Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
[sigh]
OK, the Founding Fathers pretty obviously were against the establishment of any sort of official religion in this country. At the time they were most concerned with primacy of one branch of Protestantism over any other, but it rang true for Catholicism, Judaiety, etc. That's the whole point of the "establishment clause". There's very little debate about that, although the extents that it's been taken have been labeled by some (rightly or wrongly) as "judicial activism". You may not see any problem with forcing Hindu, Jewish or Anamist kids to sing "Silent Night", but I sure do.
By the way, separation of church and state is indeed the law of the land as has been proven over and over and over. Ask the Alabama Supreme Court how that particular fight is going.
|
Yes because we know the Judiciary is infalliable... Dred Scott.
They should only be suited to be strict constructionist, they are stewards of the courts and the laws, thats why the people elect officials to make laws. Since judges aren't culpable to the people, I have serious qualms with them using words from Jefferson that are not legal, nor binding, nor in favor of this type of "separation of church and state" as dogmatic law of the land that is clearly pushing an agenda, this can easily be tracked by the explosion of these cases in the last 10 years.