Many RW'ers say that the Establishment Clause is only for the Federal Government, and that the states CAN have Established Churches.
Here's what one RW'er has said about it.
"Contrary to popular belief, state-sanctioned churches and religious tests are not unconstitutional and do not run counter to what the nation's founders believed, former presidential candidate Alan Keyes said at a rally Aug. 16.
...
If religious tests and established churches were unconstitutional, Keyes said, then they would have been abolished prior to the First Amendment's passage. Such a state-sanctioned church would be sanctioned not by the federal government but instead by an individual state, he said."
http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=16510Keyes is not alone in voicing this opinion. People such as David Limbaugh and Justice Clarence Thomas agree with him.
Now, we have to ask ourselves if there is an ulterior motive for this interpretation of the First Amendment. I think that there is.
The First Amendment reads as:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
If this interpretation is correct, then it means more than just having Established Churches, it also means that the States can prohibit the free exercise of religion, can violate your freedom of speech, and can dismantle the freedoms of the press, of assembly, and of petitioning the government.
Interesting how the RW'ers don't talk about that.