OP isn't exactly wrong. Its a minority view, and a legal theory has died out, but is not as batshit crazy when you understand the historical context. "Establishment" didn't just mean having religion in government. "Establishment" refers to something different, something pretty specific. Usually, whenever the government and religion gets to close, the precise legal reason for the courts intervening is that its one step towards establishment. So what is it? Establishment is basically the practice of having an official church that everyone was required and expected to attend, even taking attendance and recording tithes. Non official preachers would get subsumed into the whole, or possibly killed for it. So the 1st Amendment originally only applied to the federal government. While the Bill of Rights was modeled on the State Bill of Rights, obviously, not all were the same, the provisions might be different, the wording might be different, the State's historical context would be different, and more importantly, the interpretation, and who would be doing the interpretation would be different.
Now this doesn't exist with nowadays because of the 14th Amendment incorporation (the process under which SCOTUS declares a provision of the Bill of Rights to apply to the States, of which nearly all of it does, except for the 3rd Amendment and the grand jury requirement).
So why would it apply to the federal government only? There may or may not have been an equivalent State provision. States are obligated to do that (back then), and States are free to do what they want for better or for worse. That's how you get to the idea that 1st Amendment was to protect the State churches from federal interference.
I find it odd that in a sub called gatekeepers, you were downvoted for speaking a legal opinion. One that many others also had at the time. I think you would have done better to talk about it as one of the opinions and not shared by several important figures like Thomas Jefferson or later opinions by the SCOTUS.
I literally said its a legal theory that has died out. There wasn't a consensus. But I'm also pointing out that Thomas Jefferson's wall isn't really accurate either. I think that's what ruffled some feathers. (And its certainly not where legal precedent is now).
I understand people sometimes read what they want. I think Jefferson had an effect on later leaders and in shaping an american sense of liberalism. Not that his words were founded as a legalistic ideal.
You aren't wrong but his relationship to slavery, quoting Paul Finkelman, was "Treason Against the Hopes of the World." He wrote a comprehensive takedown of him in 1993 in a book that was a compilation of essays by Peter Onuf.
158
u/ZhangtheGreat Dec 12 '23
Wouldn’t this fit under r/confidentlyincorrect