It seems logical that if this had been the intent of the
Founding Fathers for the First Amendment as is so frequently asserted then at
least one of those ninety would have mentioned that phrase; none did. Since the
"separation" phrase was used so infrequently by the Founders, and since early
courts rarely invoked it, how did those courts rule on the religious issues and
activities which confront today's courts? Were their conclusions different from
those reached now? As demonstrated in the following chapter, the answer is an
emphatic and a resounding, "Yes!"

Excerpts from twentyone early cases will be presented in
this chapter. These cases, representative of many others, will demonstrate that
contrary to the actions of current courts, early courts protected, advanced,
encouraged, and promoted the role and influence of religion throughout society.
Significantly, several Judges who ruled in these early cases had personally participated
in the drafting and ratification of the Constitution and thus were quite sure
about its intent.

Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 1892 United
States Supreme Court This case provides a good starting point since it
incorporates several previous decisions. At issue was an 1885 federal
immigration law which declared: It shall be unlawful for any person, company,
partnership, or corporation, in any manner whatsoever to in any way assist or encourage
the importation of any alien or foreigners into the United States under
contract or agreement to perform labor or service of any kind.

Since this law, on its face, appeared to be a straightforward
ban on hiring foreign labor, when the Church of the Holy Trinity in New York
employed a clergyman from England as its pastor, the U. S. Attorney's office
brought suit against the church. When the case reached the Supreme Court, the Court
began by examining the legislative records surrounding the passage of that law
and discovered that its sole purpose had been to halt the influx of almost
slavelike foreign labor to construct the western railroads. Thus, while the
church's hiring of the minister had violated the wording of the law, it clearly
had fallen far outside the spirit and intent of that law.