[rwfromkansas]

Face it, your view was not the view of the Supreme Court until the 20th century.

Give it up. Have a nice day.

[FredFlash]

Reynolds v. U. S. (1878) was in the 19th Century. It laid down the definition of religion and the rule that it was not within the cognizance of the government.


Prior to that the Court had never had to resolve a dispute under the religion clauses because the Federal Government did not write prayers and urge the people to say them, require Bible reading, post religious commandments or write and recommend affirmations of belief in one God over the Nation. There were cases where the principles of Total Separation were applied to non religion clause disputes citing the authority of the religion clauses. In other words the clauses were interpreted by the Court but not applied to the clauses. The cases are cited in Engel (1963) if you are interested.



************************************************************



The free exercise of religion right is to exercise your sentiments regarding the duties that you owe to the Creator according to the dictates of your conscience and convictions. You don’t have any right to exercise your sentiments regarding the duties that you owe to the Creator according to the dictates of the government and the conviction of some government stooge.