Alan Keyes: On the establishment of religion: What the Constitution really says

Worldnetdaily ^ | 08/26/2003 | Alan Keyes

[Marysecretary]

I remember a few years back when the professors here used deToqueville's books. Now, not a one. We've come a long way--not.

[Marysecretary]

He's brilliant. I love this man. Wish he could be president after Bush. Sigh.

[gunnedah]

Congress is we aware of this but they are more interested in protecting their kingdoms.Congress acts like enforcers in the Mafia protecting their territory. The liberals in America are carrying us down the path to Communism or a dictatorship and there apparently is nothing that can be done unless we elect a strict conservative Congress. The liberals will never allow another Conservative Supreme Court Justice as long as they can filibuster the nomination and every Democrat that does not vote to over ride is a liberal or a coward.

[rwfromkansas]

Hot dang he wrote well. Wow.

[rwfromkansas]

Absolute lie?

I have done the research. Keyes is 100% right.

But, we all know where you come from with "tpaine" as your handle...

[rwfromkansas]

Only because they gave themselves that right. Jefferson called judicial review nothing short of "tyranny."

[johnb838]

Keyes for SCOTUS Bump.

Nail THAT to the door of the church.

[rwfromkansas]

Indoctrination by the schools influences even the opinons of the most educated.

There would not have been this wide divide in 1820.

[doodad]

I agree with your conclusion and have always read it that way myself, ie respecting meaning concerning. I believe that is the only conclusion given the recent history at the framer's time (such as William Penn and the state bearing his name). I believe the framers foresaw the establishment of states such as Utah where a group specifically formed as a religious unit free from governings of other groups.

[rwfromkansas]

If you read the founders, they have a strong belief in restriction on action by federal govt. authorities. However, the states are basically given free reign. Even so, even at the federal level, Jefferson and MAdison went to church in the govt. building of Congress. Church was held there! At least Jefferson gave federal funds to missionaries to build churches on Indian lands. If this isn't giving preference to one religion over another, I don't know what is. Note that this occurred after the First Amendment.

Hence, Jefferson and Madison supporting bills to punish Sabbath breakers in Virignia (they actually introduced the bill, which passed and remained on the books well after the First Amendment).

[Core_Conservative]

Man this guy can be wordy - but an excelent read!

[johnb838]

tyranny of the majority.

I'm more concerned about a "Tyranny of the Minorities" these days. It used to be people in the minority on various issues simply accepted it and went on. Now they seem to believe they have some inalienable right to boss the majority around. We have to change that.

[rwfromkansas]

Indeed, the BOR does apply to persons, but not the establishment clause particularly. The restriction is on Congress, not individuals.

[johnb838]

up to the STATE

They probably claimed it was covered under "interstate commerce."

[johnb838]

I believe Madison was an Episcopal Bishop as well.

[stuartcr]

I certainly wouldn't want to live in the 1820s. I think progress itself, influences most everyone.

[Sloth]

Yes, but 'free exercise' is for individuals... And I would argue that state-established religions inherently infringe on free exercise, by compelling my financial support of religious doctrines I may not agree with.

[Tax-chick]

Absolutely the best. Sometimes I think I'm a little bit educated, and then I think of Alan Keyes and get real. BTTT!

[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

POSTS #29,33,34, & 38 refutes your nonsense.

[TEXOKIE]

bttt