[AndrewC]

You ignore the clear intent of the 1st amendment, as it was argued for in 1789, and the even clearer 'no religious test' for office provision of Article VI..

No, the clear intent of the 1st amendment was to prevent a State religion, not to have a wall between religion and the state.

"The Honorable Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! All persons having business before the Honorable Supreme Court of the United States are admonished to draw near and give their attention, for the Court is now sitting. God save the United States and this Honorable Court!"

[tpaine]

You ignore the clear intent of the 1st amendment, as it was argued for in 1789, and the even clearer 'no religious test' for office provision of Article VI..

No, the clear intent of the 1st amendment was to prevent a State religion, not to have a wall between religion and the state.

Yep, preventing state religions was the clear intent back in 1789. It worked, as they all faded away in the next several decades. -- But I see you want to bicker about 'walls' etc.. -- Granted, no wall is needed, just common sense in making laws, - pro or con - about religion.

But Dataman knows this, having argued so before.
It's an agit-prop tactic [invented by leftists], to insist upon repeating such flat out errors of constitutional fact. -- How can you argue against your own religious freedom from a state religion? Why would you want a state favored religion?

[Dataman]

Paine knows he is being a pain. He obviously admires Thomas Paine's unusual talent for losing friends and influence through mocking Christianity.