<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">You haven't answered my question! Rather you are choosing an interpretation rejected by the Supreme court. "… make no law… prohibiting the free exercise thereof" does not imply disestablishment from established church-state connections of the time, but rather making no law prohibiting the free exercise o<i>f religion</i> (by non state agents). <div><br></div><div>Yes, arguments continue to fly back and forth by interested parties, but the Supreme court, whose responsibility is to interpret the Constitution, has spoken. </div><div><br></div><div>--mkb</div><div> <br><div><div>On Oct 20, 2010, at 8:10 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
The precise words: "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
- i.e., Congress is prohibited from either establishing a religion
(= church) where it isn't established, or disestablishing one where
it is established - as it was in six states in 1787.<br>
<br>
There isn't any argument on this point among legal scholars. If
you're impressed by Wikipedia accounts, see <br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment"><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment></a>
<br>
<br>
- or the Law Review article I cited, available through the
library. --CGE<br>
<br>
<br>
On 10/20/10 7:48 PM, Morton K. Brussel wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:AD06DD35-743E-43BC-94CB-5D156DBFFE98@illinois.edu" type="cite">"…And that's quite clear (sic): Congress was not
permitted to disestablish a church in any state where it was
established…"
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Please tell us where in the Constitution you find these
precise words". </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Evidently you are a greater authority on the Consititution
than the Supreme Court, as per the Wikipedia statement
cited. Constitution</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<div>
<div>On Oct 20, 2010, at 6:59 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> The question as posed
is what the Constitution said. And that's quite clear:
Congress was not permitted to disestablish a church in any
state where it was established (although of course the
state could do it itself).<br>
<br>
O'Donnell was correct that the Constitution did not
require the separation of church and state.<br>
<br>
<br>
On 10/20/10 6:53 PM, Morton K. Brussel wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:03288C77-88B2-466E-907A-989BC0DD377C@illinois.edu" type="cite"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Palatino">A more balanced reading comes from
Wikipedia, where there is an extended discussion. In
its opening statement there is the following:</font>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The metaphor [a wall of separation between church
and state] was intended, as The U.S. Supreme Court has
currently interpreted it since 1947, to mean that
religion and government must stay separate for the
benefit of both,<i><b> including the idea that the
government must not impose religion on Americans
nor create any law requiring it</b></i> (my
emphasis). It has since been in several opinions
handed down by the <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Supreme_Court" title="United States Supreme Court" class="mw-redirect">United States Supreme Court</a>,<sup id="cite_ref-0" class="reference"><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States#cite_note-0"><span>[</span>1<span>]</span></a></sup>
though the Court has not always fully embraced the
principle.<sup id="cite_ref-1" class="reference"><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States#cite_note-1"><span>[</span>2<span>]</span></a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-2" class="reference"><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States#cite_note-2"><span>[</span>3<span>]</span></a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-3" class="reference"><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States#cite_note-3"><span>[</span>4<span>]</span></a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-4" class="reference"><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States#cite_note-4"><span>[</span>5<span>]</span></a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-5" class="reference"><span><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States#cite_note-5">[</a></span><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States#cite_note-5">6</a><span><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States#cite_note-5">]</a></span></sup></div>
<div><sup id="cite_ref-5" class="reference"><br>
</sup></div>
<div style="font-size: 14px;"><sup id="cite_ref-5" class="reference"><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States</a></sup></div>
<div><sup id="cite_ref-5" class="reference"><br>
</sup></div>
<div><sup id="cite_ref-5" class="reference"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Palatino" size="3"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:
12px;">The wish to control and impose religion
on others, i.e. thought control, is the reason
for the cited high court's decisions. Madison
was perhaps the chief proponent, with Jefferson,
of the "wall of separation". Of course,
Estabrook et al. tries to disparage this
interpretation, claiming that these writers of
the Constitution were just anti-democratic
wealthy men (as reflected in the first amendment
and the rest of the Constitution). </span></font></sup></div>
<div><sup id="cite_ref-5" class="reference"><font class="Apple-style-span" size="3"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:
12px;"><br>
</span></font></sup></div>
<div><sup id="cite_ref-5" class="reference"><font class="Apple-style-span" size="3"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:
12px;">--mkb</span></font></sup></div>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" size="2"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 10px;"><br>
</span></font></div>
<div><sup id="cite_ref-5" class="reference"><span></span></sup><font class="Apple-style-span" size="2"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 10px;"><br>
</span></font>
<div>
<div>On Oct 20, 2010, at 5:53 PM, C. G. Estabrook
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> Wayne is
quite right. In fact the First Amendment was
designed in part precisely to <i><b>prevent</b></i>
<i><b>Congress from interfering</b></i> in those
states where religion (= a church organization)
<i><b>was established</b></i> (= supported by
tax money): Congress was prohibited by this
amendment from separating church and state in
the six states that had established religions (=
state churches) in 1787.<br>
<br>
The separation of church and state, an
Enlightenment goal, was slowly achieved in the
US as the various state churches were
disestablished (allowing us actually to use the
word "antidisestablishmentarianism"). But the
Bill of Rights was always meant as a limitation
on the power of the federal government - a price
for the ratification of the largely
anti-democratic and pro-elite Constitution of
1787.<br>
<br>
See McConnell, <i>The Origins and Historical
Understanding of Free Exercise of Religion</i>,
103 Harv. L. Rev. 1409, 1437 (1990)<br>
<br>
<br>
On 10/20/10 5:34 PM, E. Wayne Johnson wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4CBF6E6A.8030306@pigs.ag" type="cite">First Amendment: <br>
Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof; <br>
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the
press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, <br>
and to petition the Government for a redress
of grievances. <br>
<br>
Christine is certainly not wrong and knows how
to read. <br>
<br>
<br>
On 10/21/2010 2:18 AM, Robert Naiman wrote: <br>
<blockquote type="cite">Republican Christine
O'Donnell challenged her Democratic rival
Tuesday <br>
to show where the Constitution requires
separation of church and <br>
state, drawing swift criticism from her
opponent, laughter from her <br>
law school audience and a quick defense from
prominent conservatives. <br>
[...] <br>
The subject of religion and the law came up
during their debate at <br>
Widener University Law School as O'Donnell
criticized Coons for saying <br>
that teaching creationism in public school
would violate the <br>
Constitution. <br>
<br>
O'Donnell questions separation of church,
state <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/19/AR2010101902501.html">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/19/AR2010101902501.html</a>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Peace-discuss mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Peace-discuss mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>