Comment: Ruth: There (ARE) religious practices that

are banned here in the States -- Even if it's only one per religion you are missing the point.

The point is this: Who get's to chose what's a convenant and what is not #1 Where in the constitution does it say only convenants shall have the "separation of church and state" moniker #2 If the latter is not specific then can you agree that the Constitution (according to you) protects "religious practices" #3

If you can answer those questions then you will "see" why the Gov't is already in either the Covenant Allowance or Religious-Practice Allowance / Certification business -- where did they get this power and is it applied fairly and evenly? If it is not (and it is not) then there is precedence for Gov't stepping in and determining whether or not a Covenant or Religious Practice is permit-able.

Because they have Licensing and Tax Authority.
---We know this much is true

Further we know (and this is a regular argument on DP) that the Constitution is either upheld sparringly or ignored altogether and my uppermost point is that there has never been "pure" competition or "pure" allowance for all religious practices (covenant or not). That the latter has always been in the pervue of Gov't (as Licensor).

Why this is not obvious to you can only be explained by the fact that you are not in-line with your own religious faith -- "thou shall not kill" (abortion - full-body amputation).

Good Luck with your study of Liberty and the "real" application/interpritation of the Constitution.