To: Sandy
She may be right that the two clauses are in conflict, but this is a pretty weak article. The Framers wanted only to insure that there would be no established church at the national level. States did have established churches, well into the 19th Century in Massachusetts's case. Given that most states had school prayer down to 1962, she clear can't base her case on the Framers or on any original intention to remove religion entirely from the public square.
7 posted on
08/21/2003 8:00:01 PM PDT by
x
To: x
this is a pretty weak articleI just like her style. She rips Moore and rips the Court precendents. And she made me laugh. That's why I posted it.
8 posted on
08/21/2003 8:07:03 PM PDT by
Sandy
To: x
She may be right that the two clauses are in conflict, but this is a pretty weak article. The Framers wanted only to insure that there would be no established church at the national level.The two clauses are not in conflict. Taken together, they establish a principle of non-interference with religious matters. The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion and freedom from religion. Taken together, they guarantee that Americans have the right to choose their religious affiliation.
A gift to none is ultimately a gift to all.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson