1
2

[–] iamjanesleftnipple 1 point 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

Therefore, the Supremacy Clause does not come into play.

Except once again, you're wrong, thanks to the Supreme Court: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/330/1.html

Here's the summary: The Supreme Court made clear in a landmark ruling in 1947 that the Establishment Clause does apply to states – and they have underscored this holding repeatedly since then.

This is the First Amendment via the Supremacy Clause.

So to sum up, because it's all been said:

  1. The freedom of religion and freedom from religion are both enshrined in the Constitution
  2. It falls from the federal level down all the way to local municipality
  3. We should all be thankful the founding fathers thought this through and made it easy enough to understand so we can still apply it today.

Matter put to rest, nice discussion, good night.

0
2

[–] fuck_communism 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I am well aware of Everson v. Board of Education. If you knew anything about the case, you would know that, as I have repeatedly pointed out, prior to Everson v. Board of Education, the Establishment Clause applied only to the Federal Government. This was not just legal theory, but actual practice. Several states had laws favoring one religious denomination over another. It's not something that's up for dispute. When some states have laws favoring specific denominations for over 150 years, you can't say those laws didn't exist or that their legality was ever in doubt prior to Everson. It's like saying slavery was always illegal in the U.S. because it was made illegal in 1863.

The freedom of religion and freedom from religion are both enshrined in the Constitution

No.

It falls from the federal level down all the way to local municipality

Not until 1947, by decree of the Supreme Court.

... made it easy enough to understand ...

Apparently not. I find it so mind boggling that such a straight forward, unambiguous sentence fragment continues to be misread, misinterpreted, and misunderstood by so many.

0
1

[–] iamjanesleftnipple 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

prior to Everson v. Board of Education, the Establishment Clause applied only to the Federal Government

Right, and Everson affirmed that both protections exist and apply to all levels going forward.

Several states had laws favoring one religious denomination over another. It's not something that's up for dispute.

Right, and Everson made sure to abolish those that were still there, prevent and future ones and refined what the Constitution says about religion, IE you can practice what you want to practice (freedom of) and any form of government (fed->local) cannot establish a state religion (freedom from). What you're trying to prove here is that, at one point the Constitution said one thing and then we changed it, but you'd be wrong. The founders knew what they meant, it just took a SC ruling to refine our understanding (because we didn't need another amendment to fix the language, just a ruling for what was already there)

When some states have laws favoring specific denominations for over 150 years, you can't say those laws didn't exist

Not saying that.

or that their legality was ever in doubt prior to Everson.

Absolutely saying that. Just because the case hadn't been brought to the SC doesn't mean it wasn't legally in doubt.

It's like saying slavery was always illegal in the U.S. because it was made illegal in 1863.

You're not exactly arguing apples to oranges with this. The 13th amendment had to be added to the Constitution after slavery, which was an act of congress, meaning that it was legal until it was made illegal. The Supreme Court ruling was a refinement of our understanding of an existing law, meaning that the law always meant that, we just needed the proper legal proceeding to force us to review it and come to a new understanding. So, in effect, the law always had that meaning, we just needed to catch up our interpretation of it.

Again, to recap:

Yes, yes and you can keep arguing with me until you rage quit, but you're either admitting that neither freedom of and freedom from exist (because the Constitution explicitly states neither) or you admit that the founders knew what they were doing and it just took the rest of us a period of time to understand it too.

0
2

[–] Kal [S] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Remind me to never argue law with you, if the issue should ever come up.

0
1

[–] iamjanesleftnipple 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

The best part is, I'm not a lawyer or anything, but I can smell the bullshit when someone is trying to paint a certain narrative (US is a christian country, freedom of religion only extends to christian sects, etc). These things are easy to disprove with the internet, and at this point fuck_communism is just arguing semantics with me (well, it wasn't illegal for states to have religions set until 1947!) instead of understanding that a SC ruling means that it was always that way and our understanding was wrong, unlike a new law or amendment, which fills a gap in the law that was never there. You can't win with these people, just hope that others read far enough down the comment chain to learn something new.

0
0

[–] Rellik88 ago 

The freedom of religion and freedom from religion are both enshrined in the Constitution

I'm Atheist, there is no freedom from religion. Just because Religion triggers you doesn't mean you get to be protected from it.

0
0

[–] Kal [S] ago 

Can you please stop using 'trigger' in this manner? I really despise SJW language.

You absolutely have freedom from religion. Did some government law mandate you become an atheist? Do you even hear yourself?

an atheist saying he doesn't have freedom from religion.... jesus christ

0
0

[–] iamjanesleftnipple ago 

Let me recap:

  1. The Establishment Clause states that the government can't create a state religion (ie force you to be part of a religion you don't want to be part of based on just living in a certain area).
  2. The Supremacy Clause (and backed up by Everson vs Board of Education (1947)) says that this law also extends down from the Fed to the local level and everything in between.

Therefore, per what the Constitution says, there is both Freedom of Religion and Freedom from Religion. Done and done