The Cat-Tribe wrote:Pope Joan wrote:The Constitution does not anywhere state that church and state must be separate.
Jefferson in his VA Constitution endeavored to impose a "wall of separation". but despite his centrality at the Constitutional Convention, this language was obviously NOT adopted there and so therefore it appears that something LESS is our national standard.
There is , instead, to be no laws effecting "establishment of religion". This means that no state may have an official church. State established churches had caused much harm in Europe and most Americans wanted to avoid repeating that mistake.
It does not mean in any way that the state may have nothing to do with religion, and I doubt the idea ever crossed the minds of the founders. This is despite the railings of Adams against the influence of "priests", since I reasonably suppose him to be attacking the Church of Rome.
So on a strictly literal and historical basis, we have a document which prohibits state-sponsored churches but leaves everything else up for grabs.
I do not then think this candidate is constitutionally illiterate. I was top in my class in Con Law at Northwestern U School of Law and am a former board member of the Albany NY ACLU.
I would not vote for her, but that's neither here nor there.
Although I don't doubt your unverifiable claims to personal authority, they don't make you any less in error -- as to the literal wording, meaning, intent, and history of the Establishment Clause. See, e.g., my earlier post.
even without the context joan is forgetting the second part about restricting the free exercise or religion thats the part that gets referenced when talking about the separation of church and state. because it means the government cannot show preference ofr or against any religion or lack there of. read the whole amendment next time.
that said I would love to give a pop quiz just on the amendments to every political candidate just to see how many know anything about it off the top of their head.