Wall of Separation (2007 TV Movie) User Reviews

A slickly made piece of dishonest propaganda.

[imrational · 1/10 · 14 September 2008]

The movie does a slick job utilizing voice-over, interviews, photographs, and film footage to present a slanted view of the history of separation of church and state in the United States. They slyly try to set up the case that the United States should not have a separation of church and state.

Make no mistake, this is not a balanced documentary. It has an ulterior motive and is willing to use dishonest tactics to achieve its aims.

For example, it blatantly cherry-picks quotes from the founding fathers... and then dismisses other quotes that go contrary to its objectives. For example, they dismiss a quote of Thomas Jefferson that goes against their objectives, saying it was written 10 years after the Constitution (implying that the date makes it irrelevant)... but they freely uses other quotes that occur later without a problem.

They do provide some dissenting opinions, but these appear to be token voices. Many of their assertions go unchallenged... even though there are easily found refutations to their statements.

One thing that really irritated me is that they totally ignore the problem of how you can have religious freedom if certain religions are endorsed over others by the government.

I gave this movie 10 stars out of 10 because it is very slickly made. I think children should watch this with a knowledgeable adult. Children should learn about dishonest propaganda tactics. If you don't know to watch for them, you very well might be hoodwinked.

What utter trash.

[SeanMarshall · 1/10 · 23 November 2007]

This is purely an attempt to sway public opinion based on a biased view of the issues. What starts out appearing as a well thought out and clearly presented production quickly devolves into a parody of a documentary. Even more insulting is the twisting of the issues, the stances or historical persons, and laws themselves in an attempt to convince the viewers that really law should be based on the Christian God and there should be an overlap of State and Church.

The whole of the show is filled with strawmen arguments with the proponents pretending to present any opposing argument.

Shame on PBS for airing this propaganda piece.

Makes an interesting and fresh argument

[abandond · 10/10 · 21 June 2008]

It is always obvious when someone makes a film that makes a strong case for the truth. People with no real counter arguments get angry and throw out catch phrases like "straw man arguments" or "shame on you" because they have no real intelligent counter evidence. Good for the filmmakers for making a solid case. Shame on the self-righteous haters who bash ideas they don't like, without providing any real counter evidence.

Unless someone wants to do the actual counter research, as opposed to hurling empty insults, I would suggest that you watch this film and make up your own mind. Bravo to PBS for allowing the opportunity for an actual environment open to ideas from more than one narrow perspective.

Excellent Documentary on the Historical Development of "The Wall of Separation"

[paul-diben · 10/10 · 28 November 2008]

Contrary to the previous opinion, the program was well done and much needed. The premise of the documentary is that the "Wall of Separation" that has been touted so often by those seeking to limit religion is a fairly recent re-interpretation of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Using original source documents and quotations, the program does an admirable job of demonstrating the original intent of the authors of the Constitution.

Those who hold the view that the Constitution is "a living, breathing document" that is constantly changing due to the day you live in do themselves a dis-service by failing to at least acknowledge the historical framework in which the Amendmend was written. This is best seen when two of the people interviewed who hold that opinion make absolute statements that the founding fathers would "never" agree with faith-based initiatives, yet the program points out that these same people initiated the paid chaplain system in Congress, and voted to purchase and distribute Bibles throughout the nation.

Regardless of the position one holds concerning the interpretation and application of the Constitution, the historical perspective presented concerning the original intent and subsequent historical developments on re-interpretation are well presented and worth viewing.