No, it really wasn’t. That is a basic history lesson you must have missed. Religion has always been tied heavily to our government.
If it was unconstitutional, as you claim, then you think the founding fathers would have stopped it right away. They didn’t.
The founding fathers were deeply religious men and knew the two would mingle, but they didn’t want a government church like the Episcopalians in England or the Lutherans in Sweden.
Many were only nominally Christian, as Diest was the day’s rage. The phrase separation of church and state is not in the Constitution.
Here is a nice breakdown of the pro/cons of the arguments. It sounds like you have never read the Constitution since you think the phrase is in there.
The federal government of the United States and, by later extension, the governments of all U.S. states and U.S. territories, are prohibited from establishing or sponsoring religion
So… like a typical conservative- you’re just going to skip over the part that applies, and argue against the one that doesn’t?
We’re done here kid. I’m not wasting my time with you anymore, so I’m going to block you now. Based on your comment history- I’m not going to be missing any quality content from you in doing so.
Dude you lost this argument the moment it started:
The Establishment Clause is a limitation placed upon the United States Congress preventing it from passing legislation establishing an official religion, and by interpretation making it illegal for the government to promote theocracy or promote a specific religion with taxes.
The Free Exercise Clause prohibits the government from preventing the free exercise of religion.
While the Establishment Clause does prohibit Congress from preferring one religion over another, it does not prohibit the government’s involvement with religion to make accommodations for religious observances and practices in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.
No, it really wasn’t. That is a basic history lesson you must have missed. Religion has always been tied heavily to our government.
If it was unconstitutional, as you claim, then you think the founding fathers would have stopped it right away. They didn’t.
The founding fathers were deeply religious men and knew the two would mingle, but they didn’t want a government church like the Episcopalians in England or the Lutherans in Sweden.
Many were only nominally Christian, as Diest was the day’s rage. The phrase separation of church and state is not in the Constitution.
Here is a nice breakdown of the pro/cons of the arguments. It sounds like you have never read the Constitution since you think the phrase is in there.
https://undergod.procon.org/questions/did-the-founding-fathers-support-a-separation-of-church-and-state/
Deists are not Christians just as Christians are not Deists. The terms are incompatible.
Actually they are not incompatible. George Washington attended church and was a deist.
Look up the Establishment Clause. Then get back to me.
I have. I also cited you an explanation of the legal aspects of it. I suggest you read them to become more educated on the topic.
And? Nobody is establishing a religion
So… like a typical conservative- you’re just going to skip over the part that applies, and argue against the one that doesn’t?
We’re done here kid. I’m not wasting my time with you anymore, so I’m going to block you now. Based on your comment history- I’m not going to be missing any quality content from you in doing so.
You have yet to say which part you think applies nor refuted the cites I have you. You ignore the case law or weren’t even aware if the case law.
HAH!
Dude you lost this argument the moment it started:
The Free Exercise Clause prohibits the government from preventing the free exercise of religion.
While the Establishment Clause does prohibit Congress from preferring one religion over another, it does not prohibit the government’s involvement with religion to make accommodations for religious observances and practices in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.
Just stop man. You’re embarrassing yourself.
Who are you replying to as it has nothing to do with what I said?