Let us look at the text of both the first and second amendments:
1st Amendment
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.
2nd Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Let's examine the first phrase of the first amendment:
Congress shall make no law
Read that again. Congress shall make no law. Note the word “Congress” not also the word “shall”. Both are important. This is an absolute (shall) restriction on the Federal Government (Congress).
The second amendment does not restrict the Federal government, however. It goes beyond that. It says:
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Again note the strong word “shall”. Note also that the language is not restrictive. It is permissive. The amendment is not about restraining the powers of the government at any level. It is about providing full rights to “the people” without any infringement.
Now lets go to the meat of the matter, the 14th amendment, Section 1:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The portion that is important for this discussion is the phrase:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
Would the second amendment be affected by this phrase? No. The rights established in the second Amendment are the rights of the individual, not under any threat by State law to begin with.
What about the first amendment? The first amendment restricts the Federal government, so it could be argued that any restriction placed upon the Federal government is now placed upon the State. But is the establishment of a State Church by an individual State a “law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens”?
I would say it is, but I can also see where others might disagree. That is why we have the Supreme Court to decide disputes between States and the Federal Government.
Now to deal with the rest of this crap.
First you say: What you are arguing is that the Bill of Rights still does not apply to the states.
That is a lie. No where did I argue that.
Second you ask: Are you saying slavery wasn’t a violation of individuals’ natural rights because the framers didn’t state that to be the case in the Federal Constitution?
No I am not. The implication you try to assert is that if I agree with one, I must agree with the other.
Finally you say: Make no mistake, if your logic had any chance of winning it would be the end of America as the Land of the Free.
I am not “winning” or even attempting to. The fact that there were State churches in existence from 1789 to 1833 is relevant to the charge that the entire idea of a State church is Unconstitutional.
Once again, you can follow whatever twisted logic you need to defend your twisted position. I *am* stating that the states who created state “religions” prior to the 14th ammendment were twisted and, like states who legalized slavery, stood opposed to Natural Law.
It is my Natural Right as a free-born man to hold my religious faith and not be taxed to support the faith of others.
You don’t believe that is my right because because you hold, contrary to the rulings by the Supreme Court, the Constitution gives you the right via your state legislature to do dictate religion. I believe you are wrong and so does the U.S. Supreme Court.
Regardless of who is right on that point of Constitutional Law, if the Constitution stands against Natural Law, it will fail.