How can I be sure

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

What I am saying is that what you may infer as the founders' intent (which whether you recognize it or not is a debatable proposition, especially given the philosphical currents that gave rise to the Constition in the first place) is really irrelevant to what we are arguing about. Where you and I part company is the policy underlying and ratianale for the establishment clause as presently understood and applied. I clarified this in the revision to my post if you care to read it.

Finland, Norway and England are no more theocracies than England is a monarchy. The nominal lables of "state religion" are no more than old heirlooms; like the confederate flag flying over the state house in South Carolina. That you resort to them as examples of good theocracies is really funny. I question whether you are even being serious here. That you have to resort to these examples proves my point. Even in the private shpere religious ferver is at an alarmingly low ebb in the countries you cite.

I do think there was much evil going on the original colonies. Though they had the original constitution, and had come a long ways in comparison to their European forebears, there was much work to be done and blood to be shed before our country attained its current exalted status in terms of recognition of individual liberties. The Bill of Rights itself would not have been possible in a true theocracy. I am not only in the majority in making this point, most knowledgeable people would take it as a verity, hardly worth discussing.

The consensus among people in this country who are aware of and think about such issues is that theocracies are inherently evil, and it is in recognition of this that the establishment clause is what it has become today. You say I'm shrill, but you're on the fringes. That you would try to stigmatize my common sense argument by calling me an atheist says it all.

I NEVER DISAGREED THAT SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IS GOOD!!! I ONLY NOTED THAT THEOCRACIES ARE NOT INHERENTLY BAD. And it is YOU who has continually raised the founding fathers as an example of people who thought theocracies were inherently bad, and when faced with clear evidence to the contrary, now you want to say we are only talking about today's world.

I am done here. Take the last word (and revise your position one more time for good time's sake).

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I NEVER DISAGREED THAT SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IS GOOD!!!.).

Of course you didn't. Mormonism's very success would not have been possible otherwise.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I ONLY NOTED THAT THEOCRACIES ARE NOT INHERENTLY BAD.

This is where you part company with rational minds.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

And it is YOU who has continually raised the founding fathers as an example of people who thought theocracies were inherently bad, and when faced with clear evidence to the contrary, now you want to say we are only talking about today's world.

Your "evidence" is about as material and meaningful as England or Norway having a nominal state religion today.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I am done here. Take the last word (and revise your position one more time for good time's sake.

Checkmate.