Thomas also wrote, in 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, -- "
You simply cannot make your case without adding words that were never there, and were never implied. You can provide no source at all for the claim that the "new" establishments were prohibited because no such source exists. You fabricated this claim out of whole cloth.
Calm yourself. You simply cannot make ~your~ case without attempting to 'hype' what I've written.
Your claims are indeed quite ridiculous and completely unsupported by history and jurisprudence. I have produced many source supporting my claims but you have produced none because you cannot.
Yada yada. Get off your soapbox.
Endorsements of particular religions were not prohibited by the Constitution. Establishments of State religions were not prohibited either.
You are begging the question. -- Silly tactic, but feel free to continue, as it makes you look foolish.
___________________________________
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.
The word sectarian appears nowhere in the Constitution.
Who said it did? Another silly distractive comment, which only shows your inability to address the facts. -- State supported religions are not Constitutional under a Republican form of government.
Once again, your claims can only be ignorance or lies.
Once again you are reduced to unsupported personal attack.
______________________________________
The old grandfathered state supported religions were dying out...
These state religions were not "grandfathered" another claim you have fabricated and cannot support with a single source.
Keep begging those questions. -- That tactic is becoming quite amusing.
_____________________________________
The Mormons were trying to establish a sectarian state that allowed polygamy.
They were not attempting to establish a state religion. The issue was polygamy, not establishment.
Nit picking comment. They were trying to establish polygamy as a religious 'right' under a sectarian form of government.
The truth is that hateful, ignorant bigots like you distorted the law to deprive the practitioners of religions they despise the right to freely practice their faith.
Back to attack mode you go. How sad, and stupid of you to think that calling me names will shut me up. -- Or do you want to get the thread pulled or sent to the Backroom?
What's your reasoning behind all the flames, joe? Grandstanding?
You defend the destructive anti-Catholic "separation" agenda of the KKK member Hugo Black because of your irrational hatred of all religion and your desire to lord over your neighbors and rule them as a "philosopher king." Your tyrannical agenda is incompatible with American liberty and justice and it will soon come to an end.
Whatever.
You're off in loony tunes land again.
My claims are supported by Supreme Court rulings. You are the one begging the question by claiming that the BOR applied to the states outlawing "new" establishments of state religions, a claim that is completely unsupportable by either the plain language of the Constitution or any court ruling or legal opinions. You can provide no source to back up your specious claims because there are none.
Who said it did?
You said the Constitution "more than suggests, it rules out sectarian forms." It does not. This is another of your baseless and unsupported claims you just made up. You're a fraud who knows nothing of the law except commie lies.
State supported religions are not Constitutional under a Republican form of government.
If that's so, then why didn't the ratification of the Constitution abolish those state churches which already existed? You cannot answer this because you have tripped yourself up with your web of lies.
The truth is that the First amendment was meant to protect sectarianism and allow each state to decide for itself its own position on establishment, an arrangement rooted in Federalism which an ultra-nationalist such as yourself can only view with hostility.
They were trying to establish polygamy as a religious 'right' under a sectarian form of government.
You base your entire argument that new establishments were prohibited on the case of Utah, and when I point out that Utah did not even attempt to establish a state religion you call it nit-picking? It's not nit-picking, it's demolishing your unsupportable argument.
I call you a liar and a commie because you are one. You are also a coward and a sissy always crying about "take it to the back room."
I'll say what I have to say right here where everyone can see.
Ping me when you find any constitutional opinions or legal rulings at all that support your positions. I won't hold my breath.