THE WASHINGTON TIMES - Special Report: First of three parts. http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050413-122937-3482r.htm
Historically speaking, the religious establishment has been "under attack" by secularism since the Renaissance. The U.S. constitution itself launched a major (and successful) campaign in this ongoing fight by forbidding the establishment of any religion at a time in history when virtually every Western nation had a national church of some sort. It was a revolutionary act designed to free Americans from governance by religious institutions. Sometime when you have absolutely NOTHING else to do, go look at Pope Pius IX's "Syllabus of Errors" from the mid nineteenth century. The Catholic Church condemned "Modernism" with all the means at its disposal because, IMHO, modernism undercut the authority of the Church and, more to the point, Churchmen,
As cynical as my last post was, it really wasn't quite cynical enough to be entirely accurate. I would GUESS based on my limited knowledge of political science, that the anti-establishment clause in the U.S. Constitution was SOLD as delivering the people from governance by Churchmen but that its REAL purpose was to deliver the Government from an irritating rival and potential source of authority that might serve as a check upon the otherwise absolute power of the secular state. Not for nothing did Henry II cry, "Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?"
Parts II & III Why Bush threatens secularism http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050414-124744-9798r.htm Believers aim to 'reclaim' America http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050415-124649-3229r.htm
The Establishement Clause was written, as near as we can tell, to prevent the establishment of a national church in the U.S. along the lines of the Anglican church, and to provide a prophylactic protection against the sort of religious wars and tyranny that occurred as the Roman Catholics and Anglicans in England spent a fair share of their time oppressing one another. Public burnings and drownings of "heretics" weren't ancient history at the time of the Constitutional Convention or the drafting of the Bill of Rights--these were still an open wound in the minds of many in the U.S. Just a few generations before, many of their forefathers had come to this country in a panic to flee religious persecution. One thing to remember, however, is that our modern conception of "separation" as applied to the states--and even the federal government--is foreign to the Constitution. States were free to have official religions in the Revolutionary Period and its aftermath, and most did. "Separation", as we now know it, was an invention of the Supreme Court in 1947. Thomas Jefferson's oft-cited letter, which may have coined the phrase, has been grossly misrepresented; while there were Founding Fathers who, steeped in the Enlightenment thought of their Era, felt that government entanglement with religion was a bad idea, it's interesting to note that none--or very few--of them thought that government favoring a religion was unconstitutional. The only thing the Constitution prohibits is the establishment of religion: i.e. "I, George W. Bush, declare this day that Methodism is the official religion of the United States." THAT would be considered unconstitutional.