[–] iamjanesleftnipple 0 points 1 point 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.
Let me recap:
Therefore, per what the Constitution says, there is both Freedom of Religion and Freedom from Religion. Done and done
[–] fuck_communism 0 points 2 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.
No.
Not until 1947, by decree of the Supreme Court.
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.
[–] iamjanesleftnipple 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
Right, and Everson affirmed that both protections exist and apply to all levels going forward.
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)
Not saying that.
Absolutely saying that. Just because the case hadn't been brought to the SC doesn't mean it wasn't legally in doubt.
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.
[–] fuck_communism ago
Every time I think I've read the stupidest thing ever posted on the internet, someone outdoes themselves. Now you're just being willfully stupid.