[Dan Evans]

Are you a liberal? The reason I ask is liberals use the same kind of vague and twisted logic that you do. It is like you are trying to argue that 2+2=5.

And liberals are famous for finding "new rights" in the penumbras of the Constitution. They see things that aren't there. It is like they are hallucinating.

You invent the concept of "grandfathering" although the word does not appear in the Constitution.

When I point out state law (state constitutions) accepted after the Constitution was written that specifically respect establishments of religion, you say that "political compromises were made".

You try to say that the meaning of words change when people agree to a document, that swearing an oath to obey the Constitution changes the word "Congress" to "the States".

Apply Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation that explains all the observations is that the Constitution means what it says. Instead you try to say it means something different from what it says and evidence to the contrary was just a "political compromise" or an unwritten "grandfather clause".

[jonestown]

You've stooped to making personal observations because you can't refute the plain words I use to explain the plain words of our Constitution.

Indeed, those words mean what they say, in the context of the day & the men that wrote them.

You say the founders never intended that the 1st amendment should apply to states, - that State religions are OK.

I say the founders got what they intended in religious freedom. - We have a union of States where religion is kept out of government, and no religious test is required to hold office.