U.S. judge orders landmark California cross taken down!

[Timshel]

You have given me mixed, unrelated, and disjointed statements from a website for teachers, and a truncated version of the debates that lasted months. You do know that Everson won, right?

They are mutually exclusive. There was no wall of separation, and Black used in the ruling Madison’s writings in the Memorial and Remonstrances of 1785, and Jeffeson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, and neither on have a bearing on the intent of the establishment clause, and what Madison and Jefferson wrote prior and post Bill of Rights have no relevance on a court’s ruling on the Constitution.

Your quote by Madison also demonstrates his intent was only limited to establishing a national religion, which is my argument, and the “compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience” is from his experience as a young man and Baptists being jailed for violating Virginia’s established religion of Anglican.

Regarding the necessary and proper clause, the states feared that the Congress would try to establish a national religion through the necessary and proper clause. One of the state’s reasons for the establishment clause was to prevent the Congress from using the necessary and proper clause to force the states to not be able to have state sponsored religions.

If you want to use the wall of separation, then you will have to prove what Jefferson’s intent was in his Danbury letter, and you will not be able to prove it to match your views. But the letter and Jefferson have no bearing on the intent of the establishment clause.

The statements are not "mixed, unrelated, and disjointed." WTF are you talking about?

The source is a faithful reproduction of the congressional records on the Bill of Rights. That site is aimed at teachers, so??? You can find the exact same thing here at the Library of Congress' Annals of Congress... http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=380

The source I used was simply easier to read and search.

Everson did not win. The court, WRONGLY, ruled that the reimbursements for transportation costs were "separate and so indisputably marked off from the religious function" that they did not violate the constitution. I am sorry, I thought you might offer a little better argument than the pathetic idiots, usf and td, but it seems you may just be a bag of wind.

Madison's intent was clear, to bar any support of religion, in general, by the government or prohibitions against worship. The quote I offered shows that. You first denied Madison ever said it, then claim it is disjointed or unrelated and now that it does not mean what it clearly states. You are pretty clearly grasping at straws.

 

[Timshel]

Madison's Memorial and Remonstrances had nothing to do with the establishment clause's intent.

It most certainly did. It was the definitive argument in sealing the passage of Jefferson's bill for Religious Freedom in Virginia and the first amendment, which was intended as the same sort of prohibition against the Federal government. There was little debate in Congress largely due to the force of Madison's argument and its general acceptance.

 

[Damocles]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagram


he got confused I think

Pentacle:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentacle

A pentacle (or pantacle in Thelema) is an amulet used in magical evocation, generally made of parchment, paper or metal (although it can be of other materials), on which the symbol of a spirit or energy being evoked is drawn. It is often worn around the neck, or placed within the triangle of evocation.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

So where does it say "mandatory?" Use your words. You offer nothing to the discussion.

Madison's Memorial and Remonstrances against Religious Assessments makes his intentions quite clear. The religious assessment in question did not "make a religion mandatory" but still it was seen by Madison and others, who carried the day, to violate religious liberty because it used the force of government for the support of religion, in general.

The only arguments from the founders to support your position are from John Jay and Patrick Henry, i.e., the losers on this question.

Ah yes; I see you've decided to fall back on the normal method of someone who realizes that they don't have leg to stand on.
Demand that someone reply to your straw man and completely ignore the huge pile of chaff that you've piled up yourself.

 

[Asa]

The statements are not "mixed, unrelated, and disjointed." WTF are you talking about?

The source is a faithful reproduction of the congressional records on the Bill of Rights. That site is aimed at teachers, so??? You can find the exact same thing here at the Library of Congress' Annals of Congress... http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=380

The source I used was simply easier to read and search.

Everson did not win. The court, WRONGLY, ruled that the reimbursements for transportation costs were "separate and so indisputably marked off from the religious function" that they did not violate the constitution. I am sorry, I thought you might offer a little better argument than the pathetic idiots, usf and td, but it seems you may just be a bag of wind.

Madison's intent was clear, to bar any support of religion, in general, by the government or prohibitions against worship. The quote I offered shows that. You first denied Madison ever said it, then claim it is disjointed or unrelated and now that it does not mean what it clearly states. You are pretty clearly grasping at straws.

You have given me nothing of relevance. It is disjointed and out of sequence, and devoid of the metamorphosis of the establishment clause. You also seem to relish spending most of your energy with philistine remarks, which is a strong indicator you are over your head.

A site aimed at teachers is a good sight, but of no interest to me because of its limitations.

The court’s ruling was narrow in regard to the intent, in contrast to the practice of the founding generation post Bill of Rights, in contrast to the Marshal Court rulings, and relied on non-legal and non-relevant sources. Black lied about the establishment clause right out of the chute with his opinion:

The establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another.​

The establishment clause did not mean a state could not set up a church, as the states had state sponsored churches after the ratification of the Bill of Rights, nor did it prevent a state from aiding one religion over another. Black disregarded the first few words of the clause: “Congress shall make no law….” In Everson, Congress did not make a law, it was state taxpayer money, and was not under the federal government’s purview.

Even though the establishment clause was tendered with a separationist slant, it quickly changed to the pre-first Congress’s tone of a theist based clause that Ames negotiated with Madison at the convention.

The fourth proposal was submitted by Ames, which was an accommodationist proposal: “Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience.” The House kept this version with only a few stylistic changes and sent it to the Senate: “Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of conscience be infringed.”

The Senate then changed the House version to a more theist specific clause as was negotiated with Madison during the convention: “Congress shall make no law establishing one religious sect or society in preference to others, nor shall the rights of conscience be infringed.” Then revised it, but still kept the theist specific language: “Congress shall not make any law, infringing the rights of conscience, or establishing any Religious Sect or Society.”

In keeping with the theist based 1st Amendment, the Senate considered this revision as well: “Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination of religion in preference to another, or prohibiting free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of conscience be infringed.”

Madison never stated what you said he stated. I am not sure about my grasping at straws considering don’t have to research my rebuttals, but it seems clear that you believe that a few clicks on the internet, and you are a scholar on the subject.

 

[Asa]

It most certainly did. It was the definitive argument in sealing the passage of Jefferson's bill for Religious Freedom in Virginia and the first amendment, which was intended as the same sort of prohibition against the Federal government. There was little debate in Congress largely due to the force of Madison's argument and its general acceptance.

It had nothing to do with the 1st Amendment, and neither did Jefferson's Religious Freedom in Virginia. Madison did not make an argument. He resubmitted the word "national." Why are you just making this up?

 

[Timshel]

It had nothing to do with the 1st Amendment, and neither did Jefferson's Religious Freedom in Virginia. Madison did not make an argument. He resubmitted the word "national." Why are you just making this up?

I have not made up anything. You are just making absurd claims. Obviously the Memorial and Remonstrances and Jefferson's bill for Religious Freedom were related to the topic of freedom of conscience and the first amendment. Anyone that claims otherwise should not be taken seriously. Madison clearly states that he intends it to mean "that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience." It is more than just a prohibition against making a religion mandatory or establishing a religion.

 

[Timshel]

Ah yes; I see you've decided to fall back on the normal method of someone who realizes that they don't have leg to stand on.
Demand that someone reply to your straw man and completely ignore the huge pile of chaff that you've piled up yourself.

You are a pathetic and redundant troll. Where does it say that they only can't make a religion mandatory? What does it say that means that?

 

[Timshel]

You have given me nothing of relevance. It is disjointed and out of sequence, and devoid of the metamorphosis of the establishment clause. You also seem to relish spending most of your energy with philistine remarks, which is a strong indicator you are over your head.

A site aimed at teachers is a good sight, but of no interest to me because of its limitations.

The court’s ruling was narrow in regard to the intent, in contrast to the practice of the founding generation post Bill of Rights, in contrast to the Marshal Court rulings, and relied on non-legal and non-relevant sources. Black lied about the establishment clause right out of the chute with his opinion:

The establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another.​

The establishment clause did not mean a state could not set up a church, as the states had state sponsored churches after the ratification of the Bill of Rights, nor did it prevent a state from aiding one religion over another. Black disregarded the first few words of the clause: “Congress shall make no law….” In Everson, Congress did not make a law, it was state taxpayer money, and was not under the federal government’s purview.

Even though the establishment clause was tendered with a separationist slant, it quickly changed to the pre-first Congress’s tone of a theist based clause that Ames negotiated with Madison at the convention.

The fourth proposal was submitted by Ames, which was an accommodationist proposal: “Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience.” The House kept this version with only a few stylistic changes and sent it to the Senate: “Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of conscience be infringed.”

The Senate then changed the House version to a more theist specific clause as was negotiated with Madison during the convention: “Congress shall make no law establishing one religious sect or society in preference to others, nor shall the rights of conscience be infringed.” Then revised it, but still kept the theist specific language: “Congress shall not make any law, infringing the rights of conscience, or establishing any Religious Sect or Society.”

In keeping with the theist based 1st Amendment, the Senate considered this revision as well: “Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination of religion in preference to another, or prohibiting free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of conscience be infringed.”

Madison never stated what you said he stated. I am not sure about my grasping at straws considering don’t have to research my rebuttals, but it seems clear that you believe that a few clicks on the internet, and you are a scholar on the subject.

It is not disjointed or out of sequence. It is a verbatim quote of the Annals of Congress. The best source we have says Madison said it. There is nothing wrong with the citation and you offer absolutely nothing for your claims. What is your source? What source would you recommend other than the Annals of Congress?

You are over your head which is quite clear by your errant claim that Everson won and you are grasping at straws looking for some way to discount the ACCURATE historical record. The fact that you can make errant arguments without references or substantive support does not strengthen your position one bit. You don't know what you are talking about.

Black's statement is in the context of the first via the fourteenth. You are obviously not qualified to comment on it since you did not even know the result of the case, probably have not read the opinion and are just reciting what you recall from Barton or some other clown. Besides that, the case we are currently discussing involves the Federal government.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

ftfy

 

[Asa]

It is not disjointed or out of sequence. It is a verbatim quote of the Annals of Congress. The best source we have says Madison said it. There is nothing wrong with the citation and you offer absolutely nothing for your claims. What is your source? What source would you recommend other than the Annals of Congress?

You are over your head which is quite clear by your errant claim that Everson won and you are grasping at straws looking for some way to discount the ACCURATE historical record. The fact that you can make errant arguments without references or substantive support does not strengthen your position one bit. You don't know what you are talking about.

Black's statement is in the context of the first via the fourteenth. You are obviously not qualified to comment on it since you did not even know the result of the case, probably have not read the opinion and are just reciting what you recall from Barton or some other clown. Besides that, the case we are currently discussing involves the Federal government.

I guess my problem is I am having a difficult time following your simplistic, jejune, and one-dimensional arguments. You seem like a very bitter liberal who believes your ideology and disdain for the founding principles of this country trumps history with selective, out of context, disjointed, and simplistic internet gathered information that supports your world view.

My source is my education and profession, and yours seems to be the internet.

I stated that Everson won, but did not check it before sending, the district won in Everson is what I meant.

Perhaps you can demonstrate that the authors of the 14th Amendment intended it to apply to the states outside the narrow use created exclusively for the freed slave. This would make Black’s statement in contradiction of the authors’ intent of the 14th Amendment, and the ensuing court rulings regarding the 14th Amendment and its non-application to the states by the very people who were alive and involved in the 14th Amendment.

It was Elbridge Gerry and George Mason who proposed the Bill of Rights, and they were summarily rejected. But when a bill of rights was necessary to ratify the Constitution, then the Bill of Rights came into being. The establishment clause was the product of Madison and Ames and their compromise during the convention. It was to protect theists, and is evidenced in the debates and various versions of the establishment clause. The concern was preferential treatment of certain Christian faiths. Ames’ and other state delegates were concerned that their state’s established religions that were supported by taxes would be affected if not for an establishment clause that protected the states from the Congress.

The word "respecting" in the 1st Amendment had very specific meaning. It did not mean prohibition, appearance, or support. It was a legislative prohibition of religion at the federal level only. It meant concerning. It was used as well in Article IV.

The prevailing thought and concern was if a national church was established, it would have been the Episcopal Church. That would have disestablished the state sanctioned churches in Massachusetts and Connecticut, thus Ames’s concern dating back to the convention. What they created, and Black violated, was the federalism guarantee.

 

[Jarod]

That is not what they envisioned. They passed an amendment that at its most basic foundation, prevented the Congress, and only the Congress from making a law establishing a national religion, and not interfere with the state's rights to have a state sponsored religion by cutting the necessary and proper clause out of the equation. Tax dollars were used immediately in support of religions and the Bible, Christian prayers continued in the government along with Christian chaplains paid by tax dollars.

So the word "Promoting" actually meant "establishing"

Does the First Amendment read "Congress shall pass no law establishing a religion."?

 

[Asa]

So the word "Promoting" actually meant "establishing"

Does the First Amendment read "Congress shall pass no law establishing a religion."?

The First Amendment does not state "Congress shall pass no law establishing a religion." You are attempting to debate textualism without the tenets of textualism. Establishing had a specific meaning in the context of a church, and that meaning was congruent with the Church of England and its relationship with England.

 

[Timshel]

I guess my problem is I am having a difficult time following your simplistic, jejune, and one-dimensional arguments. You seem like a very bitter liberal who believes your ideology and disdain for the founding principles of this country trumps history with selective, out of context, disjointed, and simplistic internet gathered information that supports your world view.

My source is my education and profession, and yours seems to be the internet.

I stated that Everson won, but did not check it before sending, the district won in Everson is what I meant.

Perhaps you can demonstrate that the authors of the 14th Amendment intended it to apply to the states outside the narrow use created exclusively for the freed slave. This would make Black’s statement in contradiction of the authors’ intent of the 14th Amendment, and the ensuing court rulings regarding the 14th Amendment and its non-application to the states by the very people who were alive and involved in the 14th Amendment.

It was Elbridge Gerry and George Mason who proposed the Bill of Rights, and they were summarily rejected. But when a bill of rights was necessary to ratify the Constitution, then the Bill of Rights came into being. The establishment clause was the product of Madison and Ames and their compromise during the convention. It was to protect theists, and is evidenced in the debates and various versions of the establishment clause. The concern was preferential treatment of certain Christian faiths. Ames’ and other state delegates were concerned that their state’s established religions that were supported by taxes would be affected if not for an establishment clause that protected the states from the Congress.

The word "respecting" in the 1st Amendment had very specific meaning. It did not mean prohibition, appearance, or support. It was a legislative prohibition of religion at the federal level only. It meant concerning. It was used as well in Article IV.

The prevailing thought and concern was if a national church was established, it would have been the Episcopal Church. That would have disestablished the state sanctioned churches in Massachusetts and Connecticut, thus Ames’s concern dating back to the convention. What they created, and Black violated, was the federalism guarantee.

Your problem is that your argument is based on nothing but lies and you cannot back it up with any sources. Which one of Barton's books are you reading from? Maybe we can find where your error is through that?

I fully support the founding principles which is why I am defending against your attack on religious liberty.

I am sorry, your misremembered and inaccurate history (e.g., your claim that Everson won) does not trump the ACTUAL history supported by the best available references.

Your claim of a failure in proof reading does not fit the context. I noted that the court got it wrong in ruling against Everson and you were trying to contradict that by saying Everson won. But anyway...

The debates in the house were not concerned with preferential treatment. The debates in the Senate showed some concern for it but were ultimately rejected for the broader separationist language.

Yes, I agree "respecting" means "concerning." And "establishment of religion" clearly means "religious establishment." So then the government may not take action that directly concerns a religious establishment. That is, it can't support or build a religious monument, collect money for churches or establish a religion.

I am not going to turn to the 14th. You are only trying to change the subject from the fact that you offered nothing to support your claims. Besides, the OP does not concern the 14th. Finally, there is no chance that the correct application of the 14th will be overturned.

 

[Timshel]

Try not to pee on yourself while signaling your submission.

 

[Asa]

Your problem is that your argument is based on nothing but lies and you cannot back it up with any sources. Which one of Barton's books are you reading from? Maybe we can find where your error is through that?

I fully support the founding principles which is why I am defending against your attack on religious liberty.

I am sorry, your misremembered and inaccurate history (e.g., your claim that Everson won) does not trump the ACTUAL history supported by the best available references.

Your claim of a failure in proof reading does not fit the context. I noted that the court got it wrong in ruling against Everson and you were trying to contradict that by saying Everson won. But anyway...

The debates in the house were not concerned with preferential treatment. The debates in the Senate showed some concern for it but were ultimately rejected for the broader separationist language.

Yes, I agree "respecting" means "concerning." And "establishment of religion" clearly means "religious establishment." So then the government may not take action that directly concerns a religious establishment. That is, it can't support or build a religious monument, collect money for churches or establish a religion.

I am not going to turn to the 14th. You are only trying to change the subject from the fact that you offered nothing to support your claims. Besides, the OP does not concern the 14th. Finally, there is no chance that the correct application of the 14th will be overturned.

You seem trollish to me. I have not read Barton’s books because they are not history books; they view history from a Christian’s point of view, and that is not history.

You have manifested your disdain for the founding principles by believing that Everson was wrongly decided. But if you want to show me where the founders intended the Bill of Rights to apply to the states, then we can revisit the argument. I have not made an attack on religious liberty, but I could see how someone of your stature could misconstrue that.

This seems to further demonstrate a bitter liberal.

Your ignorance of Ames’s purpose for his amendment, along with this deal with Madison, highlights your lack of depth in the area. There was no separatists language or intent in the final version.

Religious establishment meant the establishment of a church in the context of the Church of England and nothing more. This you are just fabricating as with your other statements.

The 14th Amendment is attached to Everson, and the 14th Amendment was never indented to apply to the states.

You seem to be one of those liberals who eschews history, and depends on your ideology as a guiding instrument to come up with a contrary intent of the entire Constitution and Bill of Rights. This class of miscreants are a dime a dozen, and it is obvious they depend entirely on the internet for their education on the subject of American history and constitutional law.

 

[Timshel]

You seem trollish to me. I have not read Barton’s books because they are not history books; they view history from a Christian’s point of view, and that is not history.

You have manifested your disdain for the founding principles by believing that Everson was wrongly decided. But if you want to show me where the founders intended the Bill of Rights to apply to the states, then we can revisit the argument. I have not made an attack on religious liberty, but I could see how someone of your stature could misconstrue that.

This seems to further demonstrate a bitter liberal.

Your ignorance of Ames’s purpose for his amendment, along with this deal with Madison, highlights your lack of depth in the area. There was no separatists language or intent in the final version.

Religious establishment meant the establishment of a church in the context of the Church of England and nothing more. This you are just fabricating as with your other statements.

The 14th Amendment is attached to Everson, and the 14th Amendment was never indented to apply to the states.

You seem to be one of those liberals who eschews history, and depends on your ideology as a guiding instrument to come up with a contrary intent of the entire Constitution and Bill of Rights. This class of miscreants are a dime a dozen, and it is obvious they depend entirely on the internet for their education on the subject of American history and constitutional law.

You don't seem trollish, you are plainly a troll. You are becoming redundant and boring now and that troll roll is already filled by usf.

I have already presented my historical sources. Your attack on them is silly and it seems you are claiming that no sources are preferable. That's probably because you have offered NONE. You just keep repeating your misremembered and inaccurate facts based on nothing but your ideology and whatever rag you pulled them from.

The final language was clearly separationist (not separatist, wtf???).

No, an "establishment of religion" clearly meant more than simply "establishing a religion." That text was offered and rejected. Again, this is where the Memorial and Remonstrances as well as the Annals of Congress are relevant as they clearly show that the "establishment of religion" meant more than the revisionist/accomodationist suggest.

Congress is not permitted to establish a religion under a separationist first and so your unsupported claims of Ames purpose would not have been in conflict with a separationist first.

 

[Truth Detector]

Google is your friend, moron; try using it before you embarrass yourself again.

Yes, you really are THAT incredibly stupid.

Ohhhh, you mean a PENTAGRAM. Sorry shit-for-brains; not too many call grave markings pentacles.

pen·ta·cle audio (pnt-kl) KEY

NOUN:
A five-pointed star, often held to have magical or mystical significance, formed by five straight lines connecting the vertices of a pentagon and enclosing another pentagon in the completed figure. Also called pentagram.

Carry on shit-for-brains; your attempts to mimic my posts only make you look dumber than you already are.

Why; because you really are THAT pathetic.

 

[Truth Detector]

They envisioned a government that did not endorse any particular religion and I believe religion in particular.

Wrong; they envisioned a Republic that did not ESTABLISH a State religion. They endorsed the Christian religion. Why do you think the Congress still starts their session with a prayer? Why does the Supreme Court start sessions with a prayer? Why do most State Houses start each session with prayer? Why does our currency state “In God We Trust?”

U.S. Supreme Court
MARSH v. CHAMBERS, 463 U.S. 783 (1983)
463 U.S. 783
MARSH, NEBRASKA STATE TREASURER, ET AL. v. CHAMBERS
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

No. 82-23.​

Argued April 20, 1983
Decided July 5, 1983

We turn then to the question of whether any features of the Nebraska practice violate the Establishment Clause. [463 U.S. 783, 793] Beyond the bare fact that a prayer is offered, three points have been made: first, that a clergyman of only one denomination - Presbyterian - has been selected for 16 years; 13 second, that the chaplain is paid at public expense; and third, that the prayers are in the Judeo-Christian tradition. 14 Weighed against the historical background, these factors do not serve to invalidate Nebraska's practice. 15
The Court of Appeals was concerned that Palmer's long tenure has the effect of giving preference to his religious views. We cannot, any more than Members of the Congresses of this century, perceive any suggestion that choosing a clergyman of one denomination advances the beliefs of a particular church. To the contrary, the evidence indicates that Palmer was reappointed because his performance and personal qualities were acceptable to the body appointing him. 16 Palmer was not the only clergyman heard by the legislature; guest chaplains have officiated at the request of various legislators and as substitutes during Palmer's absences. Tr. of Oral Arg. 10. Absent proof that the chaplain's reappointment stemmed from an impermissible motive, we conclude [463 U.S. 783, 794] that his long tenure does not in itself conflict with the Establishment Clause. 17

Nor is the compensation of the chaplain from public funds a reason to invalidate the Nebraska Legislature's chaplaincy; remuneration is grounded in historic practice initiated, as we noted earlier, supra, at 788, by the same Congress that drafted the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Continental Congress paid its chaplain, see, e. g., 6 J. Continental Cong. 887 (1776), as did some of the states, see, e. g., Debates of the Convention of Virginia 470 (June 26, 1788). Currently, many state legislatures and the United States Congress provide compensation for their chaplains, Brief for National Conference of State Legislatures as Amicus Curiae 3; 2 U.S.C. 61d and 84-2 (1982 ed.); H. R. Res. 7, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. (1979). 18 Nebraska has paid its chaplain for well over a century, see 1867 Neb. Laws 85, 2-4 (June 21, 1867), reprinted in Neb. Gen. Stat. 459 (1873). The content of the prayer is not of concern to judges where, as here, there is no indication that the prayer opportunity has been exploited to proselytize or advance any one, [463 U.S. 783, 795] or to disparage any other, faith or belief. That being so, it is not for us to embark on a sensitive evaluation or to parse the content of a particular prayer.
We do not doubt the sincerity of those, who like respondent, believe that to have prayer in this context risks the beginning of the establishment the Founding Fathers feared. But this concern is not well founded, for as Justice Goldberg aptly observed in his concurring opinion in Abington, 374 U.S., at 308 :

"It is of course true that great consequences can grow from small beginnings, but the measure of constitutional adjudication is the ability and willingness to distinguish between real threat and mere shadow."​

The unbroken practice for two centuries in the National Congress and for more than a century in Nebraska and in many other states gives abundant assurance that there is no real threat "while this Court sits," Panhandle Oil Co. v. Mississippi ex rel. Knox, 277 U.S. 218, 223 (1928) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed.

There is a VAST ocean of difference between the meanings of the two words; read, become informed:

es•tab•lish
ɪˈstæb lɪʃShow Spelled [ih-stab-lish]
verb (used with object)
1. to found, institute, build, or bring into being on a firm or stable basis: to establish a university; to establish a medical practice.
2. to install or settle in a position, place, business, etc.: to establish one's child in business.
3. to show to be valid or true; prove: to establish the facts of the matter.
4. to cause to be accepted or recognized: to establish a custom; She established herself as a leading surgeon.
5. to bring about permanently: to establish order.

en•dorse
ɛnˈdɔrsShow Spelled [en-dawrs] Show IPA verb, en•dorsed, en•dors•ing, noun
verb (used with object) Also, indorse (for defs 1–6).
1. to approve, support, or sustain: to endorse a political candidate.
2. to designate oneself as payee of (a check) by signing, usually on the reverse side of the instrument.
3. to sign one's name on (a commercial document or other instrument).
4. to make over (a stated amount) to another as payee by one's endorsement.
5. to write (something) on the back of a document, paper, etc.: to endorse instructions; to endorse one's signature.

 

[Truth Detector]

You don't seem trollish, you are plainly a troll. You are becoming redundant and boring now and that troll roll is already filled by usf.

I have already presented my historical sources. Your attack on them is silly and it seems you are claiming that no sources are preferable. That's probably because you have offered NONE. You just keep repeating your misremembered and inaccurate facts based on nothing but your ideology and whatever rag you pulled them from.

The final language was clearly separationist (not separatist, wtf???).

No, an "establishment of religion" clearly meant more than simply "establishing a religion." That text was offered and rejected. Again, this is where the Memorial and Remonstrances as well as the Annals of Congress are relevant as they clearly show that the "establishment of religion" meant more than the revisionist/accomodationist suggest.

Congress is not permitted to establish a religion under a separationist first and so your unsupported claims of Ames purpose would not have been in conflict with a separationist first.

What a pile of verbal diahrea. You're one pathetic moron you know that?