George Santayana was right.

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

It gets down to 'what is an establishment of religion?' That's what the 1st prohibits, an establishment of religion.

The historical example is an 'established' church, like the Church of England. We formerly had them in some of the colonies too. This is a religious institution incorporated into the state to some degree, with religious leaders entitled to certain public office and authority, and the institution supported by taxes on the general populace, be they religious or not. We've had whiffs of that as late as the 1960's, until we did away with censorship boards partially staffed by clergy.

But generalizing from this sort of thing, an 'established' church is one that wields the authority of the state, that enforces its dogma by the machinery of law, or that grants itself privileges and immunizes from the law.

Do you begin to see why the Arizona balderdash violates the 1st Amendment?

Yes I do but you can't violate others rights at the same time. I see it all as a slippery slope in this great new experiment.