May God have mercy on the United States of America.

  • Do you mean that the “wise Latina” doesn’t know basic historical facts? I’m so surprised. I wonder if SHE could define the term “woman?”

  • Idiot! The government doesn’t have any money! The money comes from the taxpayers who have the right to allocate it in any way that they wish.




Sign up for our daily email and get the stories everyone is talking about.