About those anti-aviatoin newsgroups

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

Of course it is. The exact words "separation of church and state" don't
appear, of course. But the intent is clear.


The exact words are, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". The intent is
clearly to prevent the US Congress from making a law establishing a national
religion or any law prohibiting the free exercise of one's religion.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
k.net...
The exact words are, "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". The intent is
clearly to prevent the US Congress from making a law establishing a
national
religion or any law prohibiting the free exercise of one's religion.

Seems to me "respecting an establishment of religion" refers to laws based
on religion, not the establishment of a national religion. If they wanted
to limit it to prohibiting only the establishment of a national religion,
they would have written "THE establishment of A NATIONAL religion", not "an
establishment of religion".

Don't worry though...I know that you'll disagree 'til you're blue in the
face. So feel free to disagree once again. Don't bother me none. There is
ample interpretive precedent that disagrees with you, and I have no need to
engage in a futile effort to change your mind.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:


Seems to me "respecting an establishment of religion" refers to laws based
on religion, not the establishment of a national religion. If they wanted
to limit it to prohibiting only the establishment of a national religion,
they would have written "THE establishment of A NATIONAL religion", not "an
establishment of religion".

You'd think that. England had/has a national religion. We wanted to
avoid that. It could have been written a whole lot clearer, just like
the second ammendment could have been written clearer, even though the
intent is obvious. I suspect they thought it was plenty clear at the
time they wrote and approved it.

"Newps" wrote in message news:SVs0b.202258$uu5.36211@sccrnsc04...

You'd think that. England had/has a national religion.

and not just England. Every major European power at the time had an
established religion.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ...
If they wanted
to limit it to prohibiting only the establishment of a national religion,
they would have written "THE establishment of A NATIONAL religion", not "an
establishment of religion".

National would be redundant. Establishment doesn't mean "creation" in this
context, it means giving official recognition by the government. Since the constitution
lays out the powers and limitations of the NATIONAL government, that's pretty much
what they mean.

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
. ..
National would be redundant. Establishment doesn't mean "creation" in
this
context, it means giving official recognition by the government.

And would not a law passed based solely on religious beliefs be "official
recognition"?

I agree that establishment doesn't mean creation in this context. That was
my point.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ...
"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
. ..
National would be redundant. Establishment doesn't mean "creation" in
this
context, it means giving official recognition by the government.

And would not a law passed based solely on religious beliefs be "official
recognition"?

I agree that establishment doesn't mean creation in this context. That was
my point.

Then I don't understand you point. The ammendement says congress may not
establish a religion. Do you think that the rule is limitted to a national religion or
congress establishing one for Maryland alone?

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

Seems to me "respecting an establishment of religion" refers to laws based
on religion, not the establishment of a national religion. If they wanted
to limit it to prohibiting only the establishment of a national religion,
they would have written "THE establishment of A NATIONAL religion", not
"an
establishment of religion".


It's the US Congress, Peter, that's the national government.



Don't worry though...I know that you'll disagree 'til you're blue in the
face. So feel free to disagree once again. Don't bother me none. There
is
ample interpretive precedent that disagrees with you, and I have no need
to
engage in a futile effort to change your mind.


It's not me you're disagreeing with, Peter, you're disagreeing with the 1st
Amendment.