Re: US Government Sponsored Prayers and The Pledge of Allegiance

On May 10, 6:12=A0am, buckeye <buckeye...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >:|> >The First Amendment states only that
> >:|> >Congress shall make no laws respecting (meaning: "related to") a
> >:|> >religious establishment--that's it.
> >:|
> >:|That interpretation of "respecting" makes no sense either in the
> >:|historical context of the amendment or common sense.
>
> I would be curious to see what you base the above on.
>
> What historical context?
> Whose and what common sense?

If "respecting" means "related to", then Congress (and by extension
the federal government) can not prevent the states from declaring a
religion - thus nullifying Everson (Everson is "related to"
religion).  But of course, Madison wasn't worried about laws "related
to" religion, but rather laws that "honored" religion.

Josh Rosenbluth