Replies

For religious liberty is part of the body, the corpus, of fundamental liberties guaranteed by the 14th Amendment:
"No state shall deprive any person of ... liberty ... without due process of law."

That is precisely the heart of the argument.

Indeed it is. How can you argue against the principle of religious liberty? Why would you want a state to have powers to deprive anyone of them?

How can an Amendment, to wit the 14th, which was never intended to extend the reach of the 1st, now apply to the states?

It was WRITTEN to apply ALL of the BOR's to the states. - Sheesh.

And upon what possible legal ground was incorporation of the first clause of the 1st Amendment actually made? The liberty propounded in the 1st clause of the 1st Amendment is a collective right granted to the people and to the state-

Ahh, comes the dawn. You believe in "collective" rights that are "granted". Who does the 'granting'?

not an individual liberty as is expressed in the second clause of the same amendment.

Odd, fractionated view of religious rights.
Where did you come up with this 'collective' idea?

I am afraid I have been insufficiently articulate to explain the fact that the 'establishment clause' of the 1st Amendment prohibits the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT from establishing a state religion. ""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ..." The Supreme Court of the United States has consistently ruled that the First Amendment forbids an establishment of religion and that the 14th Amendment applies this prohibition to the states. It does not. And, as Keyes has correctly observed, 'the first clause deals with a right of the people (that is, a power of government reserved to the states and to the people), the second clause deals with an action or set of actions (the free exercise of religion) that cannot be free unless they originate in individual choice. The first clause of the 1st Amendment forbids Congress to address a subject at all. The second clause allows for federal action, but restricts the character of such action.'

This is subtle, so pay close attention! The first clause protects the state and the people collectively from usurpation of power by the federal government. The second protects individuals. As Keyes so eloquently states, they (and you) ignore the distinction between the individual right to free exercise of religion and the right of the people to decide their government's religious stance.