Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: longnshort who wrote (20898)	7/5/2005 1:55:06 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 28931

"the new fed gov wouldn't start one that would supersed theirs" or at all. As for "state religions" in the original states, it was more a matter of taxes supporting protestant religions generally than a state sanctioning of any one of them as THE state religion. Notably, the strongest opposition to ANY state funding of religion came from the Baptists. They were most successful in Virginia. Interestingly, several of the states also had provisions in their constitutions that prohibited members of the clergy from holding legislative seats or any other state office. But none of that changes the fact that the federal government is and, since the ratification of the constitution, always has been precluded from establishing any state religion. It was the notion that we have one, or should have one, that I was responding to. PS: Many early state constitutions also required that all legislators be protestant and some only explicitly guaranteed the rights of protestants. Should we turn back the clock?