I believe SCOTUS intentionally ignored the Founder’s intent and ruled unconstitutionally

Duly noted.

More precisely, you agree with SCOTUS.

If you insist. To the best of my recollection, the opinions were formed independently. I suppose you could attribute my beliefs to public school teachings which no doubt included the allegedly unconstitutional concept of “separation.” I don’t think that would be fair though. Christians had their fair chance to influence my formative mind, but their teachings simply didn’t ring true.

Or the electorate realizes that Socialism has so infected our body politic that the chances of passing an amendment would be far less than the chances of seating a constitutionalist justice, right now.

Yes, I’m sure that’s exactly what they’d say. I think it’s far more likely that they find the status quo acceptable and are not concerned with the nuances.

I believe SCOTUS intentionally ignored the Founder’s intent and ruled unconstitutionally, regarding the so-called “Separation of Church and State”. The Constitution remains the supreme law of the land.

2) SCOTUS agrees with me.

More precisely, you agree with SCOTUS.

3) The electorate either agrees with me or is too divided to pass an ammendment changing #2

Or the electorate realizes that Socialism has so infected our body politic that the chances of passing an amendment would be far less than the chances of seating a constitutionalist justice, right now.

You’ve never stated emphatically, that your interpretation is the result of certain “derivative issues,” that support your position.

No, “derivative” on the other side of the mountain. Our disagreement over the policies of Thomasville, NC derives directly from our disagreement over the establishment clause. Were either of us to change our position on the establishment clause, it is safe to assume we would also change positions on Thomasville.

You’re correct that I’ve never clearly stated the reasoning behind my interpretation of the establishment clause. Here it is:
1) I believe that the disputed actions (council prayers, nativity scenes, whatever), while obviously not establishing an official state religion, would eventually create (or “recreate”, according to your research) a de facto state religion.
2) SCOTUS agrees with me.
3) The electorate either agrees with me or is too divided to pass an ammendment changing #2

As I’ve said previously, you can write very large books about whether any of those should be true, but they are indisputably true.

I’ve given my interpretation and some of the facts that support the basis for it. I don’t recall you ever stating the basis for your interpretation. For all I know, it may be, ‘because the Supreme Court said so’!

You’ve never stated emphatically, that your interpretation is the result of certain “derivative issues,” that support your position.

We may not come to an agreement, but we will both better understand why we hold the viewpoints we do.

The simple fact is, Jeff, If you believe the Framers held…

That’s exactly my point. Our entire disagreement on the issue traces directly back to our respective interpretations of the establishment clause, so there’s no point in going round after round on the derivative issues.

We could certainly spend some time discussing the root of our disagreement, but it’s highly improbable that we would get anywhere on that point. We’re both well enough educated to know the subject is too complicated to be properly dissected in a blog thread and I doubt either of us have the time or inclination to write a thorough treatise.

I think we’d both be better off to focus on ridding this site of the obviously fallacious arguments (from all sides). If nothing else, we should at least raise the level of discourse.

Since you consistantly fail to learn and keep stepping on my feet; yeah, it gets old!

However, having 6 kids and 12 grandkids has helped to develop much more patience than I had in my youth.

The simple fact is, Jeff, If you believe the Framers held a ’separationist’ view, that Congress is forbidden by the Constitution from aiding religion, regardless of denomination, then you must necessarily explain the inconsistancies of their following acts as listed in the above link.

Approving Church services in the Capital, Supreme Court and Senate. Congress authorizing the printing of Bibles and the general distribution of them. Approving Congressional Chaplains.

Those who opposed the Chaplains on the same grounds as you and the Supreme Court do, were rebuffed with:

“The whole view of the petitioners seems founded upon mistaken conceptions of the meaning of the Constitution. . . . If [the use of chaplains] had been a violation of the Constitution, why was not its character seen by the great and good men who were coeval with the government, who were in Congress and in the Presidency when this constitutional amendment was adopted? They, if any one did, understood the true purport of the amendment, and were bound, by their duty and their oath, to resist the introduction or continuance of chaplains, if the views of the petitioners were correct. But they did no such thing

The Framer’s deliberations during the Constitutional Convention, their words and deeds in government and their official acts are precisely why I hold an ‘accommodationist’ view, as they did.

Representative government. That is what the Founders based it on and the people it represented

Aren’t you tired of dancing the same steps? The people can’t override the constitution with a simple majority. We’re both well aware of that fact, so let’s cut to the chase: we disagree over the interpretation of the establishment clause. The rest of the arguments are all red herrings.

Just what is it you are contending? That it isn’t ’separation of church and state’ but rather, ’separation of Christianity and state’?

He meant: “If it’s specific to any one particular ideology…”
I still don’t see why the state needs to be involved in spirituality in the first place, but as far as compromises go, I can live with that one.

“ADF offers assistance to any municipality that’s under attack for “simply continuing a practice that the Supreme Court knows is ‘deeply embedded in the history and tradition of our country,’ ” Johnson added.”

Maybe Mike Johnson is more knowledgable than you give him credit for.

Archives-comment#7

Your namesake is embedded in there, somewhere.

Just what is it you are contending? That it isn’t ’separation of church and state’ but rather, ’separation of Christianity and state’?