"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

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."

Yes, the colony was established by people fleeing religious persecution
in England, and established a most similar religiously persecuting
community in the new colony. Has been often held up for ridicule.
Wasn't Rhode Island established by religious refugees from Mass.?

The fact that something is or was established by (civil or religious)
law, doesn't make it righteous! (which is of course only in the eye of
the beholder)

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid