Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: 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.

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?

12 posted on 03/08/2004 5:57:48 PM PST by tpaine (I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but the U.S. Constitution defines conservatism; - not the GOP.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]


To: tpaine
How can you argue against your own religious freedom from a state religion? Why would you want a state favored religion?

It appears you have difficulty with the word "clearly". There is nothing in my statement No, the clear intent of the 1st amendment was to prevent a State religion, not to have a wall between religion and the state. which proposes any "favored" religion. On the contrary, it mentions preventing a "favored" religion.(clearly a State religion would be "favored")

14 posted on 03/08/2004 7:46:24 PM PST by AndrewC (I am a Bertrand Russell agnostic, even an atheist.</sarcasm>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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