The Legitimacy of Separation of Church and State

Yes, it is true that if one religion should be respected, then all religions should, as well. That's why we should teach all dominating religions in school, not just Christianity, Satanism, and all else. You are correct in saying that the First Amendment guarantees a government established religion, as I said, and this is how I will enter into my main second argument, after I deal with yours. I'm a little confused on what you mean when you said, "It literally means that they cannot make any law respecting an establishment of religion. " I think I may have been picky on what I stated in my argument above, but I thought I acknowledged that in my first argument. (Of course, if that wasn't clear, then that is a fault on my part, as I am still learning about proper argumental etiquette [I'm not stating this as a liability reason. ]) I also agree on letting government respecting all religions, not favoring one over the other. As far as opening prayer is concerned, the Supreme Court acknowledged that prayers may be involuntary, and people don't have to pray during them in the case of Engel v. Vitale in 1962, but still prohibited them, (in the case of school-sponsorship), which is a little unfair. Even if it was a nondenominational prayer, at that. (Full story on Engel case is here: . http://www.uscourts.gov...) On the case of Jefferson's letter, I strongly believe that he was assuring the Danbury Baptists that they wouldn't have to worry about the government making laws against them. It was their concern that they addressed Jefferson. From . http://www.wallbuilders.com..., the letter from the Danbury Baptists states: "The address of the Danbury Baptist Association in the State of Connecticut, assembled October 7, 1801. To Thomas Jefferson, Esq. , President of the United States of America Sir, Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office, we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration , to express our great satisfaction in your appointment to the Chief Magistracy in the Unite States. And though the mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe, that none is more sincere. Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter, together with the laws made coincident therewith, were adapted as the basis of our government at the time of our revolution. And such has been our laws and usages, and such still are, [so] that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation, and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. And these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgments, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore, if those who seek after power and gain, under the pretense of government and Religion, should reproach their fellow men, [or] should reproach their Chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dares not, assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ. Sir, we are sensible that the President of the United States is not the National Legislator and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each State, but our hopes are strong that the sentiment of our beloved President, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these States--and all the world--until hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and goodwill shining forth in a course of more than thirty years, we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the Chair of State out of that goodwill which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you--to sustain and support you and your Administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to rise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people. And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator. Signed in behalf of the Association, Neh,h Dodge } Eph'm Robbins } The Committee Stephen S. Nelson }" The Danbury Baptists were concerned that the government may make powers oppressive to the church. Of course, you may argue back that churches are always protected, whether it be the Establishment clause or the First Amendment on it's own, and thus brings me to my second argument. The so-called Establishment Clause is a violation of the Tenth Amendment. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. " (Exact wording check provided by "The Myth Of Separation" by David Barton) In the First Amendment, it only says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. .. " This means, as stated, that Congress can not establish a religion, nor can it show it's stance on religion. The States were not mentioned in the First Amendment (the Constitution was to guarantee the powers and protection of the States, not the powers and protection of the government, or Congress. ) Thus, the States are allowed to make their own rules concerning religion, and any Supreme Court order against a state law is a violation of the First and Tenth Amendment. Why would Congress, our Founding Fathers, the writers on the Constitution, make a double standard in their document that is supposed to be the basis of America? (If you mention Amendment Eighteen, they repealed it and made it void with the Twenty-first Amendment. ) To support my argument on the States' rights concerning religion, let me establish a scenario. The minimum working age for Texas is sixteen. This does not make every state's requirements for work sixteen, it is only a preference that Texas has set. My father assured me that the minimum working age is fourteen in Alaska, and a friend says the minimum working age is fourteen in Indiana. Age of consent varies in each state; age of driver eligibility varies in each state. Bringing up petty examples, why would variance of ages and requirements vary from state to state mean that states cannot vary their rules respecting religion? I know my state, Texas, is a "red" state, and we have a lot of conservatives, right-wing, family oriented citizens living in our state. But there is always a select few who don't have the same thoughts. I can understand state petitions wishing to change laws and such; that is completely ethical and fair. But to have the Supreme Court force rules saying that laws violate the Establishment clause of the First Amendment is a violation of the Tenth Amendment. Even historically, states were allowed to establish their own religion. (When some of the New England states were formed, they had state religions. Pennsylvania was Protestant. ) 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.