[Little Pig]

Oklahoma constitution: “ Perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured...”

And, at the federal level, there’s that bit about “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. The “establishment” part not only refers to the creation of an official state religion, but to whether or not any religion has been “established”.

On top of that, there’s the bit about freedom of speech. If they let one religious group put up a display on the public square, they can’t reasonably refuse another so long as the other group’s display is appropriate.

[Petrosius]

And, at the federal level, there’s that bit about “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. The “establishment” part not only refers to the creation of an official state religion, but to whether or not any religion has been “established”.

It is time that we put this misrepresentation of the First Amendment to rest.

1. "Congress" means Congress (i.e. the Federal Government). The First Amendment is the only one which explicitly mentions Congress. It does not include the states.
2. It states "shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion" not "no law establishing religion." In other words, Congress can make no law one way or the other, establishing or preventing the establishment of religion by the states.
3. Many of the states had established religions for a number of years after the ratification of the First Amendment.

What the First Amendment actually does is take the question of the establishment of religion out of the federal jurisdiction and leaving it to the states. While you might argue that concept of the separation of church and state should also be applied at the state level, the First Amendment does not do this.

This is a overwhelmingly Christian nation (that is, the people). It is just that its laws and institutions reflect this while at the same time giving religious tolerance to just minorities. Those religious groups, however, which advocate violence or outright immorality do not deserve such tolerance. Nor should we allow any religious minorities to prevent the overwhelming Christian majority to express its beliefs in our laws and institutions. Such an act would itself be unjust and an act of intolerance.

[dsc]

“Oklahoma constitution: “ Perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured...”

Ask the people who wrote it if they intended to include mohammedanism.

“The “establishment” part not only refers to the creation of an official state religion, but to whether or not any religion has been “established”.

That is utter nonsense. I don’t know where you picked that crap up, but do yourself a favor and stop repeating it.

“On top of that, there’s the bit about freedom of speech. If they let one religious group put up a display on the public square, they can’t reasonably refuse another so long as the other group’s display is appropriate.”

Road apples. It is long established that freedom of religion does not extend to satanic cults. Nor should it.

If there’s no other way to refute these bogus arguments once and for all, then I guess we need a constitutional amendment clearly excluding mohammedanism from the class of things known as “religion.”