blatham wrote:Foxfyre wrote:No it is accurate within the context Jefferson meant it. It was not intended to be used as many anti-religion types use it. It was an affirmation that there would be no state religion and the government wouldn't be interfering with those Baptists or any other religious group to impose its own rules and regulations regarding religion belief.
Well, perhaps not anti-religious but rather for clear separation, on the rationale explicitly advanced by Jefferson.
Is your interpretation then that this was meant to apply strictly to vying Christian sects?
If it is, it is quite consistent with what we know from founding era history. For a detailed account, see Philip Hamburger:
Separation of Church and State, Harvard University Press (2002). Debra and I have both asked Foxfyre to support her view with facts and law. It is a fairly well-established fact that non-establishment in the founding era meant non-establishment of one sect over another. And if you subscribe to an originalist interpretation of the constitution, that is a valid
legal argument for stating that the constitution permits city seals with crosses in them, and that courts are mistaken to decide otherwise. You don't have to buy this argument because you don't have to be an originalist, but you can't deny it's an argument.
Debra_Law wrote:The Tenth Circuit wrote:The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment compels the City of Ogden to treat with equal dignity speech from divergent religious perspectives. On these facts, the City cannot display the Ten Commandments Monument while declining to display the Seven Principles Monument.
http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/07/01-4022.htm
That's a gem, Debra -- thanks!
