-----Original Message-----
From: Marwan Saidi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 2:25 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Speaking of church and state
Not necessarily. The clause (... shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion) can be viewed two ways:
1. Using establishment as a verb. This interpretation is that congress
cannot make a law that establishes a religion
2. Using establishment as a noun. This reads that congress cannot make laws
respecting _any_ religious establishment. A law permitting prayer in schools
or allowing display of religious artifacts in publicly owned facilities
would violate the clause here...
-----Original Message-----
From: Monique Boea [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 2:17 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Speaking of church and state
but the fact that people think it to mean that congress cannot make any laws
regarding religion is a misinterpretation
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 2:11 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Speaking of church and state
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 13:59:23 -0400, Monique Boea
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Thanks! That was their exact argument.
>
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
> of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
>
>
> But I had never gave it a thought until someone challenged the
> misinterpretation of it.
It's not really a misinterpretation though. Not unless you consider
Jefferson's own explanation to be a "misinterpretation".
-Kevin
_____
_____
_____
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
