Paranoia

Avenue Q Quote <3

wingless

Yeah, I meant the English colonists in general. Quite generally. Colonial History is fun...really...?

ESPN MAST3R

lol I am not gonna lie, but I have no idea what you are trying to say in that post.

MichelleHeart

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or of abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

No, that doesn't mean the Feds can intervene in a state's religious affairs. Notice that it says Congress shall make no law. It's a restriction of the federal government's powers; not a grant of power to exercise over the states. This amendment, of course, prevents a national religion, but it does not mean that a state's church/state relations can be infringed.

Religion was fundamental to the colonists, but there were often disagreements with the different sects. Quakers, for example, went from Rhode Island to Massachusetts Bay to purge the Puritans of their so-called "wicked" religion. They interrupted church services, heckled ministers, and went naked. It was because of this antagonism that the colonies decided it was best if each colony would just mind its own business. Of course, you did have some secular societies, and the same rule applied.

The Framers of the Constitution agreed that it was perfectly legal and constitutional for states to use their own public funds to support churches within that state, establish state religions, and allow school prayer. In the late 1870s, a Blaine Amendment was introduced to extend church/state restrictions to the states, but it was rejected in several Congressional sessions. Why would such an amendment need to be proposed if the Constitution already extended the restriction to the states? Answer: The Constitution never extended the restriction to the states in the first place. Therefore, an amendment had to be proposed in order to change that, and it was overwhelmingly opposed each time it was.

This means that school prayer, public displays of the Ten Commandments, and other church/state issues are reserved to the states. This is so that people can, in effect, "vote with their feet" and choose to live in a society that reflects their moral and religious values. The First Amendment assures that the federal government doesn't intervene in such affairs.

Thomas Jefferson: "Certainly no power over religious discipline has been delegated to the general government. It must then rest with the states as far as it can be in any human authority."

Competing jurisdictions were considered superior to one consolidating jurisdiction. This is essential to a free society because it is easier to manage any affair at a smaller level, and it gives people a choice as to the kind of government they want to live under. If you have an over-centralized state as we have now, it's harder to enact the reforms you want because all kinds of people are fighting for control of the federal government. If you have competing jurisdictions, however, you have a variety of jurisdictions to enact the reforms you want, and it is more likely that you will be able to find a group of people that shares your values.

That's the way I see it.