People are being killed all over the world in the name of one religion. Are we going to keep pretending this religion's beliefs isn't at odds with our own written law?
If I owned a newspaper it's headline Saturday morning would have read 'Freedom of Religion' with a large picture of all the dead French in the road.
They are not allowing us freedom from their religion, and thus, do not belong in our countries that share this ideal.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] fuck_communism 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
The U.S. in 1789 was not "religiously diverse," as the phrase is used today. Believers were 95% Protestant - Anglicans/Episcopalians, and congregationalists (pretty much Anglicans who did not recognize the authority of the British church, and who believed it was still "too Catholic").
The framers of the constitution and the Bill of Rights were concerned that a state religion would vest power over Americans in the hand of a foreign government - Great Britain, and/or create a defacto fourth branch of government.
As written, the Constitution does not prohibit the establishment of state religions by individual states.
[–] Joe_McCarthy 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Do you have a source handy for the Founders' fear of a national church giving power to a foreign government? The British were indeed the only threat there and the schisms among revolutionaries and loyalists badly weakened Anglicanism in the US as it was. By the time the Bill of Rights was enacted American Anglicanism had broken with the Church of England to conform with republican values.
And while you're correct we weren't diverse in the sense we are today the religious fault lines were STRONGER in those days than today. Congregationalists were warmed over Puritans. That they and Anglicans were both Protestants is a rather trivial fact in the face of the long history of conflict and hostility between them.
The long and short of it is that a Puritan church was not going to be imposed on Southern states or New Yorkers and ditto for Anglicanism on New Englanders. To make the attempt would have led to armed conflict or at the very least severe and needless strains on social cohesion in the young country with plenty of other problems on its plate as it was.
[–] fuck_communism 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
No, and I'm too lazy to get one. Check the Oxford Encyclopedia of American Political and Legal History. It's concise yet reasonably thorough.
And Puritans were essentially Anglicans who thought The Church was still "too Catholic," they recognized Anglicanism as a "true religion" (unlike Catholicism), but felt it needed further reform.
True, but that was not the primary motive behind the Establishment Clause at the time of writing, it's worth noting that the last phrase in Article 6 is "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States," which, I think (opinion), alludes more to your point than to the future establishment clause.