First Amendment and in particular the Religion & Expression Clause
The original draft by Madison was:
"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed" (Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789)
The Adopted form:
"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."
Regardless as to the form of words of the adopted form, the underlying sentiment and real purpose of the First Amendment may have been more in keeping with the original draft and not the adopted form itself. This appears to be a subliminal part of the rational of dissenters to the Christian faith.
The struggle was inevitable. So was the offence and so is the end of it. The United States is Constitutionally bound to disintegrate.
Just to elaborate my thinking a little further:
As far as I know all challenges to the First Amendment in the Courts, as far as Religion are concerned, have come about since a successful legal challenge by Madalyn Murray O'Hair in 1960 when she successfully exempted her son from participation in bible readings at his school. The rest is history.
One of the first things which came to my mind when I first started trying to understand some of the comments on this site nearly three years ago, led me to consider that believers in the USA somehow took the view that they had a right to impose the christian faith on everyone else through the public square. Whether this is as simple as saying it, I doubt very much, but I have no doubt from what I have read since that first thought, that the USA is predominately not inclined to the christian faith and so imposition breeds deep resentment. The backlash will be proportionate to the offence. Of course this is an impression and may not be fully true, in the sense that many believers would of course desire to see Godly living and a societal benefit from embracing righteousness. There are many nations where the church does not have a right to influence and yet men and women seek to live reasonably righteous lives as a matter of basic human desire.
The original draft by Maddison was a far better wording than the adopted one and, again in my view, would have made for a better outcome.
