I wasn't able to read the whole thing - not yet anyway. I certainly appreciate the offering of another point of view, though I still disagree with it. At first glance it seems like an awful lot of work was gone in to paint a particular picture of the circumstances concerning the letter to the Danbury Baptists.

It's like using Jefferson's writings to call him atheist when, in fact, he was decrying particular sects of Christianity. Yes, he wrote "wall of separation" and walls works two ways.

I'd have to read the article more carefully but it appears - again at first glance - to ignore anything that doesn't support it's point of view - and The Heritage Foundation has it's own biases.

My point has been that Richie's statement of "no official religion" *is* correct but that there's more to it. At no time am I implying he's wrong - just *in my opinion*, incomplete.