Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: tpaine; B. Rabbit
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

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.

3,766 posted on 01/08/2003 10:10:40 AM PST by betty boop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3749 | View Replies ]


To: betty boop
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

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."

Not at all, to "pass no law in respect to', - refering to general objects like the 'establishments of religion', makes perfect sense.
It's the archaic wording of the phrase, and the little used meaning of 'establishment', that leads to all the confusion, imo.
Thus, the USSC clarified that the phrase means that church/state functions must be separated, and that no level of government can make laws 'in regard to' such functions.

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.

No disrespect was intended. -- Government was to stay out of religious matters. -- This was original intent according to the USSC.
Why is this concept so difficult for you, betty?

Try parsing the text with the "in regard to" meaning in place and see what you get.

'Congress shall make no law in regard to respecting an establishment of religion.'

---- I see no real difference, -- sorry.

3,818 posted on 01/08/2003 12:03:43 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3766 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson