The Legitimacy of Separation of Church and State

I must admit, this is an interesting point you've brought up. For a long time, the bill of rights only applied to the federal government rather than state and local governments. This double standard of protecting individual's rights on the federal level while somewhat dismissing them at the state and local levels is basically what allowed slavery and other violations of rights to exist. People reasoned that because the bill of rights did not mention the states in various sections, then it was the state's right on whether to exercise that power (whether it took away peoples rights or not). In short, you are correct that the bill of rights did not include the state and local governments for a long chunk of our history. Because of the states' exclusion from having to follow the bill of rights, this allowed them many times to take away the rights of people within the state through things such as slavery, segregation, and various forms of discrimination. That is, until the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. The Fourteenth Amendment states in section 1, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." This is called the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and it has been used in many supreme court cases to incorporate the bill of rights against the states. The Fourteenth Amendment basically secures everyone's right to the same privileges, respect, and freedom that every other citizen has. It secures for the common man the rights that are dictated in the bill of rights, such as the guarantee against establishment of religion, guarantee of free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, right to petition for redress of grievances, etc.. Here are the supreme court cases whose decisions incorporated the first amendment against the states: Guarantee against establishment of religion: Everson v. Board of Education- http://en.wikipedia.org... Freedom of religion: Cantwell v. Connecticut- http://en.wikipedia.org... Freedom of speech: Gitlow v. New York- http://en.wikipedia.org... Freedom of the press: Near v. Minnesota- http://en.wikipedia.org... Freedom of assembly: DeJonge v. Oregon- http://en.wikipedia.org... It is because of the incorporation doctrine that our religious rights are guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment in conjunction with the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has numerous cases where it has incorporated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to apply to the states under the Due Process Clause. The Due Process Clause states specifically about citizen's rights, "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.." And the Supreme Court has interpreted these privileges, immunities, and liberties as the rights dictated in the bill of rights. The state cannot make a law respecting an establishment of religion because that would be abridging the rights guaranteed to the people in the First Amendment. Basically, the Supreme Court has held that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is one of the liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Every citizen should have the right to be free from an established religion in government, and so the Establishment Clause is now applied to the states as well. "So, once again, my point is, that it is a guaranteed right to the states to set up a religion for said state, as the First Amendment did not say whether or not a state can establish it's own religion, but only that Congress may not establish a national religion, or as you said, favor one religion over another." To this I would have to say no. The states do not have the right to take away rights from its inhabitants. The Fourteenth Amendment in conjunction with the First Amendment guarantees that people be treated equally and fairly. And furthermore, if a state sets up an official religion, then that qualifies as unfair discrimination. The state cannot prefer one religion over the other without abridging the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States. And so, any instance of government respecting a religion is basically a violation of the Due Process and Establishment Clauses. And furthermore, what do you mean by saying states can establish an official religion? Do you think the states have the ability to appropriate tax money to the "official" religion, insert whatever religious dogma into education, or commission things advocating said religion? Because any instance in which the government prefers one religion over the other would be unfair discrimination abridging the privileges and immunities of the state's citizens who are not said religion or sect. Preferring or respecting one religion or a few select religions is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause, so the government must treat every religious group equally. The guarantee to the people against their government respecting a religion without their consent is a fundamental right that every citizen has. This is a liberty that is protected under the Due Process Clause, and it must remain a protected right to ensure our diverse nation's prosperity. Because of the Fourteenth Amendment, the majority is no longer allowed to treat religious minorities with any less respect and credence than other groups. The state governments are now subject to the same standard as the federal government, and it cannot abridge the immunities, privileges, nor liberties of its citizens.