No, tpaine, we do not agree on the meaning of the establishment clause. It isn't about what "religious establishments," such as churches and so forth, may or may not do. What the plain language means (or meant to the Framers) was that the government is prohibited from establishing an official state church: The government is barred from "picking a religious sect" and making it the national religion, nor may it favor one creed, confession, or sect over any other.
But even if we were to agree on the meaning you have in mind, that establishment indeed directly and unequivocally refers to churches, religious sects, religious schools, etc., the language says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. So on that basis, we would have to take this to mean -- using your interpretation of "establishment" -- that Congress is forbidden to make any law with respect to churches and religious sects, etc.
Parse the language for yourself, tpaine. It is so clear I don't know how it got so muddied up in the public understanding as it has in recent times. I guess we have the ACLU to thank for that.
No, tpaine, we do not agree on the meaning of the establishment clause. It isn't about what "religious establishments," such as churches and so forth, may or may not do.
'An establishment of religion' as the word was used in the 1st, meant any precept, dogma, teaching, etc, of religions in general. The USSC has so found, for good reason. Separtion of church & state is that reason.
What the plain language means (or meant to the Framers) was that the government is prohibited from establishing an official state church: The government is barred from "picking a religious sect" and making it the national religion, nor may it favor one creed, confession, or sect over any other. But even if we were to agree on the meaning you have in mind, that establishment indeed directly and unequivocally refers to churches, religious sects, religious schools, etc., the language says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
So on that basis, we would have to take this to mean -- using your interpretation of "establishment" -- that Congress is forbidden to make any law with respect to churches and religious sects, etc.
Yep, & all levels of government must also abide by the clear intent to keep church & state separate.
Parse the language for yourself, tpaine. It is so clear I don't know how it got so muddied up in the public understanding as it has in recent times. I guess we have the ACLU to thank for that. -- And religious fundamentalists, -- who refuse to accept that government cannot be used to force publishers to alter public schoolbooks to reflect their views?
tpaine! I had a Eureka! moment just driving to the post office: I finally realized (DUH!) the source of the difficulty you and I are having with this text. It's that "respecting" word.
I gather you interpret it to mean "an act of conferring respect." But in the context, all "respecting" means is "with regard to."
Arguably, it does not and cannot have the meaning you attribute to it. For the founders of this nation -- the people, acting through the Framers -- were overwhelmingly a religious people (back then anyway). It is inconceivable that they would have ratified language that would have authorized the government to "disrespect" its own people.
Try parsing the text with the "in regard to" meaning in place and see what you get.