The Establishment Clause provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Amdt. 1. As a textual matter, this Clause probably prohibits Congress from establishing a national religion. But perhaps more importantly, the Clause made clear that Congress could not interfere with state establishments, notwithstanding any argument that could be made based on Congress' power under the Necessary and Proper Clause. Nothing in the text of the Clause suggests that it reaches any further. - Justice Thomas on Elk Grove v Newdow
Quite simply, the clause does not suggest that "new" establishments of state religions are prohibited, nor can you present any ruling or any source at all that suggest they do.
Do you have any source at all for your claim that Utah was kept out of the Union based on the question of establishment?
The USSC has made a LOT of bad rulings over the years.
So why don't you just say that the establishment clause outlawed the already established state churches, but that the inept courts failed to understand the wisdom known to anonymous FReeper tpaine who is a greater legal scholar than Justice Marshall, Justice Thomas, and Justice Rehnquist. That position would be no less ridiculous and without historical and legal merit as the position you have now taken.
Your position is rendered further nonsensical by the fact that you consider the term establishment to mean "endorsement" when it is quite clear that the Founders did not intend the First Amendment to restrict endorsements of religion. If the Amendment applied to the states, then why would such endorsements be permissible?
It seems indisputable from these glimpses of Madison's thinking, as reflected by actions on the floor of the House in 1789, that he saw the Amendment as designed to prohibit the establishment of a national religion, and perhaps to prevent discrimination among sects. He did not see it as requiring neutrality on the part of government between religion and irreligion...The actions of the First Congress, which reenacted the Northwest Ordinance for the governance of the Northwest Territory in 1789, confirm the view that Congress did not mean that the Government should be neutral between religion and irreligion. The House of Representatives took up the Northwest Ordinance on the same day as Madison introduced his proposed amendments which became the Bill of Rights; while at that time the Federal Government was of course not bound by draft amendments to the Constitution which had not yet been proposed by Congress, say nothing of ratified by the States, it seems highly unlikely that the House of Representatives would simultaneously consider proposed amendments to the Constitution and enact an important piece of territorial legislation which conflicted with the intent of those proposals. The Northwest Ordinance, 1 Stat. 50, reenacted the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and provided that "[r]eligion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged." Id., at 52, n. (a). Land grants for schools in the Northwest Territory were not limited to public schools. It was not until 1845 that Congress limited land grants in the new States and Territories to nonsectarian schools...
As the United States moved from the 18th into the 19th century, Congress appropriated time and again public moneys in support of sectarian Indian education carried on by religious organizations. Typical of these was Jefferson's treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians, which provided annual cash support for the Tribe's Roman Catholic priest and church.(5) It was not until 1897, when aid to sectarian education for Indians had reached $500,000 annually, that Congress decided thereafter to cease appropriating money for education in sectarian schools. - Justice Rehnquist on Wallace v. Jaffree
The Establishment Clause provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Amdt. 1.
As a textual matter, this Clause probably prohibits Congress from establishing a national religion. But perhaps more importantly, the Clause made clear that Congress could not interfere with state establishments, notwithstanding any argument that could be made based on Congress' power under the Necessary and Proper Clause.
Nothing in the text of the Clause suggests that it reaches any further.
- Justice Thomas on Elk Grove v Newdow
Thomas also wrote, inn that same opinion:
"-- the government cannot require a person to "declare his belief in God."
" -- We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person 'to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion' -- "
I agree with his point that; "the Clause made clear that Congress could not interfere with" [existing] "state establishments, -- "
Quite simply, the clause does not suggest that "new" establishments of state religions are prohibited, nor can you present any ruling or any source at all that suggest they do.
States are guaranteed & required to have a Republican Form of Government, which more than suggests, it rules out sectarian forms. -- See Art IV Sec 4.
Do you have any source at all for your claim that Utah was kept out of the Union based on the question of establishment?
The Mormons were trying to establish a sectarian state that allowed polygamy. - Read the history of the issue.
_______________________________
The USSC has made a LOT of bad rulings over the years.
--- Personal attack BS deleted] ---
Your position is rendered further nonsensical by the fact that you consider the term establishment to mean "endorsement" when it is quite clear that the Founders did not intend the First Amendment to restrict endorsements of religion.
Where did I say that 'establishment means endorsement'? More BS.
If the Amendment applied to the states, then why would such endorsements be permissible?
You tell me, - its your straw man.
It seems indisputable from these glimpses of Madison's thinking, as reflected by actions on the floor of the House in 1789, that he saw the Amendment as designed to prohibit the establishment of a national religion, and perhaps to prevent discrimination among sects. He did not see it as requiring neutrality on the part of government between religion and irreligion... The actions of the First Congress, which reenacted the Northwest Ordinance for the governance of the Northwest Territory in 1789, confirm the view that Congress did not mean that the Government should be neutral between religion and irreligion. The House of Representatives took up the Northwest Ordinance on the same day as Madison introduced his proposed amendments which became the Bill of Rights; while at that time the Federal Government was of course not bound by draft amendments to the Constitution which had not yet been proposed by Congress, say nothing of ratified by the States, it seems highly unlikely that the House of Representatives would simultaneously consider proposed amendments to the Constitution and enact an important piece of territorial legislation which conflicted with the intent of those proposals.
The Northwest Ordinance, 1 Stat. 50, reenacted the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and provided that "[r]eligion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged." Id., at 52, n. (a).
Land grants for schools in the Northwest Territory were not limited to public schools. It was not until 1845 that Congress limited land grants in the new States and Territories to nonsectarian schools...
Yep, this makes my point. The old grandfathered state supported religions were dying out. People were realizing that public schools & sectarian religion do not mix.
As the United States moved from the 18th into the 19th century, Congress appropriated time and again public moneys in support of sectarian Indian education carried on by religious organizations. Typical of these was Jefferson's treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians, which provided annual cash support for the Tribe's Roman Catholic priest and church.(5) It was not until 1897, when aid to sectarian education for Indians had reached $500,000 annually, that Congress decided thereafter to cease appropriating money for education in sectarian schools. - Justice Rehnquist on Wallace v. Jaffree
Again, you make my case. Forcing sectarian religious education on Indians in an attempt to pacify them was wrong to begin with. Congress finally realized their 'mistake' in 1897, after the Indian wars ended.