All I'm saying is there is no "wall of separation" language in the Constitution itself.
My original point above was that the establishment clause, and the no religious test clause, -- clearly show that the founders did want such a separation. I thought you agreed.
We had this exchange:
Me: The Framers were very wise and very judicious in the reconciliation they thus achieved -- freedom for religious belief without any meddling or favoritism WRT religious matters by the [fed/state/local] government. This was the understanding that they deliberately enshrined in the Constitution.
You: We can agree, if you accept my 'bold' addition.
With all due respect for your prodigious knowledge of the Constitution, tpaine, and your keen meditation of it, I'm not sure I can accept your "'bold' addition," if by it you mean that the federal Constitution also applies to the state and local governments on religious matters.
I think its clear that our Law of the Land applies to State/local governments. -- Read Art VI on State constitutions & laws.
I think that's still an open question. I guess the answer depends on the reach of the 14th Amendment.
The 14th was enacted to clarify the erroneous 'states rights' insistence that Art VI did not apply to the States. It failed.
But after all this time, that is still unclear: At least it seems Supreme Court justices have been very choosey about what federally-recognized constitutional rights to "incorporate" under the 14th amendment for application to the States.
Yep, its clear that their whole 'incorporation' house of cards will fail if the 2nd is applied to States. --- Why conservatives -want- states to have the power to prohibit guns is sure unclear to me.
What is clear, however, is the federal Constitution envisions and, under the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, gives primacy to federal constitutional law; while at the same time, the Constitution also envisions a separation and balance of power between the federal government and the States'.
We agree again. Are you surprised?
It seems to me if the feds were to become overwhelmingly dominant in this sphere of power relations, then we'd probably have a totalitarian dictatorship on our hands. FWIW.
The feds are just as bound as state/local governments. It's up to 'we the people' to keep ALL gov'ts obeying the Constitution.
Plus recall that the religion clauses of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights were primarily designed to be assurances to the States that the feds would not transgress the States' own prerogatives, customs, and liberties in this regard.
And it worked, -- the feds didn't transgress, and the existing State religions withered away. -- By 1848, when the Mormons tried to enshrine a state religion in Utah's new Constitution, the concept was rejected. - Only republican forms of government were approved for admission to the Union.
It's an interesting, unresolved tension. Maybe it shouldn't ever be "finally resolved" for the above reason.
States have enormous powers to reject federal transgressions.
They do not do so for political reasons, not constitutional ones. -- Can you agree on this specific point?
tpaine replied: And it worked, -- the feds didn't transgress, and the existing State religions withered away.
Jeepers, tpaine, you speak as if you think the "withering away" of religion is a good thing.
I wonder why. Consider these lines from Trenchard & Gordon:
All men are born free; Liberty is a Gift they receive from God; nor can they alienate the same by Consent, though possibly they may forfeit it by crimes....Trenchard & Gordon were major exponents of the "libertarian" political philosophy of John Locke; Cato's Letters were widely read in the American Colonies, and highly influential in shaping early American political thought and attitudes. The above lines are the classical libertarian expression regarding the ultimate foundation of a just political order. The Creator God justifies and guarantees the sphere of human liberty; His eternal Equity is the standard and measure of the individual and public good.Liberty is the power which every man has over his own Actions, and the Right to enjoy the Fruit of his Labor, Art, and Industry, as far as by it he hurts not the Society, or any Member of it, by taking from any Member, or by hindering him from enjoying what he himself enjoys.
The fruits of a Man's honest industry are the just rewards of it, ascertained to him by natural and eternal Equity, as is his Title to use them in the Manner which he thinks fit: And thus, with the above Limitations, every Man is sole Lord and Arbiter of his own private Actions and Property.... [Cato's Letters]
Why would you want to dispense with God?
Just wondering....