[tpaine]

PhilipFreneau wrote:

---- , you really do need to read the constitution carefully before pretending to be an authority. The 1st Amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". It does not prohibit the establishment of religion; it only prohibits the Congress from respecting the establishment of religion.


______________________________________


Freneau, you really do need to read the constitution carefully before pretending to be an authority.

The 1st Amendment reads:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

Thus it not only prohibits the establishment of a national religion; -- it also prevented Congress from writing any law about abolishing the existing State supported colonial religions, and, --
-- it prohibits the Congress from respecting any of the 'establishments' of any religion.
Respecting AN establishment of religion, in that older sense of the word, meant respecting any of the precepts, dogmas, teachings, -- of any religion.

Using that obscure sense of meaning was a political masterstroke.

It broke the deadlock over the freedom of religion vs states rights controversy, and the 1st passed as written.

Phil, you really should read up about the battle to ratify our BOR's. Fascinating study of honest political compromise.

[Tailgunner Joe]

Respecting AN establishment of religion, in that older sense of the word, meant respecting any of the precepts, dogmas, teachings, -- of any religion.

Wrong.

[PhilipFreneau]

Thus it not only prohibits the establishment of a national religion; -- it also prevented Congress from writing any law about abolishing the existing State supported colonial religions, and, -- it prohibits the Congress from respecting any of the 'establishments' of any religion. Respecting AN establishment of religion, in that older sense of the word, meant respecting any of the precepts, dogmas, teachings, -- of any religion.

It meant no such thing. It meant that the general (federal) government could not show favoritism for one or several Christian sects over the others. That is all it meant. From George Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation of 1789, to the adoption of daily (Christian) congressional prayers, to Jefferson putting Christian chaplains on the federal payroll, to the Congress passing an Indian treaty that provided funding for a priest's salary and for the construction of a Christian church (which Jefferson signed), and to Jefferson authorizing the use of the War Office and Treasury building for Christian church services, the understanding of the religious clause by the founders was consistent. That history was revised in the 20th century by a bunch of communists calling themselves the "American Civil Liberties Union", and their revision was rammed down the throats of the American citizens by a corrupt, left-wing Supreme Court.

Over 100 years after the convention, the Supreme Court of 1892 ruled, "If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life, as expressed by its laws, its business, its customs, and its society, we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth. Among other matters note the following: The form of oath universally prevailing, concluding with an appeal to the Almighty; the custom of opening sessions of all deliberative bodies and most conventions with prayer; the prefatory words of all wills, "In the name of God, amen;" the laws respecting the observance of the Sabbath, with the general cessation of all secular business, and the closing of courts, legislatures, and other similar public assemblies on that day; the churches and church organizations which abound in every city, town, and hamlet; the multitude of charitable organizations existing everywhere under Christian auspices; the gigantic missionary associations, with general support, and aiming to establish Christian missions in every quarter of the globe. These and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation."

Phil, you really should read up about the battle to ratify our BOR's. Fascinating study of honest political compromise.

Paine, we have had this discussion before. You are being disingenious by pretending I have not read the available transcripts of the debates.