[x]

She may be right that the two clauses are in conflict, but this is a pretty weak article. The Framers wanted only to insure that there would be no established church at the national level. States did have established churches, well into the 19th Century in Massachusetts's case. Given that most states had school prayer down to 1962, she clear can't base her case on the Framers or on any original intention to remove religion entirely from the public square.

[Sandy]

this is a pretty weak article

I just like her style. She rips Moore and rips the Court precendents. And she made me laugh. That's why I posted it.

[powderhorn]

She may be right that the two clauses are in conflict, but this is a pretty weak article. The Framers wanted only to insure that there would be no established church at the national level.

The two clauses are not in conflict. Taken together, they establish a principle of non-interference with religious matters. The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion and freedom from religion. Taken together, they guarantee that Americans have the right to choose their religious affiliation.

A gift to none is ultimately a gift to all.