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

To: Levy78
1. It does not say that a government shall support religions. However, it does not say that government may not support religion.

2. I think it means exactly what it says. Congress shall make no established Church of America, a la the Church of England. Are you aware that most of the states had established churches? And during the Congressional debate of the First Amendment, it was understood that those institutions would not be impacted? Again, I think the folks who drafted it had a pretty good idea what they meant.
186 posted on 09/30/2004 6:20:49 PM PDT by radicalamericannationalist (Kurtz had the right answer but the wrong location.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies ]


To: radicalamericannationalist
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "

What does this line mean to you? 176 Levy78

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

'Rad' replies:

1. It does not say that a government shall support religions.
However, it does not say that government may not support religion.

You're simply denying the clear words of the framers, 'rad'. Our government cannot respect/support the various 'establishments' [precepts/dogmas/teachings] of religions.

2. I think it means exactly what it says. Congress shall make no established Church of America, a la the Church of England.

Backwards. Congress shall make no 'law' regarding the establishments of such religions. Period.

Are you aware that most of the states had established churches?

Are you aware that under a republican form of government, a State supported church would be unconstitutional? Thus, the 1st 'grandfathered in' the existing State churches, but allowed no more, as Utah was soon to find out.

And during the Congressional debate of the First Amendment, it was understood that those institutions would not be impacted? Again, I think the folks who drafted it had a pretty good idea what they meant.

Indeed they did. They compromised, and won..
The old Colonial 'institutions' died out very quickly. No more were allowed.

191 posted on 09/30/2004 7:03:09 PM PDT by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | 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