Many churches came to embrace a more malleable doctrine, known as separationism, which cast Hell not as a punishment but as a voluntary form of loneliness — in the words of John Paul II, "the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy".
Before turning to those matters, however, I want to respond to a common misreading that has me agreeing with Santorum's position on separationism ("Why have you chosen to serve as his apologist in chief?" (Didymus Thomas), whereas, in fact, I only point out that it is a position held by respectable jurists and academics and is therefore within the parameters of standard views.
The Thurgood Marshall of strict separationism was Leo Pfeffer, chief lawyer of the American Jewish Congress's Commission on Law and Social Action.
McConnell's first contribution to dismantling the wall of strict separationism came during his Supreme Court clerkship in 1981, when he helped persuade Justice Brennan to review Widmar v. Vincent.
In 1995, McConnell had a chance to convince the current Supreme Court that the legal debate had shifted so significantly that strict separationism should be repudiated in favor of equal treatment for religion.
Blanshard went on to become a leader of the nation's pre-eminent lobbying group for strict separationism, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which was called, at the time, Protestants and Other Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
Pfeffer's greatest victory was Lemon v. Kurtzman in 1971, a benchmark of strict separationism that struck down state laws that provided salary supplements to teachers of secular subjects in Catholic and other faith-based schools.
The decision proved to be the first chink in the wall of separationism.
By contrast, the appellate court's strict separationism -- one that banishes all religious expression from the public arena -- is a polarizing vision.
Explanations for this combination of strict separationism with a defense of religious involvement in politics are not hard to come by.
Strict separationism, during its brief reign, made the mistake of trying to forbid not only religious expression by the state, but also religious expression by citizens on public property.
