[cizinec]

“clearly the founders saw no problem with a State Church . . .”

That is patently false. Madison argued against it. Jefferson argued against it. Many of the founders argued against it. They argued against it at the STATE level. The fact that they weren’t unconstitutional at the federal level at the time does *not* mean they did not violate individual, God-given rights.

There are NO questions about whether or not the 14th Ammendment applies. The Supremes have ruled time and time again that it does, beginning with Everson. Are you people really this thick? Are you such backwards libtards that the only difference between you and Obama is in what you’ll ban and fund?

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

I don't appreciate being called a backwards libtard. And I wasn't speaking to the case in question. I was just pointing out that until 1833 we DID have States in our union that had State Churches.

And if the founders, i.e. the men who ratified the Constitution and established our government, had been opposed to it across the board, then that would not have happened. You can argue about this person's views or that person's views, but it was Constitutional.

The 14th amendment has been used to assert rights of individuals that were originally held only in the U.S. Constitution, but the restrictions of privileges afforded to States being constrained by the 14th amendment doesn't have as clear of a history. That's why I said there were “questions”. If there were not “questions”, then the Supreme Court would not take up cases dealing with the subject on occasion.

[beelzepug]

“Are you people really this thick?”

Settle down, pal. You’re bitin’ off way more than you can chew.