Preferred Treatment

[Nevada]

Imagine one denomination having the most voters in a state. Imagine that faith getting its people elected, and then having the politicians declare THEIR faith the official religion of the state.

Every state has a state tree, flower, etc. But, religion?


Clarence Thomas, a Roman Catholic, has stated his opinion that it should be this way:

http://blogcritics.org/politics/article/clarence-thomas-and-state-theocracy/

 

[billwald]

Thomas has written an interesting analysis. Under the Articles Of Confederation -which the "constitutional rebellion/revolution overthrew - Maryland could have become a Catholic state (sovereign entity), Vermont a Presbyterian state, and Utah an LDS state. How would this have harmed the USA as long as there was freedom to travel between the states?

We would now consist of 50 competing nation/states and the nation/state with the most progressive government - ALL things considered - would attract the largest population and resulting assets. I suspect the least free state - all things considered - would have the worst economy.

 

[Nevada]

Those unable to move to another state would be insulted by having to live in a state which honors another religion.

 

[plain_n_simple]

Democracy is man's doctrine not God's. It's a way that seems right to men. You can put Christians in it from top to bottom but it will always have a faulty foundation. Jesus said if any man come after me he must first deny himself. That's quite opposite from The Bill of Rights. The Body of Christ has it's own government in the Kingdom on earth as it is in heaven. Jesus is Lord, thats' a Theocracy. In the Kingdom it's about Him. In a democracy it's all about us. He is the cornerstone, not the U.S. Constitution.

 

[billwald]

>Those unable to move to another state would be insulted by having to live in a state which honors another religion.

For example, or two?

 

[Zenas]

Thomas is exactly right. Any state can establish its own religion and there is nothing in the Constitition to prevent it. However, it might not pass muster under the present state of Supreme Court jurisprudence and in the end that's what controls what we do.

 

[Anastasia]

Clarence Thomas, a Roman Catholic, has stated his opinion that it should be this way:

Why does it matter that he is a Catholic? Would you think differently of him if he was a Presbyterian or an Episcopalian?

 

[Anastasia]

>Those unable to move to another state would be insulted by having to live in a state which honors another religion.

For example, or two?

No more Christmas break, just winter break now, but how would you feel if instead we had Ramadan break from schools and had Eid-al-fitr off from work? Should we have Purim off but never officially say Happy Easter as Holy Week approaches?

 

[plain_n_simple]

Daniel survived, just sayin'

 

[Anastasia]

Democracy is man's doctrine not God's. It's a way that seems right to men. You can put Christians in it from top to bottom but it will always have a faulty foundation. Jesus said if any man come after me he must first deny himself. That's quite opposite from The Bill of Rights. The Body of Christ has it's own government in the Kingdom on earth as it is in heaven. Jesus is Lord, thats' a Theocracy. In the Kingdom it's about Him. In a democracy it's all about us. He is the cornerstone, not the U.S. Constitution.

Any gov in this world will have its faults because we no longer have the opportunity to have the sort of theocracy that the Israelites had in the OT. We have a gov run by humans, faulty, sinful, humans. Been that way since they asked for a king.

Daniel survived, just sayin'

Indeed. Such an argument goes to show that gov cannot legislate the heart just as we cannot always see into another's heart. Were such state religions to be enacted, we would respect it in as much as it does not ask us to do anything contrary to God's word (Romans 13).

 

[Rooselk]

Fortunately, many of our state constitutions have even stronger non-establishment clauses than even that of the federal constitution. Also, states would be forbidden to establish an official state church due to the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the First.

 

[Gup20]

http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=123

Wall builders is the best organisation I have seen for adequately explaining this issue.

Jefferson believed that God, not government, was the Author and Source of our rights and that the government, therefore, was to be prevented from interference with those rights. Very simply, the "fence" of the Webster letter and the "wall" of the Danbury letter were not to limit religious activities in public; rather they were to limit the power of the government to prohibit or interfere with those expressions.

Earlier courts long understood Jefferson's intent. In fact, when Jefferson's letter was invoked by the Supreme Court (only twice prior to the 1947 Everson case – the Reynolds v. United States case in 1878), unlike today's Courts which publish only his eight-word separation phrase, that earlier Court published Jefferson's entire letter and then concluded:

Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it [Jefferson's letter] may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the Amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere [religious] opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.​

In fact some states did have a state religion, and that was considered acceptable by the founding fathers. The article goes on to say,

Therefore, if Jefferson's letter is to be used today, let its context be clearly given – as in previous years. Furthermore, earlier Courts had always viewed Jefferson's Danbury letter for just what it was: a personal, private letter to a specific group. There is probably no other instance in America's history where words spoken by a single individual in a private letter – words clearly divorced from their context – have become the sole authorization for a national policy. Finally, Jefferson's Danbury letter should never be invoked as a stand-alone document. A proper analysis of Jefferson's views must include his numerous other statements on the First Amendment.

For example, in addition to his other statements previously noted, Jefferson also declared that the "power to prescribe any religious exercise. . . . must rest with the States". Nevertheless, the federal courts ignore this succinct declaration and choose rather to misuse his separation phrase to strike down scores of State laws which encourage or facilitate public religious expressions. Such rulings against State laws are a direct violation of the words and intent of the very one from whom the courts claim to derive their policy.