Larry W wrote:
In article ,
Han wrote:
Steve Barker wrote in
:

On 1/25/2012 11:16 PM, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:


Except for that pesky 1st amendment thing of separating church and
state.


it just makes me sick that this amendment is taken out of context
constantly. It was written to keep the Government out of the
church. NOT to keep the church out of the government. There IS no
separation, and those words 'church and state' do not appear in the
text.

It irks me just a pesky little bit, but as an agnostic,it's just a
really tiny little bit. It's your SCOTUS who have interpreted the
amendment to mean that the state shouldn't interfere in church and
religious businesses, and tha includes offically allowing/sponsoring
religious expressions. I think that is generally a goodT thing. As
mentioned I'm against anything that allows or sponsors proselytizing.


From a constructionist perspective, one does not have to do much
research into the writings of the founders to find that their
intention was indeed to erect a wall of separation between church and
state. Thomas Jefferson himself used the phrase as early as 1802 to
describe the intent of the "establishment clause."

Er, no. It wasn't until 1946 that the so-called "Establishment of Religion"
clause was imposed upon the states. Until that time, any state could have a
"state sponsored" religion.

For example, the Massachusetts Constitution read, in part:

"...the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature
with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to
time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and
other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at
their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for
the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion
and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made
voluntarily."