From Atheist to Catholic (‘Unshakable’ Rationalist Blogged Her Way Into the Church)

Yes. I thought the Church’s views on most things, but especially marriage, contraception and abortion (since I was then ardently pro-choice), were simply crazy. Joe’s anti-Catholicism, while different, was stronger and more settled. He didn’t understand any Catholic doctrine or apologetics, so he fell into a stereotyped view of Catholics, thinking that they made idols of the pope and Mary, etc

So Joe's aversion to Catholicism was pretty similar to her aversion to theism--both picked up somehow along the way, ardently held because both were obviously right, and never questioned because both were obviously right, and the lack of any good answers to the unasked questions accepted as evidence that neither had any good foundation in fact.

I'm not sure. But I don't think it's a coincidence that the word God isn't anywhere in the Constitution, and that the two most important facets of the document pertaining to religion are 1) the government cannot make any law that establishes religion and 2)that everyone is free to exercise religion without state interference.

You're not using constitutional language in 1) above, but something that has come about by the "wall of separation" crowd. A more accurate summary of this in the light of the history of the Constitution would be: 1) Congress shall not through legislation favor a particular church or sect over others (because nothing higher than one of the signing states could have an official state church), 2) Nor can Congress through legislation prohibit the free exercise of a particular church or religious sect.

Here is how language was morphed to mean that if any level of government permits any religious activity or symbol it is "establishing religion." The relevant phrase in the First Amendment is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." This specific language was loosened by changing "respecting" to mean "with respect to" and "an establishment of religion (ie, a religious organization)" to mean "the establishing of religion." From there, people said that whatever applied to Congress applied to the entire federal government and whatever applied to the federal government should apply to all state, county, and municipal governments and that the First Amendment wasn't talking about a specific religious establishment but anything of any religious nature whatsoever. This totalitarian approach to government was the exact opposite of what the Founders intended by creating, through the Constitution, a federal government that would operate only according to specific and enumerated powers, leaving everything else up to the individual states as they saw fit, and to the people.

You're not using constitutional language in 1) above, but something that has come about by the "wall of separation" crowd. A more accurate summary of this in the light of the history of the Constitution would be: 1) Congress shall not through legislation favor a particular church or sect over others (because nothing higher than one of the signing states could have an official state church), 2) Nor can Congress through legislation prohibit the free exercise of a particular church or religious sect.

The wall of separation as Jefferson envisioned it meant that the government and its leaders were not Constitutionally bound to answer to any religious authority, clergy, church, etc.

They also included the clause in Article VI about there being absolutely no religious test to hold office.

The Bill of Rights is an enumeration of personal liberties. It doesn't refer to a particular church or sect, but to the individual. The government cannot force anyone to follow any particular religion, or prohibit free religious exercise.

Gee, nice try, but since the language itself doesn't allow that interpretation, you're out of luck; "an establishment of religion" is not referring to the activity of an individual. Here are the Amendments that are not directed specifically to an individual:

First Amendment: "an establishment of religion" (not an individual but an organization; "of the press" (again, not an individual, but a profession or an activity pursued by associations of individuals or the aggregate group of individuals who engage in activity collectively known as "the press"), "the right of the people to peaceably assemble (again, a group).

Second Amendment: talks about the people's right to bear arms, it's referring to more than just "individuals".

Ninth Amendment: refers to the people at large.

Tenth Amendment: the power of the states and people. Again, not a specific "individual right."

The wall of separation as Jefferson envisioned it meant that the government and its leaders were not Constitutionally bound to answer to any religious authority, clergy, church, etc.

You got that backwards. He saw that the government and its leaders were constitutionally bound not to give particular favor to a religious organization. Besides, this idea of a "wall of separation" is not itself Constitutional and never was.

Second Amendment: talks about the people's right to bear arms, it's referring to more than just "individuals".

Wow, that's a knee slapper. You might as well go lobby for the Bradys.

'The People' refers to every individual citizen in the country. The Constitution does not break anyone up into groups.

Second Amendment: talks about the people's right to bear arms, it's referring to more than just "individuals". Wow, that's a knee slapper. You might as well go lobby for the Bradys.

Don't read too clearly, do you? That may be part of the reason you can read "an establishment of religion" and think there's a verb in there. What part of "more than" do you not understand? I didn't say that it didn't refer to individuals (as probably the Bradys do). "more than" is not equivalent to "other than." If you recall, it was you who said that the Bill of Rights was referring to individuals. I pointed out that the BoR was referring to individuals and associations or groups of individuals and states. And then you come back with something so gratuitous as "you might as well go lobby for the Bradys." Red herrings don't win arguments; they only draw attention to the weakness of the argument of the one tossing them about.

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.