[betty boop]

Our founders had seen enough of state sanctioned men of God, who attempted to rule as if they had the power of God.

Indeed, tpaine -- they had seen enuf of "the divine right of kings." The DoI is full of complaints against royal privilege/abuse. Which is why, in our system, the people are nominally sovereign not, say, the president.

Thanks for the great essay/post! Not much to disagree with there! (Are you surprised? :^) )

[tpaine]

Sure, most of the founders were 'men of God', but they had a real respect for the tendency of religious establishments to grab power, and drafted the Constitution to prevent exactly that.
Legislators were forbidden to write laws "respecting an establishment of religion" -- while protecting its free exercise. -- And no religious test could be required as "Qualification to any Office or public Trust" in the USA.
Our founders had seen enough of state sanctioned men of God, who attempted to rule as if they had the power of God.

Indeed, tpaine -- they had seen enuf of "the divine right of kings." The DoI is full of complaints against royal privilege/abuse. Which is why, in our system, the people are nominally sovereign not, say, the president.
Thanks for the great essay/post! Not much to disagree with there! (Are you surprised? :^) )

Thanks Betty. - Your honesty doesn't surprise me, but I'm always amazed at how many disagree with the base principles behind our establishment/religious test clauses. [again, agreeing that prohibitionists have abused those clauses]