<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body 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 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>
</body>
</html>