So, Concurrent Resolution 155 has been approved WITHOUT objection, and has been sent to the House. Here are some nice little excerpts:

Whereas it is appropriate and fitting to seek guidance, direction, and focus from God in times of conflict and in periods of turmoil; so now I'm told to seek direction from God. Great.

Whereas prayer to God and the admission of human limitations and frailties begins the process of becoming both stronger and closer to God;and I'm being told to become closer to God.

Whereas our Nation, tested by civil war, military conflicts, and world wars, has always benefited from the grace and benevolence bestowed by God and now I'm being indoctrinated into Christianity.

Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring),
That it is the sense of Congress that--
(1) November 27, 2002, should be designated as a day for
humility, prayer, and fasting for all people of the United
States; and
(2) all people of the United States should--
(A) observe this day as a day of prayer and
fasting;
(B) seek guidance from God to achieve greater
understanding of our own failings;
(C) learn how we can do better in our everyday
activities; and
(D) gain resolve in how to confront those
challenges which we must confront.

Passed the Senate November 14, 2002. These people took an oath to uphold the Constitution. This most certainly does NOT do that. I wonder how many of these congressmen are actually going to pray and fast on that day?

read it in its entirety:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_bills&docid=f:sc155es.txt

(1) November 27, 2002, should be designated as a day for
humility, prayer, and fasting for all people of the United
States; and
(2) all people of the United States should--
(A) observe this day as a day of prayer and
fasting;
(B) seek guidance from God to achieve greater
understanding of our own failings;You can't be serious! Is this for real? :shake: :toofar:

It certainly appears to be real. If it is, the wording is a disgrace.

Sing with me now: "In the land of the free, we get told when to pray" (And who to pray to).

Beats most of the crap turned out by the European Commission hands down.

(1) November 27, 2002, should be designated as a day for
humility, prayer, and fasting for all people of the United States; and
(2) all people of the United States should--
(A) observe this day as a day of prayer and fasting;Wow.

What the **** is this ****ing crap? you can't be serious! Talk about denying me my first ammendment rites! if this gets through the House then I'm not certain what I'll do. I'm not even going to get in to how wrong this little reselution is it's akin to to shredding the constitution.

(1) I can't see that it is Christian. It doesn't mention Jesus, Christ etc.

(2) It won't last. They have to know it. I suspect it was a way for them to hold something up to some of their supporters as a way of proclaiming what moral and upstanding people they are but if passed it will be challenged in Federal Court and the Courts will strike it down.

Maybe akin to the 10 Commandments being posted in the Supreme Court of Alabama's building. The Chief Justice is either an idiot or knew that he would be forced to remove them by a Federal Court (he was) but the political gain by being able to say, "look at me, I'm an upright man" outweighed the eventual certain defeat.

I hadn't heard of this, I would be interested if someone could link where it says there was no objection to it. That's the surprising thing to me but I couldn't verify it from the link given.

Please do us all a favor and go back and read the actual wording of the Bill of Rights. Please? Pretty please?

If there's going to be a debate on this (which seems like a clear violation of the 1st Amendment), then I don't want to spend pages explaining to people that the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution or its amendments.

Heh, a few months ago Bush said atheist didnt have absolutely any rights in the US, since its a nation under God :rolleyes:

[Oooops, inny bitty mistake, its not a few months ago, more like 1987 and it´s senior (never said it was junior, but still) anyways for those who are still interested here the interview:

The following exchange took place at the Chicago airport between Robert I. Sherman of American Atheist Press and George Bush, on August 27 1987. Sherman is a fully accredited reporter, and was present by invitation as a member of the press corps. The Republican presidential nominee was there to announce federal disaster relief for Illinois. The discussion turned to the presidential primary:

Journalist:
"What will you do to win the votes of Americans who are atheists?"
Bush:
"I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me."
J:
"Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?"
B:
"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
J:
"Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?"
B:
"Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists."

/Me shoots guy who told not whole story to me

]

[ November 20, 2002, 21:07: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

You got it Shralp - everyone take some time to actually READ our constitution and its various amendments.

Do we have a site to go to that we can verify the wording on this? Not that I doubt your sources, I just want to verify...
And if it is true, then no, there's no way this can last. They will have so many groups up their collective rear ends that they won't be able to sit down. No matter WHAT the national mood happens to be.
[Okay, forget that first part, I just saw the link. Ha ha, don't mind me, nothing going on over here...]

[ November 20, 2002, 17:47: Message edited by: dragonjewel13 ]

I never heard Bush say that Morgoth, I really doubt he did, I would like some support please.

Shralp, the Constitution provides that Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion. It isn't uncommon for the jurisprudence respecting the establishment clause and free exercise clause to be described as "seperation of church and state." This stems from the the way our founders, who wrote the Constitution, would discuss the issue as well as case law. The Courts have made it clear that Congress (the government more broadly) can not make laws respecting one type of religion over another OR favoring religion over non-religion.

The above proposal favors religion over non-religion since it advocates the worship of a god while non-religion may argue that there is no god. Since the Courts have stated that for Congress to favor religion over non-religion is unconstitutional and since the Courts get the final say on interpreting the Constituion..... ipso facto etc. etc.

[ November 20, 2002, 17:49: Message edited by: Laches ]

No one's rights are being violated. No government official is going to come to your house and check to see if you are fasting and praying. No tax money is being used to support this fasting and praying, except the money wasted on the salaries of the various congress critters. Just a question how many people complaining about this, plan to celebrate on the 28th? You know the day of Thanksgiving. A holiday insituted to remind people to give thanks to God. All in all America would be better off if the congress passed more of these laws and fewer Homeland Security measures, or does the thought of data mining by the feds fill you with comfort?

It doesn't matter if rights are being violated or not, because it's clear no one's rights are going to be violated. Even the people who disagree with this, do agree that it won't last. But it's the thought. The very idea that irks people.

You have to sit back and ask yourself, what is motivating them to get so riled up over something such as a few words that obviously won't effect them?

It doesn't matter if rights are being violated or not, because it's clear no one's rights are going to be violated. Even the people who disagree with this, do agree that it won't last. But it's the thought. The very idea that irks people.

You have to sit back and ask yourself, what is motivating them to get so riled up over something such as a few words that obviously won't effect them? With all due respect, spoken like a member of the majority.

Laches,
You have yet to state how the current proposal would violate your rights. Are you forced to pray or fast? Are you forced to admit that there is a God? Are JBTs going to haul you to prison for ignoring this proposal? I ask again are you going to celebrate Thanksgiving? How about Christmas? Should government employees be given paid days off on those two days?
Why get upset about this when the feds are planning on collecting a file containing every piece of electonic data you create, from credit card purchases to e-mail to web sites you visit. It seems to me that you are complaining about a head cold while you are having a heart attack.

[ November 20, 2002, 18:46: Message edited by: Claron ]

The proposed resolution violates the constitution. I'm sorry if you don't like that but it does. The Courts have spoken, it is a violation of the Constitution for the government to support the establishment of religion over non-religion

From one of the most important cases in American history, Everson v. Board of Education:

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State." Notice where it says the government can't pass laws which prefer one religion over another?

So, it sounds like your admitting it's unconstitutional and saying, "so what, it doesn't hurt enough so we should just let this unconstitutional law go." That is the argument of someone in the majority. If you are in the majority you can't understand how it is disconcerting to have a law passed, unconstitutionally, by your country, which holds your way of life and your belief system to be invalid. Imagine Congress passed a resolution stating there is no god and all prayer should cease promptly. Imagine that there was no punishment if you kept praying. Now tell me with a straight face there wouldn't be outrage. Of course there would be, because when the government passes a condemnation on your entire belief system and way of life, and does so unconstitutionally, outrage is understandable.

Here is how Thanksgiving is defined by Encarta:


Thanksgiving was first celebrated by Pilgrims and Native Americans in colonial New England in the early 17th century. Its actual origin, however, probably traces to harvest festivals that have been traditional in many parts of the world since ancient times(see Festivals and Feasts). Today Thanksgiving is mainly a celebration of domestic life, centered on the home and family.
It doesn't say that you have to pray. It doesn't say you need to give thanks to a god. It says that you are thankful of what you have.

Christmas is more problematic in the sense that it is a government sanctioned religious holiday. Sort of, the most recognizable figure with regards to Christmas in the U.S. is probably Santa in my opinion.

I would like to point something out to you though. Do you see what your argument is? The implication is that because the governnment does unconstitutional things in one area other unconstitutional things should be okay too. That's silly. Those holidays you mention in no way, shape, or form go to show the proposed resolution is constitutional.

Here is a challenge: Instead of slinging mud and talking about the nefarious motives of those opposed to the resolution, develop a sound argument for why the resolution passes constitutional muster.

Because nonreligion violates my belief in religion.
By the way who are you thankful for on Thanksgiving if not God?

[ November 20, 2002, 19:13: Message edited by: Claron ]

Why do people have such a problem with this? Because one of the basic rights that the United States was founded on was the freedom of religion. It's not word for word in the constitution, but c'mon, read some basic US history. The majority of settlers that moved to the US did so because they were persecuted for their religious beliefs. Now, granted, a majority of them ALSO found someone to persecute for their religious beliefs, but the premise that many people run under is the freedom of religion. And it may not be the most important thing that we have to ***** about, but we ARE. Accept it. And think about it this way: Okay, I've decided to become Wiccan. So I no longer believe in God...I believe in Goddess. And if this new resolution passes, I want the wording to reflect and honour that fact. No, wait, I worship Krishna. I do not refer to him or Shiva as my God, I refer to them as Krishna, or Shiva...I want this new resolution to reflect THAT fact. So, in order to make everyone happy, it's going to have to go into "whatever deity, spirit, or entity you happen to worship, etc." And it's stupid. If I want to take time out of the day to sit and thank WHOEVER for the fact that I am alive, then that is my right to chose. Whether I would get arrested for praying, worshiping, fasting if this resolution passes is a moot point...It shouldn't even be a question.
Oh, and who do I give thanks to on Thanksgiving? Well, it sure isn't the God that you're referring to. And while I normally don't feel the need to be annoying and pretentious about that fact, for the sake of this argument, I'm going to be. There's no one who's going to have the right to tell me that the person I pray to is referred to as GOD. So there.

The way I see it is that there is no law forcing you to celebrate this holiday, you could just catch up on schoolwork or office work at home if you wished. Also, it advocates no specific God or religion, so it can be interpreted any way you want. In regards to an atheist becoming angry at this law, i see no point in that. If you have no belief system it can't be violated except by your own free will. If you were forced to adopt the praying position, and close your eyes, it wouldn't mean anything. This doesn't mean anything to atheists, except one more holiday out of school or work. I could understand the objection if Jesus, Buddha, Allah, or some other religious figure was named, but it is nonspecific. Why should you care? Your argument seems to be that your belief system is being violated, but you don't have one so that seems to be impossible.

If this resolution passes what will the government and Congress try to pass next? No thanks, this whole thing is wrong, wrong, wrong because of what it violates. I don't want the Feds designating days like this ever because it could lead to much worse things to come. There's more reasons why I object but I won't get in to a rant about that.

All of you who know your philosophy, was there ever a philospher that commented something to this effect:

People make easy puppets, and often they don't even know it.

If not, then somebody should have. Wake up folks.

Big B, I'm not sure what you're saying. It looks like your saying anyone who disagrees with you is a puppet and can't think for themselves. Isn't it possible for people to disagree with you AND have their own reasoned opinions for doing so? If anything, I'd say the puppets are those who support an obviously unconstitutional resolution and those who passed it -- it's a political ploy. If I've misinterpreted what you said I appologize in advance.

*Still waiting for one of the supporters of the resolution to make an argument about how it's constitutional. Still waiting. Waiting.

Just to make it known, I'm not in support of it only because people make a fuss over it. Should the wording be changed to "Do what you feel is right on Thanksgiving?" I don't know. Why was this being done anyway. You may be right Laches, it could be some ploy for whatever reason.

I'm not saying that people that automatically disagree with me are puppets. I am saying if something has no effect on you, why be so worried about it. Why lash out? Why the instinct? Where did that come from?

And I'm saying it DOES have an affect on people and you don't understand the depth of that affect because you are part of the majority who agrees with it. Really sit back and think and answer this honestly, if Congress unconstitutionally passed a resolution proclaiming there was no god and all prayer should cease, even though that would "have no affect" on people don't you think the outcry would make cause this one to sound like silence? Can you honestly say that you would take your own advice and shrug you shoulders and say "oh, i don't care" in that instance? Let me suggest that if you can honestly say that you can, you are an amazingly rare person.

I'll throw down the gauntlet again: someone argue that this is constitutional.

How the same people who argue on these boards against gun control relying on the grounds that it is unconstitutional can turn around here and ignore the fact that this IS CLEARLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL baffles me. Why is violating the Constitution suddenly okay? It's not.

I don't give a flying fig even if this doesn't harm anyone anywhere. It's UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I can't believe people want to ignore this fact.

"And I'm saying it DOES have an affect on people and you don't understand the depth of that affect because you are part of the majority who agrees with it. Really sit back and think and answer this honestly, if Congress unconstitutionally passed a resolution proclaiming there was no god and all prayer should cease, even though that would "have no affect" on people don't you think the outcry would make cause this one to sound like silence? Can you honestly say that you would take your own advice and shrug you shoulders and say "oh, i don't care" in that instance? Let me suggest that if you can honestly say that you can, you are an amazingly rare person."

If you're hypothetical situation did come true, I would not be rioting in Washington against it. That doesn't mean I agree with it, that just means I don't see that as the way to go about ammending the situation. I wouldn't care to the extent that I know I can still pray and disregard that law. I'd pay it no mind. No law will stop me from praying. It may stop me from praying in public, out loud at certain functions, but it cannot stop what goes on in my head. Instead of focusing my efforts on rioting and arguing about the law I would focus on those who are appalled by it and would like to learn more about Christianity.

So in this light I see this those who disagree with this as just ignoring it. Focus their efforts on doing what they've always done. This doesn't change that. So then, again you have to ask yourself, what's the real motivation? Why not go on and forget about it? If you don't want to pray, you don't have to, no big deal. There's no way it could or could not be enforced. Why then does it become a deal? Who or what is really the drive behind this? That's what you have to ask yourself. I believe there's only one being in this world that is truly threatened by prayer. He is the one that plays off the passions and prejudices of people to meet his goals. Don't be deceived.

[ November 20, 2002, 20:28: Message edited by: Big B ]

I believe there's only one being in this world that is truly threatened by prayer. He is the one that plays off the passions and prejudices of people to meet his goals. Don't be deceived.
So, anyone who opposes the resolution is a puppet of Satan? Okay, thanks for clearing that up. At least I'm in good company with the likes of Jefferson and company.

What's that? Oh, sorry, I have to run, a meeting with Satan at 3:00.

It doesn't have to be that way. Don't keep falling into the trap of making it all one big joke. If you do, you can be assured you won't be laughing for eternity.

Laches, you're a smart guy. Be reasonable. Don't just laugh it off.

@Claron

A holiday insituted to remind people to give thanks to God I think you should be thankfull to the Indians instead of God, oh wait the lead bullets were the presents

As a staunch Christian, it feels odd to make this stand. The resolution seems to me like a violation of the Constitution. Sorry, folks. But the plain fact is, when our government starts making laws pushing religion, it is not only violating the constitution, but bringing us back into the very situation that we came here to avoid in the first place. It was England's state established and supported Church that persecuted the Puritans and eventually drove them to relocate in the new world. Many of the Dutch that came over originally were also trying to escape persecution by their supposedly Christian government. The fact is, you don't make Christians by the edge of the sword. If it's not free will, it's not Christianity. There's far too much that gets labeled as Christianity that couldn't be farther from it.

The problem with the broad label "separation of church and state" is that people suddenly start thinking that religion can't have anything to do with government and therefore politicians should not be religious -- or allow their beliefs to affect the issues. This is absolute nonsense -- most of the laws passed in the original constitution were made by Christians who were not at all afraid to cite Scripture in support of their viewpoints. It is allowing government to have dominion over religious aspects that is clearly against the Constitution, not the other way around.

Oh, and by the way --- God is a word that means "one who is worshipped". So it can mean pretty much whatever you want it to mean; seems silly, if you are religious, to get in a huff about that.

Anyway, that's my thoughts on that. However, it would be interesting to hear someone explain why Thanksgiving, Easter, and Christmas managed to get passed as national holidays if this is construed as favoring one religion over another. Laches, thoughts? ;)

Please do us all a favor and go back and read the actual wording of the Bill of Rights. Please? Pretty please?

If there's going to be a debate on this (which seems like a clear violation of the 1st Amendment), then I don't want to spend pages explaining to people that the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution or its amendments. gee shralp, I was going for something more concise than, "what happened to congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" I suppose, given the amount of ignorance found online, your response is to be expected, as I gave no indication I knew the exact wording. But try not to be an ass about it next time. Please? Pretty please?

[ November 21, 2002, 00:25: Message edited by: AMaster ]

**seems silly, if you are religious, to get in a huff about that.**

Well, you know, I had to get into a huff about something. All the other good huffs were taken. :D

AMaster, my comment wasn't directed at you in particular.

It just causes so many headaches when people start to talk about "separation of church and state" without realizing what the Constitution actually says. And people do that all the time.

They talk about seperation of church and state for good reason though Shralp, it's part of our constitutional jurisprudence.

Here is a bit of a more concise explanation about why the resolution actually does cause a harm Big B, it's in the religious/school context but is easily analagous:

School sponsorship of a religious message is impermissible because it sends the ancillary message to members of the audience who are nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.
Santa Fe v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000) The proposed resolution sends a similar message that others are outsiders, and not full members of the political community.

Capstone, I think the secular aspects of Thanksgiving are pretty easy to see. The other two are admittedly tough and I think can easily be seen as violating the First Amendment. Here is an article where the government explains why it recognizes Christmas as a holiday, it is because of secular reasons. In short, Christmas in the U.S. has over the years become increasingly secular to the point where there is enough of a secular aspect to it as to no entail excessive entanglement of religion and state:

http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=8091

That said, I think that view is a massive stretch, from the article I think the reality is summed up here:

"The courts don't want to get rid of Christmas in public life. That position is probably inconsistent with the First Amendment, but it's reality," said Scott Greenwood, general counsel for the ACLU's Ohio chapter.
To argue on behalf of easter is an even greater stretch in my opinion. I couldn't find a case talking about Easter but I did find one justifying the celebration of Good Friday. They say the state has a secular reason for the holiday. It's a load of crap, but that's what they say, here is the case:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/7th/983058.html

Well, Thanksgiving may have secular aspects, but it's clear its roots were certainly not. Here (http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Insights/thanksgiving_day_the_foundation.htm) is a link describing the initiation of Thanksgiving as a national holiday. Sounds rather religious in nature, if not downright Christian. /me shudders.

AMaster, my comment wasn't directed at you in particular.

It just causes so many headaches when people start to talk about "separation of church and state" without realizing what the Constitution actually says. And people do that all the time. ah. Well, then, I apologize for both misunderstanding and overreacting. :)

Big B, it's not about being threatened by prayer, it's about the fact that this concurrent resolution clearly violates the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion THIS RESOLUTION IS IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. FORGET YOUR RELIGIOUS STANCE ON THE AFTERLIFE. FORGET THE DEVIL. I UNDERSTAND YOUR FEELINGS ON PRAYER, BUT YOU MUST UNDERSTAND THE PRINCIPAL OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

Source: http://memory.loc.gov/const/bor.html

P.S. No hard feelings, etc. I just feel that any resolution passed, no matter whom it affects needs to be rescinded if it violates the code of law we all adhere to.

[ November 22, 2002, 03:16: Message edited by: SlimShogun ]

This is drifting off topic I'm afraid. Capstone, I understand Thanksgiving origin. I do believe though that it is easier to see the secular aspects of Thanksgiving as opposed to Christmas or Easter. In short, the argument that Thanksgiving is a federally recognized holiday for secular reasons (today) is not as much of a stretch as the argument that Christmas and Easter are.

Also, are we arguing or were you genuinely curious about how the courts justify it? If we're arguing, I didn't realize it. If you were curious, well, that's how they justify it.

I agree with Slim. Although, if this law is passed, it's a mystery to me how they would enforce it. Would the "prayer police" come to your house and check?
Isn't thanksgiving a national holiday anyway?

BTW, every piece of money in the US, whether paper or coin, has the words "In God We Trust" printed on it. So our monetary system is also a violation of our first amendment rights.

The slogan on our money has been litigated as well. There are a lot of examples where there may be violations of the First Amendment. Swearing in the President with a Bible. Prayer to start off Congress. The pledge of allegiance etc.

I got yelled at by the political correctness police (aka my ex-roommates Diane and Constance) the last time I tried to explain Thanksgiving as a holiday thanking God for a land free from religious and other persecution. I invited a refugee from Afghanistan to come celebrate Thanksgiving in our house with us and Diane and Constance shouted me down while I tried to say Grace, saying it was a harvest festival and not to be smug about European theft of aboriginal lands. :(

[ November 22, 2002, 20:28: Message edited by: Sprite ]

U.S. case law is irrefutably screwed up about interpretations of the Establishment Clause. While the idea of separation of church and state has been drummed into our jurisprudence, any intelligent reading of the Bill of Rights will show that it shouldn't be.

What seems clear is the Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion. Maryland should be able to establish its own religion (and it did at one point). And Congress should be able to make other laws regarding religion (and it does). The clause was inserted for one reason: to avoid having a national religion.

One can argue that the idea of separation is beneficial to state, church, and the nation (but you'd be wrong :1eye: ), but those arguments certainly don't follow from the clause itself, especially if you take into consideration what the authors of the Constitution themselves wrote about it.

[ November 25, 2002, 16:26: Message edited by: Shralp ]

Big B: The slippery slope here is if this is passed without resistance, then the next step cannot be reasonably resisted. If this is legal, providing a "minor" penalty for non-compliance cannot be illegal. The process then can freely escalate to the point of:

:click: *masked soldier points .45 at back of atheist's head* "Pray or die."

Opposition to this "proposal" is not based on this proposal causing direct harm, it is based on later proposals, using this one as a precedent, causing direct harm.

[ December 15, 2002, 02:06: Message edited by: Sniktch ]

The clause was inserted for one reason: to avoid having a national religion.
Shralp, I missed your reply a long time ago but I think that this is absolutely wrong. A lot of this comes from the constitutional scholar Levy and other parts from Tom Peters:

If, as accomodationists want to argue, the purpose of the First Amendment was simply to bar the establishment of a state church, then one would expect to see evidence of this intent in the framing of the Amendment. In fact, the framers rejected versions of the First Amendment that would have done nothing more than bar the establishment of a state church. Rather, the framers adopted what is arguably the broadest of the proposed versions.

James Madison introduced the first version of the Amendment in the House of Representatives in 1789. The version read as follows: "The civil rights of none shall be abridged on the account of religious belief, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience in any manner or on any pretext be infringed." A House subcommittee immediately edited out the word "national" from Madison's proposal. A variety of additional versions were proposed and debated; none of these versions contained the word "national," or can be construed to bar only the establishment of a national religion. After further debate, the House approved the following, clearly broader, amendment: "Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience." The first two thirds of the proposal are similar to our present version of the First Amendment; nothing in the proposal seems independently to authorize Congress to aid religion in any way.

The House amendment went to the Senate in August. On September 3 the Senate took up three alternatives to the House language. The wording of these versions were as follows:

Congress shall make no law establishing one religious sect or society in preference to others.

Congress shall not make any law infringing the rights of conscience, or establishing any religious sect or society.

Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination of religion in preference to another.
None of these versions passed muster. Instead, the Senate approved the following, much broader, language: "Congress shall make no law establishing religion." Six days later the Senate returned to the Amendment for the final time and approved the following: "Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion." The Senate, in other words, rejected three versions of the First Amendment that would have codified the accomodationist position (i.e., the barring of a national church, and little else) in favor of a version that, while not as broad as the House proposal, was no longer narrowly focused on the establishment of a "sect," "society," or "denomination."

Given the approval of different versions of the Bill of Rights by the House and Senate, a conference committee was created to resolve differences. The House members of the committee (headed by Madison) flatly refused to accept the Senate version of the religion Amendment, thereby "indicating that the House would not be satisfied with merely a ban on preference of one sect or religion over others" (Levy, "The Original Meaning of the Establishment Clause," p. 60). The Senate conferees then abandoned the Senate proposal, and the current version of the Amendment was adopted.

The history of the framing of the First Amendment, in other words, gives little support to the accomodationist position. The House never considered a version of the Amendment that codified the accomodationist position. The Senate did consider such versions, but rejected them. In their place, the Senate approved a more broadly drawn Amendment that barred the establishment of articles of faith and modes of worship without reference to religious denominations. The final version of the Amendment was even more broadly drawn than the House version in that it barred not only an establishment of religion, but even laws respecting the establishment of religion (i.e., wording that further guaranteed that the federal government could not interfere with the religious affairs of the states). Clearly, Congress intended the First Amendment to do more than simply bar the establishment of a state church.
Through the 14th Amendment it applies to states, yada, yada, yada.

The point is, the original intent was for the wall to be much, much higher than you suggest.