Quote:
TSGracchus
Which is exactly what posting the Ten Commandments in a courtroom would do. Note that the 1A doesn't say "Congress shall make no law establishing a state religion," but rather "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion" -- no law that even squints that direction, is how I would interpret this. I'm entirely with Jefferson on this question.
|
You mean the Jefferson who attended church services in a building of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT the same week he wrote the utterly misinterpreted words (which by the way are nowhere in the Constitution) "wall of separation between church and state"? Even Jefferson's own actions indicate that Jefferson didn't mean his words to be as draconian in scope as you would interpret them.
Quote:
TSGacchus
Congress in its own internal workings is not governed by the same laws that apply between the government and the people.
|
Really? CONGRESS shall pass no law. Where does the First Amendment say (except for where it concerns the internal workings of Congress?).
Quote:
TSGracchus
I was unaware that federal buildings could be used for religious services. Can you give a specific example?
|
From the earliest days of our Republica, and until anti-religious idiots started pervading the courts, public buildings were routinely used for religious services. As I mentioned previously, the same week Jefferson wrote the letter containing the "wall of separation between church and state" he attended just such a service.
Quote:
TSGracchus
If federal buildings can be rented for religious services, that might be acceptable provided they are available equally to all comers. This would not in itself imply government endorsement of any religion.
|
They weren't rented out,t hey were made available, without reimbursement. NOBODY seemed to think this violated the constitution, INCLUDING the man who wrote "wall of separation between church and state".
Also, there were chaplains paid for in the military from the earliest days, early congresses paid for bibles for distribution in the territories, etc. etc. ALL of which show that they did not understand the Establishment Clause to mandate nuetrality between secularism and religion.
Quote:
TSGracchus
Your opinion notwithstanding, it remains the law of the land. And clearly the 14th amendment DID intend that no state could deny the rights of citizens as guaranteed in the Constitution. That much it says unambiguously.
|
Really? Curious how it didn't use the word RIGHTS. Guess that was a typo!
Quote:
TSGRacchus
One has an implicit right to whatever the government is explicitly enjoined from denying. Thus, one has an implicit right not to have the government make any law "respecting" an establishment of religion, and specifically not to have another religion endorsed by the state over one's own.
Again, the language of the First Amendment is "respecting an establishment of religion," not merely "establishing a state religion."
|
And again, you ignore the plain meaning of the word ESTABLISHMENT. And the fact that the very congress that passed the Bill of Rights routinely did things which contradict your interpretation of the expansiveness of that clause.
Quote:
TSGracchus
As the Constitution does not require the government to be neutral on all subjects but only on that of religion, this is not a good comparison.
|
Then why did they keep doing things that YOU claim were prohibited by the amendment THEY passed? What is more rational to believe, that they either wilfully violated the very law the passed and sent to the states for ratification, or were somehow less aware of what it actually met that somebody born over a century and a half after it was ratifiedl; OR that they actually knew what the hell they had written and followed it accordingly, and that any interpretation of it that would contradict that is a bit unreasonable? Seriously!