Liberal Atheists are at it again.

[firstfloor]

“If congress shall make no law respecting ….”
How many such laws are banned?
Answer – any number you like.
In other words, the first amendment although brief is exceedingly broad in its potential application.

[Darth Ovious]

Atheists.jpg

[Cow Poke]

I don't understand why you're not getting this. Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was in response to concerns that there would be a "state religion", and it was made clear -- in a very "religious way", by the way - by Jefferson that there would not be. ......

I just want to be clear that I wasn't implying that PM was referencing this letter from Jefferson, but it's at the heart of this whole "establishment clause" thing. The whole "freedom of religion" thing didn't happen in a vacuum.

[Cow Poke]

“If congress shall make no law respecting ….”
How many such laws are banned?
Answer – any number you like.
In other words, the first amendment although brief is exceedingly broad in its potential application.

But you ignore the part where is says "or prohibit the free exercise thereof". In total, it says "Congress should mind its own stinkin' business, and religion ain't it!"

[firstfloor]

My understanding is that these laws are for the protection of religion and against intrusion by the state and it works the other way too to protect the state against religious intrusion although that aspect is less obvious. A theocratic state is established by definition. For example, it guards against an Islamic state as much as it guards against a Christian one.

[Psychic Missile]

I don't understand why you're not getting this. Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was in response to concerns that there would be a "state religion", and it was made clear -- in a very "religious way", by the way - by Jefferson that there would not be.

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

bolding mine, of course

This is in favor of my opinion, which is that the establishment clause's purpose is to protect religious minorities, since this exchange was based on a religious minority concerned that they will be persecuted by a religious majority. I do not dispute that the founding fathers tolerated a greater mingling of religiosity and governance than modern America.

[JimL]

But you ignore the part where is says "or prohibit the free exercise thereof". In total, it says "Congress should mind its own stinkin' business, and religion ain't it!"

And so too should public schools mind their own stinkin' business when it comes to the religious beliefs, or lack thereof, of their students.

[Mountain Man]

Don't religious minorities have the most to fear from the state establishing or restricting religious expression? Didn't the founding father's distaste for the English church come from the treatment of minority Christian sects? What does the religious majority have to fear if their religion becomes the state church and dissent is made illegal?

Depends on what religion the state establishes, doesn't it? It would seem to me that if the state establishes a religion then it will be the religion of those who happen to be in power, which won't necessarily be the religion of the majority, or perhaps a corrupted version of what the majority practices . I would say that every person who practices religion has something to fear when those in power get it in their heads to usurp the church, which is basically what happened when the English government established the Church of England.

The First Amendment has nothing at all to do with protecting religious minorities. It's not the primary purpose, secondary purpose, tertiary purpose; on the contrary, its only purpose is to keep government out of religion. Period. To put it another way, under the First Amendment, religious minorities and religious majorities enjoy equal protection.

[One Bad Pig]

Mutual understanding does not have to involve agreement. All that is required is the ability to present your opponents argument accurately. That way we show that we understand the other person’s point of view. We hardly ever see that either.

I agree. However, in what world is calling your opponents' view "superstition" an accurate presentation of their argument? This is why I call you an obvious troll. You know better, yet you make such obviously outrageous statements anyway.

[Cow Poke]

And so too should public schools mind their own stinkin' business when it comes to the religious beliefs, or lack thereof, of their students.

Well, let's add you to that list, Jimmy, coming to a Christian-run website lying about your faith designation --- why don't you take your cowardly little deceptive self out of here and mind YOUR own stinkin' business.

[JimL]

Well, let's add you to that list, Jimmy, coming to a Christian-run website lying about your faith designation --- why don't you take your cowardly little deceptive self out of here and mind YOUR own stinkin' business.

Care to substantiate that accusation CP, or are you not beholden to the Christian-run website rules concerning accusations of lying here? Can't wait to see the moderaters spin on this one.

[Cow Poke]

Care to substantiate that accusation CP,

Absolutely, Jimmy -- even though when YOU are called on to substantiate an accusation you run away like a little girl at a rattlesnake roundup!

So, you're finally admitting that you've been deceptive about your claim to be an "Agnostic"? You're coming out of the closet, Jimmy?

Admitted that long ago CP, but there is little difference between the two. If you have no opinion either way, then you don't believe!

Your "explanation" exposed your profound ignorance.

or are you not beholden to the Christian-run website rules concerning accusations of lying here?

I certainly am.

Can't wait to see the moderaters spin on this one.

It's "moderator", and there would be an apostrophe, since it's possessive. In this case, you probably intended plural moderators, so the apostrophe would go after the 's' - moderators' spin.

pee-wee.jpg

[Tassman]

No Tass, again, it does not violate the Constitution as written, that Amendment was never meant to prevent such things as school prayer or religious displays on public property.

The SCOTUS has ruled otherwise, so stop whining.

There wasn't even that intent by the Founders given what they allowed and even did. Just because 200 years later liberal unconstitutional judges changed the meaning and intent does not make them right.

There were many religion-based hangovers dating from prior to the Constitution. Until and unless they are challenged and brought before the courts they continue unabated. This doesn’t make them right or in accordance with the Constitution. School prayer is one of these things.

[Tassman]

I find it hilarious and extremely arrogant that liberals today try to ignore 200 years of history and what the founding fathers and the US government actually showing what they meant by the constitution and bill of rights by allowing prayer in school and religious displays on government property --- and claim they now know what they "really meant" and they really meant that there should be a complete separation of church and state.

Quite the reverse! It is the likes of you who claim to know what the founding fathers "really meant". It’s “hilarious and extremely arrogant” that you claim to know better than the Supreme Court whose actual role it is to interpret what the founding fathers “really meant”...it's not your role.

If they actually believed that back then, then why did they not implement it that way for 200 years?

It’s implemented that way if challenged and brought before the courts for a ruling over a disputed tradition. Otherwise the churches just keep on keeping on as though Christianity is the established religion. It’s not.

[Psychic Missile]

Depends on what religion the state establishes, doesn't it? It would seem to me that if the state establishes a religion then it will be the religion of those who happen to be in power, which won't necessarily be the religion of the majority, or perhaps a corrupted version of what the majority practices . I would say that every person who practices religion has something to fear when those in power get it in their heads to usurp the church, which is basically what happened when the English government established the Church of England.

The First Amendment has nothing at all to do with protecting religious minorities. It's not the primary purpose, secondary purpose, tertiary purpose; on the contrary, its only purpose is to keep government out of religion. Period. To put it another way, under the First Amendment, religious minorities and religious majorities enjoy equal protection.

Do you believe that the right to free speech's* primary purpose is to protect minority opinions? Also, if you imagine a dominant minority scenario, you can assume I refer to that group when I say majority.

* as per the First Amendment