Here's your post:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
These opening words of the First Amendment to the Constitution set forth a dual guarantee of religious liberty. Both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise
Clause operate to protect the religious liberty and freedom of conscience of all Americans. Quoting Thomas Jefferson, the Supreme Court has stated that the Establishment
Clause was intended to accomplish this end by erecting a "wall of separation between Church and State." Everson v. Board of Educ. of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947).
It is one of the fundamental principles of the Supreme Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence that the Constitution forbids not only state practices that "aid one
religion . . . or prefer one religion over another," but also those practices that "aid all religions" and thus endorse or prefer religion over nonreligion. Everson, 330 U.S. at
15. See Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 53 (1985)("[T]he individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith
or none at all"); see also County of Allegheny v. ACLU Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U.S. 573, 589-94, 598-602 (1989); Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock, 489 U.S. 1, 17
(1989); Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495 (1961).
Again, where in the CONSTITUTION does it say that school prayer is not allowed? The Constitution say's that the government shall not name a national religion, such as existed in the 1700's in England. We practiced some 170 years with school prayer then all of a sudden ban it, basically you're saying that the Supreme Court was wrong for 170 years and right for the last 40?????? That's folly and illogical.
>>over the course of the last 300 years.<<
Since the Constitution was ratified in something like 1790, I now discover that your not very adept at either math or US history.
>>If you read the entire post instead ofjust looking for the pictures (there aren't any)<<
As I requested a civil discussion and I see that you just can't bring yourself to it, I really have no further reason to have an intellegent discussion with you since you have proven unable to do so.
Jim |
