Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamplighter
Not "essentially". That becomes your interpretation.
Read his actual words, above.
The US is not England, so any such a contrast is a misdirection.
|
....It's not England, but it was Britain, and for the writers of the constitution, very recently. This was the historical context the amendment was written in.
Given as they just recently deposed a monarchy that had an official religious test, it is far more likely they meant it in the context, rather then an abstract post-modern meaning of being judged for their religion, which is in itself a meaning the concept of judgment wouldn't even start to form until 2 centuries after, which would have being an amazing but very unlikely prediction of social evolution for any of them to have made.
You are somehow under the impression that the later interpretation is free of personal interpretation and the clear cut meaning, when it is completely built in a verbal context that would have being impossible at the time. If you hear someone from the 17th century say the word "ship", they probably didn't mean a spaceship (Also you may want to check if ghostbusters do ear exams).