The Establishment clause means that the federal government can not pick a single religious sect and establish it as the official religion of the US, supporting it with tax dollars. The Free Exercise clause means that no individuals or groups shall be limited by the government in practising their particular election. This is clearly two different ideas, and could have been passed as a separate Amendment, but the committee that wrote the amendment put them both in the First Amendment.
I notice in passing that you have not been able to cite a single word written or spoken in the Amendment process which supports your viewpoint.
This is another failing in your reading of history in that there was no amendment process involved. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments) were ratified as a single document.
except, of course, by its probable drafter, Madison, as per post #209
Thank you for pointing out that my viewpoint is that of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, while yours is that of the hard leftists who control most law schools and journalistic legal analysis.
...and, of course, it's probable drafter, Madison, as per post #209.
And, just in passing, let me suggest to you what an incredibly thin reed you are trying to hold up against the onslaught of history. Intentionally kept-secret debates in congress is not likely to be considered a major indication of the intentions of the founding fathers by anyone not still wrapped in swaddling clothes. Publicly expressed thoughts about freedom of religion and freedom from religion were key results of the reformation at the time of the founding and populating of the new world. No educated person, less than 2 centuries separated from the 30 Years War, or the genocide of the Anabaptists, or the multitudinous other mortal sins of the Catholic or Lutheran controlled governments of Europe, could fail to have noticed the fundamentally pernicious nature of church allied with government, or to have a heated opinion about it. Certainly not in america, the land populated by people trying to escape it. Radical separatist opinions were to be had at any corner pub, on any day of the week. Hatred and disgust for church-allied governments was the political air one had to breath in 1775.
To imagine that congress took no heed of that, nor had any active sympathy for it among the ranks of the amendments' drafters is to strain credibility beyond the breaking point.
You mean, for instance, by the federal supreme court disallowing christian prayer in publicly supported schools with mandated attendance, for example?
Of course, you are exactly correct. But you refuse to notice two major points which the Supremes do not: 1) the implications of using no tax dollars whatsoever for funding religeous practices, or the implications of the 13th 14th and 15th amendments, thrusting federally recognized individual rights down onto state and local governments. 2) the painfully obvious fact I have been at pains to point out: that, as per post #209, the founding fathers intentions were more thoroughgoing than merely refusing to hand over the reins of government to religeous tyrants. If that was what they intended, that is what they would have said. Supposing that the founding fathers had a sudden change of heart between the writing of the 1st Amendment and the writing of the Virginia Bill of Rights, and its subsequent application to the public funding of ministries is a defense that betrays a lack of understanding of what motivates a passionate, educated heart, such as those possessed by Madison, Adams, Washington and Jefferson.