Posted on 06/15/2004 6:17:07 PM PDT by tpaine
If it had, then the already established state churches would have been rendered illegal. They weren't because the First amendment was designed not to abolish state established religions but to protect them.
Thanks for linking to this thread Joe.
Perhaps it will lead others to read more about Thomas, who I believe may mature into the best conservative Justices the Court has ever had.
You beg the question by claiming that Republican government rules out sectarian forms. The Constitution says no such thing, nor did the Founders. If it had, then the already established state churches would have been rendered illegal. They weren't because the First amendment was designed not to abolish state established religions but to protect them.
The 1st "establishment clause" was intended to prevent the establishments of sectarian religions from ruling over the lives of 'We the People', joe
We fought for freedom from such old world concepts.
Thomas clearly points out that only since the 14th amendment applied the BOR to the states have state establishments of religion been prohibited even pointing out the "irony" that "an incorporated Establishment Clause prohibits exactly what the Establishment Clause protected--state practices that pertain to "an establishment of religion."
Thanks. This is definitely a good thread.
Thomas clearly points out that only since the 14th amendment applied the BOR to the states have state establishments of religion been prohibited even pointing out the "irony" that "an incorporated Establishment Clause prohibits exactly what the Establishment Clause protected--state practices that pertain to "an establishment of religion.
There is no irony, thats exactly where Thomas, [and you] are confused. -- Thomas wrote:
"But even assuming that the Establishment Clause precludes the Federal Government from establishing a national religion, it does not follow that the Clause created or protects any individual right."
The 1st's "establishment clause" was intended, in part, to prevent the establishments of sectarian religions from ruling over the lives of 'We the People'.
We fought for freedom from such old world concepts.
That ~is~ the "individual right".
"For the reasons discussed above, it is more likely that States and only States were the direct beneficiaries. Moreover, incorporation of this putative individual right leads to a peculiar outcome:
It would prohibit precisely what the Establishment Clause was intended to protect--state establishments of religion.
Exactly. -- To protect our individual right to be free of State supported religions, 'we' demanded freedom ~from~ such religions as well as freedom ~of~ religion.
Such a right is not "putative", not supposed.. It is very real.
Try to tell me I have to support a State Church, And I will run for the ballot box, and also to the Courts for redress.
Insist that I do so, -- and unintended consequences may arise.
Justice Joseph Story was even more explicit: "The real object of the First Amendment was not to countenance much less to advance Mohammedanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity, but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects [denominations] and to prevent any national ecclesiastical patronage of the national government." - Commentaries on the Constitution
Your nationalist interpretation of the BOR does not resemble the intent of the Founders and is inimical to federalism.
As Thomas states, the First Amendment was not intended to prevent the establishment of state religions, but precisely the opposite, to protect the independence of such establishments from encroachment by a national religion.
thats exactly where Thomas, [and you] are confused. -- Thomas wrote:
"But even assuming that the Establishment Clause precludes the Federal Government from establishing a national religion, it does not follow that the Clause created or protects any individual right."
The 1st's "establishment clause" was intended, in part, to prevent the establishments of sectarian religions from ruling over the lives of 'We the People'.
We fought for freedom from such old world concepts.
That ~is~ the "individual right".
-- To protect our individual right to be free of State supported religions, 'we' demanded freedom ~from~ such religions as well as freedom ~of~ religion.
Such a right is not "putative", not supposed.. It is very real.
Try to tell me I have to support a State Church, And I will run for the ballot box, and also to the Courts for redress.
Insist that I do so, -- and unintended consequences may arise.
Justice Joseph Story was even more explicit: "The real object of the First Amendment was not to countenance much less to advance Mohammedanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity, but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects [denominations] and to prevent any national ecclesiastical patronage of the national government." - Commentaries on the Constitution
Story is as confused as you and Justice Thomas.
'We' have a right to be free of an 'official' Church, whether supported by Federal or State governments.
Your nationalist interpretation of the BOR does not resemble the intent of the Founders and is inimical to federalism.
I'm not 'nationalist'. I'm anti-statist.
You can keep your ACLU talking points.
My anti-statist pro-constitutional views are well established here at FR.
You look like a fool trying to connect me to the ACLU. - Keep up the good work.
In reality they are an Anti-Christian Communist front. You sound exactly like them.
You sound like an idiot.
You should reserve such scathing insults for the back room.
Tell it to JR.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.