28-06-2002 03:19									#271
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: That very clearly states Congress can't create a state Chuch.

Never said otherwise. But that isn't what it literally says. And it's not the only way the clause is violated.

quote: And every Constitutional question is semantic.

Not every Constitutional question relies on the semantics of a powerless measure by Congress.

quote: So all religions are appendanges of the United States? Ludicrious!

All religions, no. Major religions to at least some degree, yes.

quote: You can't have an official church. Says nothing about supporting churches.

Churches that are supported are state churches.

quote: A religion can ONLY become the state religion if the state says it is so.

Congress doing such a thing by itself is a powerless measure. Why would anyone possibly want to prohibit it through a Constitutional Amendment?

	28-06-2002 03:22									#272
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

That wasn't the intent when it was written and it isn't what the SCOTUS over the years has said. It has said that the Establishment Clause means setting up a state religion.

And no, that doesn't mean that Congress can't pass any laws about religion.. it can't pass any laws ESTABLISHING religion. That has been the meaning since the beginning, with the Anglican Church in the minds of the writers.

	28-06-2002 03:23									#273
	Inflate your Upload Space

Imran, do you not see that "respecting an establishment of religion" is an equivalent phrase to "about religion"?

Establishment isn't being used as a verb...

	28-06-2002 03:25									#274
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Reread, Imran. The Bill of Rights has it as "respecting an establishment of religion", not "respecting the establishment of religion". There's a difference.

	28-06-2002 03:25									#275
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: But that isn't what it literally says.

Yes it is.

quote: Not every Constitutional question relies on the semantics of a powerless measure by Congress.

Almost every Bill of Right is a question of semantics. Look at then 2nd Amendment, the 5th, 9th, 10th, etc.

quote: All religions, no. Major religions to at least some degree, yes.

Bullshit.

quote: Churches that are supported are state churches

NO, they aren't. State Churches must be declared to be that way or run by the government.

quote: Congress doing such a thing by itself is a powerless measure. Why would anyone possibly want to prohibit it through a Constitutional Amendment?

Because the Founders wrote it in response to the Anglican Church. Because an official church can be used to stamp down on all the rest (ie, the Puritans' reason for leaving was persecution by the Anglican Church). Official Churches were considered very dangerous. It wouldn't be powerless at all.

	28-06-2002 03:26									#276
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

As in "this establishment was built in 1863"...

	28-06-2002 03:27									#277
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Lets give the screw another turn.

Fitz, it is "establishment" of "establishment of religion" that is the noun. An establishment can be a place but not an idea. Therefore, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" could mean that congress cant make laws about the physical nature of churches.

	28-06-2002 03:28									#278
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Imran, you've even got the wrong quote. If it read "the establishment of religion", then you might well have a case. "an establishment of religion" is gramatically incorrect if establishment is to be taken as denoting the action of establishing.

	28-06-2002 03:28									#279
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I say again, laws establishing a religion is not the same thing as laws about an established religion. The clause in question very clearly states that Congress may not pass laws about religion, not laws putting a state religion in place. You're wrong Imran.

I seem to be saying that more and more on 'Poly. Reminds me of my favorite saying:
Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics. You're still retarded.

	28-06-2002 03:29									#280
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Imran, do you not see that "respecting an establishment of religion" is an equivalent phrase to "about religion"? Establishment isn't being used as a verb...

quote: Reread, Imran. The Bill of Rights has it as "respecting an establishment of religion", not "respecting the establishment of religion". There's a difference.

Yes, 'an', but establishment IS being used as a verb. Even if you use it as a noun, 'under God' would have to stay. Why? Because 'under God' isn't making a law respecting some church (an establishment as a noun means a set organization). The Pledge isn't unconstitutional and has decades of SCOTUS decisions to say it.

If it was a noun instead of a verb, a great many laws would have been struck down already (such as faith based charity, resolutions condoning or condeming churches and churchmen, etc.). It is ludicrious to call it a noun.

	28-06-2002 03:29									#281
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by SpencerH Lets give the screw another turn. Fitz, it is "establishment" of "establishment of religion" that is the noun. An establishment can be a place but not an idea. Therefore, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" could mean that congress cant make laws about the physical nature of churches.

Establishment does not only denote physical presence. It can also denote organisational structure...

	28-06-2002 03:32									#282
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Fitz, it is "establishment" of "establishment of religion" that is the noun. An establishment can be a place but not an idea. Therefore, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" could mean that congress cant make laws about the physical nature of churches.

DING DING DING!

	28-06-2002 03:33									#283
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Lets face it there is really two sides to this either the constitution says the federal government cant even use the word god or the federal government cant support a federal church. Given that the guys who founded this country were fairly religious types, whats the most reasonable interpretation?

	28-06-2002 03:37									#284
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Establishment does not only denote physical presence. It can also denote organisational structure...

It would still be silly. Congress can make no law about religious establishments or prohibit the free excersizes about those establishments? So basically the US government cannot stop X religion that believes in sacrificing people? Because sacrifice is a free excersize of that religious establishment.

	28-06-2002 03:39									#285
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Spencer, you took the definition of the word noun way too literally, as does Imran.

BTW, Aethism can be considered an Establishment of Religion. Is is an established way of thinking about religion. So, putting "under God" into the Pledge violates that establishment of religion, and making it a law means that the law is unconstitutional.

At least so I will argue. I'm sure there are many fine points of the law & constitution that I (and everyone here) are unaware of that the Supreme Court will consider.

Also, Spencer, your last post raises the whole question of "modern interpretation" vs "founding fathers interpretation", which is a whole nother kettle of worms.

	28-06-2002 03:39									#286
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Exactly Spencer... the intent of the founders was for not founding a state church.

From the dissent:

quote: Under "Newdow's theory of our Constitution, accepted by my colleagues today, we will soon find ourselves prohibited from using our album of patriotic songs in many public settings," Fernandez wrote. "'God Bless America' and 'America the Beautiful' will be gone for sure, and while use of the first and second stanzas of 'The Star Spangled Banner' will still be permissible, we will be precluded from straying into the third," he added.

And for case history:

quote: Charles Haynes, First Amendment Center senior scholar, agreed, saying the decision "will very likely be overturned because it is inconsistent with prior lower court rulings — and the views of Supreme Court justices found in the majority opinions of various church-state cases."

	28-06-2002 03:40									#287
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Imran, for what you believe to make sense, the wording would have to go "an establishment of a religion".

	28-06-2002 03:40									#288
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse Establishment does not only denote physical presence. It can also denote organisational structure...

Yes. In that case if used as a noun it would imply that congress could pass no laws about the organization of religious groups.

	28-06-2002 03:42									#289
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Imran, for what you believe to make sense, the wording would have to go "an establishment of a religion".

No it wouldn't. 'The establishment of religion' seems pretty clear that the federal government cannot establish (verb) state religions (there was no 'a' in that sentance).

	28-06-2002 03:42									#290
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: It would still be silly. Congress can make no law about religious establishments or prohibit the free excersizes about those establishments? So basically the US government cannot stop X religion that believes in sacrificing people? Because sacrifice is a free excersize of that religious establishment.

Obviously, the free exercise clause is not absolute, but neither is any other freedom in the Bill of Rights.

But you're confusing the free exercise and establishment clauses. Only the latter is relevant to the debate.

	28-06-2002 03:43									#291
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Well, the problem is that the founding father's _didn't_ agree on the issue of what "freedom of religion" would exactly entail. Also you have to remember that many of the founding father's were Unitarian, and certainly not evangelical.

This is all rather irrelvent though. After all, nobody has a crystal ball or any real means of knowing what any of the founding fathers thought on any of the issues in modern context. The judge that claims to be doing the will of the founding fathers is either psychic or lying.

	28-06-2002 03:43									#292
	Put an end to popups!

Krazy, you seem to be way better at english and explaining it that me. I hand the remainder of the argument over to you.

	28-06-2002 03:43									#293
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

And it can also denote a belief of a certain segment of the population, as in an established social order...

	28-06-2002 03:45									#294
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Imran, are you also saying that the Constitution allows the government to outlaw specific religions, as long as it doesn't found its own?

	28-06-2002 03:45									#295
	Tired of ads?

Because your argument only applies if you believe this to be the case.

	28-06-2002 03:46									#296
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Almost every Bill of Right is a question of semantics. Look at then 2nd Amendment, the 5th, 9th, 10th, etc.

None of those involve the semantics of a powerless measure of Congress.

quote: Official Churches were considered very dangerous. It wouldn't be powerless at all.

Hence the free exercise clause. The danger of an official church stamping out others is nullified by that. But why does the establishment clause exist then?

	28-06-2002 03:47									#297
	Tired of ads?

Let's see... even if establishment is a noun there. And the amendment means Congress cannot pass a law concerning religious establishments, then HOW would the 'under God' part violate that, btw? It is not concerning religious establishments. Monotheism isn't a religious establishment. Many religious establishments are monotheistic, but you can't reverse the statement.

I'm curious, because it doesn't make sense to me.

	28-06-2002 03:48									#298
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Fitz Also, Spencer, your last post raises the whole question of "modern interpretation" vs "founding fathers interpretation", which is a whole nother kettle of worms.

I agree. Perhaps the 21st century is the time to address this question and actually define what we want this article to mean.

	28-06-2002 03:49									#299
	Tired of ads?

It applies to a broad spectrum of religious establishments.

Like if Congress made a law pushing forward Christianity at the expense of Islam. Neither is a single religious establishment; they're conglomerations of different churches with similar beliefs.

	28-06-2002 03:49									#300
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: even if establishment is a noun there.

Establishment must be a noun. There's an "an" preceding establishment.

quote: Monotheism isn't a religious establishment.

Why not?

Anyways, by promoting monotheism, you promote all monotheistic religions.