Again, you go by the assumption that a certain minority has these rights to begin with. Nowadays, if people want something, they just claim it as their "right," whether it really is or not.

The only true rights come from God because any rights given by the government or man can be taken away by government or man.

It's called inherent rights. The name is self explanatory if you are not blinded by prejudice, hatred and religious dogmas.



First of all whose Gods? What if someone hid behind another imaginary God such as yours and claimed he/she gave him/her such a right? What do you have to say then with the freedom of practicing every religion?

Second of all, any government can take away any and all rights, regardless of your labeling them as true rights given by God. What's your point? I don't see a point here.

But the video you've posted claims more than that. If you're just saying that
- the majority of US Americans are Christians,
- some of the founders were religious,
- the words "separation of church and state" are not in the Constitution,
then wow! What a sensation! If that's all you have to say, what's the point of this thread? I think, we all know these things.
Or are you talking about interpretation?

That the actual phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution is of no consequence (the phrase "fair trial" doesn't appear either). The principles of separation of church and state are undeniably and firmly imbedded in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Of course, this does not preclude people of faith from serving in government. Nor does it require them from abandoning beliefs or convictions that are formed by faith. That would be a violation of the Free Exercise Clause. It prevents, however, any govrnment action that promotes or favors one faith over another, or belief in God over non-belief.

For a government action violates the Establishment Clause one of the following must be present:

1. The Act must serve a secular, non-religious purpose;
2. The Act must not promote or inhibit religious practice;
3. The Act must not create an excessive entanglement with religion.

This test is from the USSC decision in Lemon v. _____ (the name escapes me).

Kurtzman, Kly. It's one of the primary Court decisions I have my students study.

The thrust of your post is correct. The establishment and free exercise clauses of the 1st amendment were a reaction to historical British efforts to establish the Anglican Church in the Colonies and, later, to preclude such sordid religious conflicts such as that exemplified by the history of Maryland.

oli, what do you think of Gordon S. Wood. He won a Pulitzer Prize in the 90s for a book on the Founding Fathers that, I'm ashamed to say, I never got around to reading.

He's a prolific author for sure. During the past year I read his Empire of Liberty which I really enjoyed. I plan to read other of his works.