One of the most important rules of construction is that, to the extent possible, we should follow the intent of the drafers. To understand the specific intent of those drafters, you have to know what problems and abuses they were trying to prevent, and had just fought a war of independence over.

Show us evidence that one of the "rules of construction", at the time the Constitution was made, was as you claim.


Dude, there was no "rule of construction" regarding "problems and abuses", at the time the Constitution was being made. There was a rule regarding "the reason and spirit" of a law. However, it was not to be used unless the first four rules failed to resolve the ambiguity.

A mix of both.

During the colonial period, the Church of England was the pre-eminent body politic for the United Kingdom. And like today, its head is the regent. The Church of England was specifically created so King Henry VIII could annul his marriages and also retake control of papal estates in order to boost the assets of the Kingdom, solidify his power, and cancel debt. This is accepted knowledge throughout England. From its less-miraculous birth, Anglicanism has since morphed into a general worldwide Protestant community.

Puritanism rejected both the CofE for its illegitimacy (in their eyes) and the Roman Catholic Church for its corruption and abuse as a world political power, hence the followers of Puritanism faiths where subject to an exodus from the UK, Ireland and Germany into the Americas.

Before that, the Roman Catholic Church was ruling over countries by proxy, particularly Spain, Portugal and France as they were all closest to The Vatican's #1 arch enemy: England [the Ottoman Empire was a close tie for #1 as well]. Many wars between France and England were prodded along by the Pope. Hence why the term papist became a pejorative in the UK.

Interestingly enough, America was not the first place where widespread religious tolerance was practiced. I would argue that for the most part, Spain holds this title during the conquest by the Moors when all 3 major monotheistic religions were being practiced in Spain under Arab rule.

We live in a Republic that revolves around Federalism. Rights are enumerated in the Constitution, and limits preventing barriers to freedom are in it as well. What lawmakers do is constricted by the terms in this Document.

The reasons behind where and why certain provisions in the Constitution exist are best understood by reading The Federalist Papers and the arguments that were presented in the 13 colonies' ratification conventions. Those are the most commonly-used sources that both lawmakers and the Supreme Court typically call up when there is no other precedent to fall back on.

__________________
WHYY pays their CEO $750,000 a year. So WHYY should I renew my membership? Seems they have no problems finding money and spending it unwisely.


And this is why you should donate to PACCA, not PETA:

In September, PETA made headlines in Vermont and across the nation for asking Ben & Jerry's ice cream to use human breast milk in their ice cream, instead of cow milk

They didn't want the state ruling over the church. It was to protect the church. The concern wasn't about public displays of religion, etc.

What method of interpretation did you unitize to ascertain that the word "religion" in the Constitution means "the Church of England." If there was no First Amendment, would the government have power over religion? If so, please show us where such power was granted.

I thought separation of church and state was all about exempting religion from civil authority, because God had absolute and exclusive authority over purely sacred things.

I think they mainly intended to get a new Constitution enacted. In 1787, there were still states with official -- or, at least, privileged -- denominations. In New England, the Congregational Church (the Puritan church) was tax supported as late as 1833. In that environment, the First Amendment essentially promised the states that the federal government wouldn't be infringing on their turf.

__________________
"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected." G.K. Chesterton

Yes. That's what I meant by protecting the church from the state.

I hope your not suggesting the the meaning of the Constitution should be gathered from whether or not there were still states with privileged denominations.

PS: What were the privileged denominations and show us the laws that made them privileged?

.

That statement is not true.

Where was the national government ever granted authority over religion, in the first place? The original Constitution granted the national government no power over religion.

Meaning? Hey, I believe in a living constitution. So, it's entirely possible for the First Amendment to have a different meaning to us than it meant to the guys who wrote it because the circumstances have changed. Now, it means that people can write, say and believe what they please. Then, it was a promise from one government to another.

It's not a good idea to make declarative statements about issues on which you're not informed. Briefly...

The Establishment Clause did not apply to the States. An establishment of religion, i.e. direct tax aid to churches, was the situation in nine of the thirteen colonies on the eve of the American revolution. Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, and Pennsylvania had never had an establishment of religion. After the Declaration of Independence, the new states began writing constitutions, usually abandoning state-sponsorship for a particular religion or sect, and by approximately 1791, nine of eleven states that ratified the amendments of 1789 had disestablished. In the New England, however, the process went on well into the 1800s: Connecticut in 1818, New Hampshire in 1819, and finally Massachusetts disestablished in 1833. Even after "disestablishment", some states persisted in tax-support for religion, by "general assessment" meaning the proceeds were available to all denominations.
http://everything2.com/e2node/Church...in%2520America

From an article on the history of evangelicalism…
In urban eastern Massachusetts, one result of the revival of religious fervor was a dispute between conservative (or orthodox) and liberal Congregationalists that has become known to us as the Unitarian Controversy. Discussed thoroughly in the historiography of American religion as a theological and ecclesiastical dispute among two factions of the ancient religion of New England, the rift eventually resulted in denominational separation and religious disestablishment in Massachusetts.
http://www.questia.com/googleScholar...cId=5000561214

Remember precedent. Our previous (English) government had a state church. Most of the states had state churches. So, those precedents would strongly imply that the new U.S. (federal) government would also have the power to create and maintain a state church. With the First Amendment, however, the government explicitly gave up that right.

Writing and enacting a constitution is a series of political calculations. What's important and what can we let ride? What will get this passed and what will slow it or stop it? What the Founding Dads most wanted was a central government strong enough to take control of foreign policy, defense of borders and to provide a coherent voice on trade, taxation, etc. To get that, they decided to let slavery "ride." Ditto for religion. At that moment, the First Amendment assured states with privileged denominations (nine of 13) that the feds would not be stepping on their turf.

__________________
"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected." G.K. Chesterton