“I’ve heard about these dominionists–although entirely from those who are afraid of them. I’ve never met one, in more than 30 years of attending Christian churches. I can’t recall ever seeing any books published by them. They must exist, somewhere.”
Oh, well . . .
I have never met Garrison Keillor. I do not believe he exists either.
“Intent, without a binding constitution, is not enough protection. But it is difficult to have a binding constitution when judges ignore intent because it doesn’t make them happy in its results. And you are apparently arguing that judges should do exactly that: ignore original intent because otherwise you will be terrified of perhaps 0.1% somehow taking over our government.”
No, you argued that they have done that in regards to permitting freedom from imposition of sect on non-Christians.
You are apparently satistfied with that ignoring of original intent because you are otherwise terrified of the consequences of your assertions and the conclusions of your research into your assertions of original intent.
“It isn’t “popular support for a different interpretation” that stops what you fear: it is that there is NO popular support for denying rights to non-Christian religions.”
Right now.
Tomorrow?
Ten years from now?
That is your whole point after all, that things change, and what was an inconceivable interpretation 230 years ago is now being portrayed as “self-evident”.
So again, we am to take your fear mongering as superior to anyone else’s.
I see no difference between you and the radical atheists claiming that the existence of a bible in the Library of Congress constitutes an unconstitutional establishment of religion, or similar absurdity, in terms of trying to use fear to drive an agenda.
“The bigger issue here is that regardless of what you want history to be, there are objective facts behind this. Pretending that the past was different than it was, or claiming that the Constitution is no longer binding because it would be inconvenient or uncomfortable, doesn’t make it so.”
The same applies to you.
Pretending that the original intent was not for the Courts to interpret the Constitution and their rulings should no longer be binding because it is inconvenient and uncomfortable for you does not make it so.
There are equally objective facts of non-Christians being forced to participate in Christian practices by order of the government, be it federal or state. Just because you do not care about such because you feel your research has “proven” to you the existence of sufficent objective facts that the Constitution was not intended to prohibit such does not mean that others take the existence of those objective much more seriously, and consequently reject your insistence on original intent as constituting binding constitutional precedent.
