![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Stupid Question About Newsgroups | RST Engineering | General Aviation | 1 | January 17th 05 05:59 PM |
Re; What do you think? | Kelsibutt | Naval Aviation | 0 | September 29th 03 06:55 AM |
Newsgroups and Email | Jim Weir | Home Built | 8 | July 8th 03 11:30 PM |
Newsgroups and Email | Jim Weir | Owning | 8 | July 8th 03 11:30 PM |