Really, you shouldn't let your self-image suffer so badly that you refer to yourself as "no one".
As for the Spanish Inquisition: it was well-intentioned in creation
Me too. It's a good thing that no one would be forced to practice any particular religion should my proposed amendment pass, isn't it?
...this is supposed to be a FREE nation, where anyone can worship (or not) as he or she sees fit.
How would my proposed amendment change that?
If you want to know why we were specifically designed NOT to be a theocracy, look to Iran under the Ayatollahs or Afghanistan under the Taliban. For that matter, look to Spain during the Inquisition.
No one is proposing anything like Iran. All my amendment would do is allow states to establish a given religion as the officially-acknowledged state religion. No one could be forced to practice it, since such coercion would violate the first section of the amendment itself, as well as other Constitutiional protections.
As for the Spanish Inquisition: it was well-intentioned in creation (as a tool to root out genuine heretics and traitors) but flawed in practice (as a tool of the house of Aragon and Castile to root out their enemies). In any case, my proposal has nothing to do with creating any Inquisition. (A well-run Inquisition of the USCCB, administered by competent authority, wouldn't be a bad thing today in my opinion.) It has everything to do with providing an ethical basis for society and law.
There are at least dozens of similar examples of such paragons of free thought and liberty in history.
And there are dozens examples of "free republics" where the practice of the Christian religion was legally guaranteed -- like the USSR, Mexico under Diaz, Poland (pre-1989), and the granddaddy of all democracies, revolutionary France. (Look up the Vendée for a real eye-opener). The République Libre killed thousands, commited regicide, and even trashed the Cathedral of Notre Dame (they set up an idol of the goddess Liberty where the Cross and altar once stood). Their philosophical heirs are still doing so today.
I invite anyone from any level of government to come to my house and impose the state religion on me. Then they'll understand (for a fraction of a second) why we have the 2nd Amendment.
Thanks for the testosterone check, soldier.
Like the first amendment, Section I of yours specifiies Congress, not state legislatures.
Yeah right, that is what they said about seat belt laws, think we should trust them not to enforce this?
Really, you shouldn't let your self-image suffer so badly that you refer to yourself as "no one".
As for the Spanish Inquisition: it was well-intentioned in creation
Well, then, you are proposing an "establishment" of religion in the form of a symbolic declaration that carries no more legal weight than the designation of an official state flower, insect, fossil, etc.
It hardly seems to rise to the level of a good wrestling match.