[Drammach]

Justice Black wrote, “The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church.” This was partially correct--the First Amendment refers only to the federal government.
Black went on, however, to claim that it meant that neither state nor federal government was allowed to have anything whatsoever to do with any religion.
In this, he was wrong. Justice Black did not consider the historical framework of the Bill of Rights; he took a phrase out of context and twisted its meaning to suit his decision.

The author is incorrect in his interpretation, as many are..
Too many take the word "establishment" to be interpreted as a verb.. i.e., to "create" a church..
Judge Black interpreted the word establishment as a NOUN.. an organization, group, or entity..

Congress shall make no law regarding "religion".. period..

[Jim Noble]

Too many take the word "establishment" to be interpreted as a verb.. i.e., to "create" a church..

That was the exact meaning of "an establishment of religion" in 1788.

What may Congress not legislate about?

An establishment.

What kind of establishment?

Of religion.

What is an example?

The establishment of Congregationalism as the state religion of Connecticut.

So, Congress shall make no law which would have anything to do with Connecticut's decision to establish Congregationalism.

[epow]

Congress shall make no law regarding "religion".. period..

AFAIK Congress isn't making any laws regarding religion and hasn't for many decades, if ever. How does a display of the 10 Commandments on state property equate to Congress making a law respecting an establishment of religion? It is judges who have made and are making laws regarding religion, and their laws invariably support the religion of secular humanism.

It takes a very convoluted line of reasoning to interpret "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" as "government at any level shall not allow the display or mention of a Christian book, quotation, or symbol in or on any property owned or controlled by government". Notice that interpretation only applies to the Christian religion, children are taught about Islam and eastern mystical religions in many schools today without judicial interference.

I'm an evangelical Christian, but I don't want government teaching religion or favoring any one religion in law, that isn't the proper role of government. But neither do I want government forbidding individuals to exercise their religion or make their religious beliefs known in public schools or on public property. Kids have been banned from school buses for carrying a bible in their backpack, and sent home from school because of a Christian symbol on their clothing. That kind of anti-Christian intolerance is stretching the 1st Amendment far, far beyond anything the author's ever imagined.

[Parthalan]

The author is incorrect in his interpretation, as many are..
Too many take the word "establishment" to be interpreted as a verb.. i.e., to "create" a church..

Judge Black interpreted the word establishment as a NOUN.. an organization, group, or entity..

Congress shall make no law regarding "religion".. period..


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I'm not a English professor specializing in grammer but, doesn't the use of the words an establishment make it a noun? Had it said the establishment it would be a verb, right? If establishment doesn't mean to create a religion why make the next part of the statement of prohibiting the free exercise thereof?

I agree with you in part on this. I believe it should be used as both a noun and a verb.

Congress should not make a law respecting an establishment of religion (either the creation of a religion or the how the religion is operated), or prohibiting the free exercize thereof...

Getting back to the point. This "Establishment Clause" is not found "attached" to Amendment One of the Constitution of the United States. Or am I just looking in the wrong place? How then, can current Judges use this case as reasoning for the unconstitutionality of events like allowing the Boy Scouts of America to hold their event on Military property? Or any of the now thousands of cases that the ACLU is using to try to replace the foundation of this country.

I realize that this question is preaching to the choir but I'd still like to know.