[P_A_I]

Risk wrote:

What the Christian right proposes is a retreat into theocracy, an abandonment of the original intent of the most enlightened founding fathers.
We know how that works. We know that men are incapable of representing God's will in the form of government authority.

Anything that revises history to suggest that the separation of church and state was never the true intention of the constitution, or that individuals in particular states weren't protected from religious prejudices in government. [Has it wrong]


______________________________________


Raycpa replies:

Sigh...I already demonstrated that this is flat out wrong and yet you continue to insist it is true. You even apologized for your mistake.

Isolation from participation in Gov't based on religion was the norm. The only argument was "WHICH" Christian denomination was the norm.

---

Sigh.. -- The original intent of the founders was made clear in Article VI. Our US Constitution was to be the supreme 'Law of the Land'.
The 1st Amendment then made clear that legislators were to "make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

Thus it is crystal clear; --- no specific denomination of religion was to be respected, by law, as the 'norm'..

[Raycpa]

The various states certainly required adherence to specific Christian religions. Any argument that this was not true is either based on ignorance or arrogance.

[Terriergal]

"make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Thus it is crystal clear; --- no specific denomination of religion was to be respected, by law, as the 'norm'..

Prooftext much?

[risk]

Thus it is crystal clear; --- no specific denomination of religion was to be respected, by law, as the 'norm'..

Moreover, I would argue that this conclusion has merit. Religious freedom is best defended when the government remains neutral toward religion, and laws are enacted and upheld using reason and persuasion alone.

Other positions might sound good, but they're fraught with danger. The Christian right argues that these documents mean such and such, so they're positions are valid. I would ask why we should believe that their positions have any merit.