Antidisestablishmentarianism

Opposition to those who oppose the establishment.

Definition noun. 1. opposition to the withdrawal of state support or recognition from an established church, especially the Anglican Church in 19th-century England.

Origin of antidisestablishmentarianism is a political position that developed in 19th-century Britain in opposition to Liberal proposals for the disestablishment of the Church of England, meaning the removal of the Anglican Church's status as the state church of England, Ireland, and Wales. The establishment was maintained in England, but in Ireland the Church of Ireland (Anglican) was disestablished in 1871. In Wales, four Church of England dioceses were disestablished in 1920 and became the Church in Wales. (also known as separation of church and state)

Antidisestablishmentarianism is also one of the longest non-scientific words. The word has also come by analogy to refer to any opposition to those who oppose the establishment, whether the government, in whole or part, or the established society.

The matter of disestablishment of the Church of England is an ongoing issue, often tied with the position of the Monarchy of the United Kingdom as “Supreme Governor” of the Church (see Act of Settlement 1701). Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Leader of the Liberal Democrats, said in April 2014 that he thought the Church of England and the British state should be separated "in the long run". David Cameron, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom at the time, responded to Clegg's comments by stating that the position was "a long-term Liberal idea, but it is not a Conservative one," adding that he believed the existence of an established church is beneficial.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antidisestablishmentarianism

Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947) was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court which applied the Establishment Clause in the country's Bill of Rights to State law. Prior to this decision the First Amendment words, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" imposed limits only on the federal government, while many states continued to grant certain religious denominations legislative or effective privileges. This was the first Supreme Court case incorporating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as binding upon the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision in Everson marked a turning point in the interpretation and application of disestablishment law in the modern era.

The case was brought by a New Jersey taxpayer against a tax funded school district that provided reimbursement to parents of both public and private schooled children taking the public transportation system to school. The taxpayer contended that reimbursement given for children attending private religious schools violated the constitutional prohibition against state support of religion, and the taking of taxpayers' money to do so violated the constitution's Due Process Clause. The Justices were split over the question whether the New Jersey policy constituted support of religion, with the majority concluding these reimbursements were "separate and so indisputably marked off from the religious function" that they did not violate the constitution. However both affirming and dissenting Justices were decisive that the Constitution required a sharp separation between government and religion and their strongly worded opinions paved the way to a series of later court decisions that taken together brought about profound changes in legislation, public education, and other policies involving matters of religion. Both Justice Hugo Black's majority opinion and Justice Wiley Rutledge's dissenting opinion defined the First Amendment religious clause in terms of a "wall of separation between church and state".

Comments

The war on religion began in the US in 1947. The US Constitution says that “Congress shall establish no religion”. The “separation of church and state” issue is not “required” in the Constitution.  This was a “Federalist” vs Anti-Federalist issue.  The Federalists hold that the federal government can go beyond its “enumerated powers” and can dictate to the States.  The Anti-Federalists hold that the Constitution should be preserved as written and the 10^th Amendment gives the States the right to experiment with everything else. I do agree with the federal government freeing the slaves, because slavery wasn’t consistent with the assertion that “all men are created equal”.  

The result of our unfettered federal government has resulted in the erosion of our inalienable rights, our freedom and has wrecked our private economy.  The federal government is insolvent because it assumed control over matters it has not been empowered to assume. It is required by the Constitution to submit Amendments for ratification by the States, but it has not done this.   

The current “establishment” is Federalist. That makes me a disestablishmentarian. I want the federal government to reduce its footprint, become compliant with the US Constitution (as written) and pay off its debt. I do not want the federal government to spend my money breaking and fixing foreign countries and funding anti-American foreign entities like the UN.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader