Disagree. The phrase refers to making one religion "legal", while any other religion would be outlawed or barred. The Founders were trying to avoid the religous purges that occurred in England (like Bloody Mary), and I believe were talking about Catholics vs. Protestants vs. Baptists, etc. Applying that today, I don't believe that the Founders would have a problem witha 10 Commandments monument on city or county property, or within a county/district courthouse. They would have a problem with rounding up people who worshiped a particular religion they didn't practice - stating that only Christianity will be practiced, and anyone practicing Judaism will be arrested and jailed.
With regard to the 10th Amendment, I know you know that the purpose of the Constitution and the initial amendments were designed to limit the power of the federal government. I doubt that the people who implemented the 14th Amendment, which was to redress slavery issues primarily, would appreciate the fact that it was used to apply the first 8 Amendments in toto to every state legislature.
Disagree. The phrase refers to making one religion "legal", while any other religion would be outlawed or barred. The Founders were trying to avoid the religous purges that occurred in England (like Bloody Mary), and I believe were talking about Catholics vs. Protestants vs. Baptists, etc.
No, they were trying to avoid any more state sponsored religions by forbidding new laws to be made 'respecting' the principles of other religions. - It worked, - state religions died away..
Applying that today, I don't believe that the Founders would have a problem witha 10 Commandments monument on city or county property, or within a county/district courthouse.
They wanted our various levels of government to be neutral to specific religions, as is clear by the 'no religious test for office' part of Art VI..
With regard to the 10th Amendment, I know you know that the purpose of the Constitution and the initial amendments were designed to limit the power of the federal government.
Why do you ignore the supremacy clause? It clearly limits state power. States are bound by it to support our BOR's.
I doubt that the people who implemented the 14th Amendment, which was to redress slavery issues primarily, would appreciate the fact that it was used to apply the first 8 Amendments in toto to every state legislature.
Read the ratification arguments from 1868.. Much of the debate was over the violation of ex-slaves RKBA's..
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF.
In removing the Ten Commandments from public property, the state is suppressing the practice of Christianity. While that may satisfy an extended view of the Establishment Clause, it clearly VIOLATES the Prohibition Clause.
Furthermore, as Dr. Keyes points out, the First Amendment applies only to CONGRESS. The amendment doesn't state "No governmental body shall ..." It simply states "Congress."
Of course they wouldn't. It's 180 degrees out of kilter with the intended purpose of the BoR's as you point out.