The “Our Father” is apocryphal. There is no “trumping” or contraction involved. The clear meaning of those two verses is that you shouldn’t be righteous for the sole purpose of showing off, but you should let everyone revel in the glory of God. The two passages complement each other.
Did you ever read the whole thing? The clause prevents Congress from passing any laws (IOW the government from doing anything) that *respect *an establishment of religion. While directly establishing one would certainly fall under that proscription, so does a whole lot else that adds up, yes, to SOCAS.
I’m not sure you’re interpreting the word “respecting” correctly. (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”)
Ok, you win that one I guess. What makes it apocryphal though? It is right there printed in the bible?
Well, what makes it apocryphal is that I"m wrong. It’s not. I forgot that pretty much the whole text is actually in that Gospel. 
But I don’t see how one determines that a certain passage “trumps” another one. It’s pretty clear that Jesus wanted his word spread, so the idea that we should never make a public display of worship just doesn’t hold water. I would say that the Gospels tell us not to boast, but we should spread the word of God like motherfuckers!
You mean the way it says exactly the same thing about “or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press”. So, no law, right?
We did this same thing a few days ago in GD and you slithered away when I asked you to back up your lame excuse that the prohibition against religion was absolute but the prohibition against speech was not. You’re not going to get off easy this time, bub.
It’s certainly a fine line. I’m glad I don’t have to walk it.
What a lot of Americans don’t understand about the Church of England is that wedding the church to the state was done precisely in order to keep God safely out of the hands of the religious.
You’re misinterpreting the “respect” wording for one, and for two the expanded jurisprudence requiring some level of separation between state and religion is based on a general evolution in society and the court’s opinion on what exactly establishing a religion means and what exactly interferes with free practice of religion.
My whole point though, is “separation of church and state” is not a 200+ year old legal concept because we had a decent bit of religion mixed in with government at both the State and Federal level 200 years ago. Instead it is an evolving legal concept without clear boundaries (no school prayer but Congressional prayer is fine, for example.) Why even bring that concept up when one could just say, “North Carolina establishing a religion violates the establishment clause?” That’s all I’m saying. The first amendment has been differently interpreted over the years, but it’s always been understood to explicitly prohibit actual Federal establishment of a State religion, and post-14th amendment it’s been understood that applies to the States as well.
No, that’s not actually true. The Church of England was still ran by the established clergy. It was done so that in situations where the monarch was clashing with the church he’d be clashing with the Archbishop of Canterbury, whom he appointed and could have removed, instead of the Pope who was powerful throughout Europe and immune from direct retaliation from the English monarchy.
Keep God out of the hands of the religious? That doesn’t even make sense.
Can you flesh out your version of the history of the CoE for us?
You might explain why you think so, if you wish to be convincing, that is.
True enough, but I’ll continue to point out that both society and court opinions have been guided by increasing respect for the requirements of the Constitution, as well as by decreased respect for increasingly-anachronistic religious organizations.
No, the boundaries have always been there, even if they’ve been regularly flouted for generations. The forces to defend the First Amendment in those cases have always been weaker than than the forces of evangelism, even wearing it’s “ceremonial deism” costume. The examples you remarkably keep bringing up are not, as you suppose, *rebuttals *to the First Amendment, but *disrespect *for it, as visibly increasing pressure to end them in our 21st century society should make clear to you.
And most Americans don’t understand the difference between average and median.
When a government is prohibited from explicitly establishing religion by clear and unambiguous constitutional text (in both word usage and historical legal interpretation) do you think it is more appropriate to point out that actual specification in the constitution to protest government actually trying to establish religion instead of using a phrase that is only derived from the wording of that constitutional text? I don’t see how the derivative is the preferable argument to be making over the innate text itself, when the innate text covers the condition perfectly.
I see where you’re confused by the way, you think I’m arguing about how the First Amendment should be interpreted or what the correct interpretation is. That is not my point. My point is you do not have to rely on interpretations in the case of clear establishment, because that is explicitly prohibited by the text itself.
Intelligence is a normal distribution, so the mean*, median, and mode are all the same.
*AKA average
Dammit, Poe’s Law. Is Pi=3 really a thing?
What, you think that’s enough? That simply pointing to the Constitution, or even simple statute, is sufficient to make it effective, that no argument is necessary or possible? That goes far beyond simple naivete, beyond the point at which there is any value in trying to explain it to you further.
Duh. The problem is that you think it’s *all *it does. And you think I’m confused?
Have we yet established what percentage of Americans are partial morons?