Secularists...Hoist By Their Own Petard

[jillian]

Get used to it: I'm never wrong.


"Families Are Outraged to See Michelle Obama-Approved School Lunches (YUCK!)

Read more: Families Are Outraged to See Michelle Obama-Approved School Lunches (YUCK!) - The Political Insider

More wingnut results from a wingnut Googler.

"More wingnut results from a wingnut Googler."

I was kinda hoping to get you to stick your foot in your mouth again....I posted one from the Washington Post.

if only you knew as much as you wished you did

How about we simply say I'm somewhere between you and educated, and leave it at that.

I wonder if PC realizes that in the above statement she declares herself to be uneducated.

i know..... poor dear.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well if we are a nation based on judeo christian values we are doing a poor job. Jesus was all about taking care of the less fortunate, not protecting the wealthy. Yet here we are...on the throws of a plutocracy.

"Yet here we are...on the throws of a plutocracy."

No,we're not, you dunce.

I used to be amazed at how stupid people buy the Leftist victimology.

1. Define “poor”: No home, no heat, no food. It is important to remember that this is not an enduring class of people: it is a definition that applies for this moment. The same is true for those in the top 10 or 20 percent: a snapshot. This is a nation of opportunity, and economic mobility.
   1. “Of individuals who were in the lowest income quintile in 1975, 5.1 percent were still there in 1991, 14.6 percent had moved up to the second quintile, 21 percent to the middle quintile, 30.3 percent to the fourth quintile and 29 percent to the highest quintile. Of those in the highest quintile in 1975, 62.5 percent were still there in 1991, while 0.9 percent had fallen all the way to the bottom fifth.” http://www.dallasfed.org/fed/annual/1999p/ar95.pdf
   2. The transience of individuals in low income brackets, it becomes easier to understand anomalies as hundreds of thousands of families with incomes below $20k living in homes worth $300k or more. And, the average person in the lowest fifth in income spends twice as much annually as his or her annual income. W. Michael Cox and Richard Alm, “Myths of Rich and Poor,” p. 16.
   3. More than three-quarters of the lowest 20 percent in 1975 made it into the top 40 percent of income earners for at least one year by 1991. In fact, the poor made the most dramatic gains in the income distribution…In other words, the rich have gotten a little richer, but the poor have gotten much richer. http://www.dallasfed.org/fed/annual/1999p/ar95.pdf
2. The U of Michigan study noted by the Dallas Fed, followed tens of thousands of individuals over a period of decades. Only 5% of those in the bottom 20% remained there 16 years later; during that same period, 29% had risen all the way into the top quintile. And, more than half had been in the top quintile at some point during those years.

Now...get this, you moron:
3.
For those households that were in the highest earnings quintile (top 20 percent) in 2001, 34 percent had moved to a lower quintile by 2007, and 5 percent of those households had moved all the way to the bottom quintile.
OneLife: Income Mobility in the Dynamic U.S. Economy


I understand how the government schools got you to be so stupid....but how do you stay this stupid??????

Only about 4% of our current population is below the poverty line, if you count (which official poverty measures don't)
the value of the assistance that the poor get via the so-called war on poverty.

IOW, the war on poverty has been a success.

 

[Dot Com]

The ban on religious tests for holding office in the Constitution proves you wrong.

Oh and btw,

a Judge's opinion in a DISSENT, as you posted from Rehnquist...

...is the opinion of the side that LOST the case.

PoliticalSpice

 

[initforme]

The rich have gotten a little richer....the poor have gotten much richer. That's rich...no pun intended. You are a plutocrat.... Your private school education has failed you. Your sources are suspect at best. More and more working folk are figuring out the fallacy of your premise. Capitalism is about material wealth and nothing else. Working hard will not get you ahead....having money to start will.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Don't ya' just love it when the villains get what they deserve, a dose of their own medicine?
I sure do.


1. Can you imagine....secularists squealing like stuck pigs when their own methods are used against them!
'...a consummation devoutly to be wished....'


First.....those methods....then that example.



2. Every Leftist is, essentially, a Marxist…even though most eschew the title since the fall of the Soviet Union. Even so, Left-wing ideas are predicated on Marx’s materialist view. Philosophically, the term implies that only material things are real. Therefore, emotions, such as love, are no more than chemistry. And it suggests that it is only genes and environment that determine our actions, and free will plays no role. And, of course, God and religious beliefs are nonsense.

That's why the hatred comes out whenever they see folks who are religious.




3. The change in America, from a spiritual to a materialist entity, is largely due to the efforts of the 32nd President. He promised all sorts of material rewards, if America would only give up the individualism, and freedoms that the Founders embodied in the Constitution.
He promised rewards such as

· Employment(right to work)

· Food, clothing and leisure, viaenough income to support them

· Farmers' rights to a fair income

· Freedom fromunfair competitionandmonopolies

· Housing

· Medical care

· Social security
FDR’s Second Bill of Rights
Kind of a 'worker's paradise,' huh?
I wonder where he got that idea.



4. And for these material benefits, all Americans had to do was give up our birthright...Individuals who have had the benefit of an education recognize this.

"The excesses of the European versions of fascism were mitigated by the specific history and culture of America, Jeffersonian individualism, heterogeneity of the population, but the central theme is still an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life., albeit at the loss of what had hitherfore been accepted as ‘inalienable human rights.’"
Goldberg, "Liberal Fascism."


5. While America was founded on this view:

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams

...it has become inculcated with this one:

" Secularism is the principle of the separation of government institutions and persons mandated to represent the state from religious institutions and religious dignitaries. One manifestation of secularism is asserting the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, or, in a state declared to be neutral on matters of belief, from the imposition by government of religion or religious practices upon its people. Another manifestation of secularism is the view that public activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be uninfluenced by religious beliefs and/or practices."
Secularism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


....the very antithesis of 'a moral and religious people.'
The Founders wouldn't be welcome in a secular nation, would they.

Incorrect.

There are two major forces in these US trying to acquire absolute power.

The "fascist - conservatives" who want to rule us in the name of a god

and

the fascist liberals/ the socialists who want to rule us in the name of the fatherland, the common good


The ONLY ones who want to restore freedom , the free market and capitalism are the Libertarians.


.

Here's another rightwing nitwit who thinks liberals are ‘fascists.’

Please check your political spectrum, you’ll find fascism there on the right.

 

[PoliticalChic]

More wingnut results from a wingnut Googler.

"More wingnut results from a wingnut Googler."

I was kinda hoping to get you to stick your foot in your mouth again....I posted one from the Washington Post.

if only you knew as much as you wished you did

How about we simply say I'm somewhere between you and educated, and leave it at that.

I wonder if PC realizes that in the above statement she declares herself to be uneducated.

i know..... poor dear.

OMG!

It must be past your bedtime....first of all you're agreeing with a low-life imbecile...

...and second the statement means exactly the opposite of what you just agreed to.

 

[Dot Com]

Which means nothing when it comes to states wanting to put the Ten Commandments in front of state court houses.

Your supposed understanding of the constitution only comes across as some form of hero worship.

It's too bad.

That's as non sequitur as a non sequitur can get.

Since you can't keep up....we'll go back.....

Historically speaking....those who came out of the time the constitution was founded understood it's limitations.

States could do what they wanted to do back then with regard to religion and the federal government never even tried to step in.

Pretty simple.

That is only relevant to you.

There was a big fight to put religion INTO the Constitution. Those people LOST.

BTW, the Fourteenth Amendment effectively bans religious tests for elected officials at all levels, state on down.

Stop deflecting.....

I really don't care about any fight to put it into the constitution....I don't recall ever reading that......

Thank heavens it never made it.

And when did the fourteenth ban religous tests ?

Please show me.....

If you mean the SCOTUS used the 14th to do so...I agree.

That was likely sometime in the 20th century...about 150 years post ratification of the Constitution.

The 14th requires equal protection under the law. That, OBVIOUSLY, means that it is unlawful to bar people of one religion, or no religion, from holding office, all else being equal.

Religious tests to hold office are clearly banned by the 14th amendment.

its also explicitly spelled-out here: The No Religious Test Clause of the United States Constitution is a clause within Article VI, Clause 3.

 

[Synthaholic]

He asked if free lunches exist.

You said..."sure they do".

I was just pointing that out.

I said that because it's true.

Thanks for pointing that out.

You are welcome.

Now, I'll repeate....free is in the eye of the beholder.

Nope. Free is free.

If you come to my house and I make you lunch for free, in whose eyes is that not free?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The rich have gotten a little richer....the poor have gotten much richer. That's rich...no pun intended. You are a plutocrat.... Your private school education has failed you. Your sources are suspect at best. More and more working folk are figuring out the fallacy of your premise. Capitalism is about material wealth and nothing else. Working hard will not get you ahead....having money to start will.

Seriously, weren't you surprised that, after the doctors made the intermastoid incision, and removed your brain- you were still able to post on the board?

Your ability to continue to type must be some sort of postmortem instinctual response.



"Your sources are suspect at best."
Really?
I quoted the Dallas Fed.
http://www.dallasfed.org/fed/annual/1999p/ar95.pdf


You have to be an Obama supporter.

 

[Synthaholic]

Don't ya' just love it when the villains get what they deserve, a dose of their own medicine?
I sure do.


1. Can you imagine....secularists squealing like stuck pigs when their own methods are used against them!
'...a consummation devoutly to be wished....'


First.....those methods....then that example.



2. Every Leftist is, essentially, a Marxist…even though most eschew the title since the fall of the Soviet Union. Even so, Left-wing ideas are predicated on Marx’s materialist view. Philosophically, the term implies that only material things are real. Therefore, emotions, such as love, are no more than chemistry. And it suggests that it is only genes and environment that determine our actions, and free will plays no role. And, of course, God and religious beliefs are nonsense.

That's why the hatred comes out whenever they see folks who are religious.




3. The change in America, from a spiritual to a materialist entity, is largely due to the efforts of the 32nd President. He promised all sorts of material rewards, if America would only give up the individualism, and freedoms that the Founders embodied in the Constitution.
He promised rewards such as

· Employment(right to work)

· Food, clothing and leisure, viaenough income to support them

· Farmers' rights to a fair income

· Freedom fromunfair competitionandmonopolies

· Housing

· Medical care

· Social security
FDR’s Second Bill of Rights
Kind of a 'worker's paradise,' huh?
I wonder where he got that idea.



4. And for these material benefits, all Americans had to do was give up our birthright...Individuals who have had the benefit of an education recognize this.

"The excesses of the European versions of fascism were mitigated by the specific history and culture of America, Jeffersonian individualism, heterogeneity of the population, but the central theme is still an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life., albeit at the loss of what had hitherfore been accepted as ‘inalienable human rights.’"
Goldberg, "Liberal Fascism."


5. While America was founded on this view:

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams

...it has become inculcated with this one:

" Secularism is the principle of the separation of government institutions and persons mandated to represent the state from religious institutions and religious dignitaries. One manifestation of secularism is asserting the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, or, in a state declared to be neutral on matters of belief, from the imposition by government of religion or religious practices upon its people. Another manifestation of secularism is the view that public activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be uninfluenced by religious beliefs and/or practices."
Secularism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


....the very antithesis of 'a moral and religious people.'
The Founders wouldn't be welcome in a secular nation, would they.

Oh, good - another FAIL thread from PC. Can never have too many of those!

Wait.....aren't you the moron who wrote this:

....."All You Have To Know About Obama: "Best president in over 50 years

• Prevented Iran from amassing nuclear weapons
• Restored respect for America globally"

You wrote that, didn't you.


1. And we find that Obama has made certain that Iran gets a nuclear bomb...

and...


2. Let's gauge that "respect"...


Obama normalizes relatioins with another bastion of repression....Cuba....and let's see what great 'respect' Cuba showed:

"Normalizing U.S. Relations With Cuba Leads to Escalation in Repression of Cuban Dissidents"NORMALIZING U.S. RELATIONS WITH CUBA LEADS TO ESCALATION IN REPRESSION OF CUBAN DISSIDENTS, Sweet Land of Liberty



Wait...,.some dunce said"Best president in over 50 years....Restored respect for America globally"

Oh...wait....that dunce is you!!!!!!

Was normalizing relations with Cuba dependent upon them treating their dissidents better?

No. You lose again.

Was the Iran Deal dependent upon them releasing all Americans from their prisons?

No. You lose again.

Is President Obama (praise be unto Him!) the best president in 50 years?

Yes. You lose again.

Fortunately, America won.

C'mon....say it again....

....."All You Have To Know About Obama: "Best president in over 50 years

• Prevented Iran from amassing nuclear weapons
• Restored respect for America globally"

You wrote that, didn't you.


C'mon.....one more time: folks can always use a good laugh.

I just did say it again in the post you just quoted!

I can understand you sniffing glue once, to see what it's all about. But don't make a lifestyle over it, bimbo.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let's not lose sight of what caused this thread.....this thread centered on the way the Left has altered the liberties and freedoms by, largely, offering material rewards to Americans in place of same. When America was a more religious and spiritual nation, this would not have been possible.


But, when I saw a group in Wisconsin offering free lunch to students who would be willing to listen to talks on religion and morality....well, ....it was turn-about. And the Liberals couldn't abide by it!


Here it is again, with a video of the exchange.


12. "MIDDLETON, Wis. – Middleton-Cross Plains school district officials are doing more than urging parents to stop serving “Jesus Lunches” to high school students at a public park every Tuesday.

They have been physically trying to block the parents from using the park.

School officials set up cones to block parents from using the parking lot at Fireman’s Park, near Middleton High School, on Tuesday, according to Phil Stamman, an attorney who is representing the mothers involved with the Jesus Lunch program.

“They coned up the parking lot, waited there and confronted my clients and told them to leave,” Stamman said. “(The parents) responded how I recommended. They walked right past them. The superintendent repeatedly tried to confront them. He was the first one. But they just moved on.”

The school district claims it has jurisdiction over the city-owned park because it leases it from the city during school hours. But that lease does not prevent citizens from entering or using the park for any legal reason, according to Stamman.

“Case law is very clear about that,” Stamman said. “The public park can be leased to another public entity, but it’s a non-exclusive lease. It’s not fenced off and it’s still open to the public. Because of that the laws associated with the First Amendment still apply.

“Nobody else was being told not to walk into the park.

“Last fall the word had spread (pun intended) and the first week 200 kids showed up, then 300, then 400-450 every week! That represents 25% of the Middleton High School student body, meeting every week for a free hot lunch and listening to a Christian message.””
EXCLUSIVE VIDEO: School administrators try to physically block parents from hosting ‘Jesus Lunch’ | EAGnews.org







Liberals.....they just can't stand freedom.

 

[JoeB131]

Another lie from the liar whose history knowledge comes from viewing Disney's 'Hiawatha.'

"....American Indians displayed a similar lack of sensitivity to the "complex web of life". The Sioux, as Daniel Guthrie has noted, "showedno qualms about driving a herd of buffalo over a cliff or about starting a range fire to drive the buffalo".And when buffalo were plentiful, often only the choicest parts were eaten, with the rest of the kill being left to rot --Dances with Wolves not withstanding. " "Primitive man's relationship to nature",Bioscience, volume 21, 1971, page 722.

Why do you waste so much time finding these off-topic things.

While what some tribes did wasn't "humane", the point was, the GOVERNMENT made the decision to exterminate the Bison as a matter of policy

Bison hunting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The US Army sanctioned and actively endorsed the wholesale slaughter of bison herds.[14] The federal government promoted bison hunting for various reasons, to allow ranchers to range their cattle without competition from other bovines, and primarily to weaken the North American Indian population by removing their main food source and to pressure them onto the reservations during times of conflict.[15][16] Without the bison, native people of the plains were often forced to leave the land or starve to death. One of the biggest advocates of this strategy was General William Tecumseh Sherman. On June 26, 1869, the Army Navy Journal reported: "General Sherman remarked, in conversation the other day, that the quickest way to compel the Indians to settle down to civilized life was to send ten regiments of soldiers to the plains, with orders to shoot buffaloes until they became too scarce to support the redskins." [17] According to Professor David Smits: "Frustrated bluecoats, unable to deliver a punishing blow to the so-called "Hostiles,"unless they were immobilized in their winter camps, could, however, strike at a more accessible target, namely, the buffalo.That tactic also made curious sense, for in soldiers' minds the buffalo and the Plains Indian were virtually inseparable."[17]

As the great herds began to wane, proposals to protect the bison were discussed. In some cases, individual military officers attempted to end the mass slaughter of these buffalo.[13] William F. "Buffalo Bill" Cody, among others, spoke in favor of protecting the bison because he saw that the pressure on the species was too great. Yet these proposals were discouraged since it was recognized that the Plains Indians, often at war with the United States, depended on bison for their way of life. In 1874, President Ulysses S. Grant "pocket vetoed" a Federal bill to protect the dwindling bison herds, and in 1875 General Philip Sheridan pleaded to a joint session of Congress to slaughter the herds, to deprive the Indians of their source of food.[21] By 1884, the American Bison was close to extinction.

Subsequent settlers harvested bison bones to be sold for fertilizer. It was an important source of supplemental income for poorer farmers in the 1880s and early 1890s.[22]

 

[Synthaholic]

the founders were largely deists.

and they wanted religious nutters as far away from government as possible....

but thanks for your usual cut and paste.

Wrong...another lefty lie...read what Franklin said about God and sin...

Not every person who professes a belief in God wants his country governed by a theocracy.

it certainly isn't government's place to impose some theocratic christian belief system on us. that's why the first amendment exists.

the fact that they can't stand not forcing us to live by THEIR brand of religion is their problem. not the rest of ours.

Time to teach you the law....


The Framers intended the Establishment Clause to prohibit the designation of any church as a "national" one. The Clause was also designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others. Given the "incorporation" of the Establishment Clause as against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment in Everson, States are prohibited as well from establishing a religion or discriminating between sects. As its history abundantly shows, however, nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion, nor does that Clause prohibit Congress or the States from pursuing legitimate secular ends through nondiscriminatory sectarian means.


From Chief Justice Wm. Rehnquist dissent in

WALLACE V. JAFFREE

472 U.S. 38, 105 S.Ct. 2479 (1985)

you do understand that a dissent is meaningless....especially from rnenqist who was never correct.

you're welcome, dearie

I love how she's trying to tell you, a lawyer, about legal matters.

Next she'll be trying to school BluesLegend about masturbation!

 

[amrchaos]

the founders were largely deists.

and they wanted religious nutters as far away from government as possible....

but thanks for your usual cut and paste.

What proof do you have that they wanted religion far away from government.

Please don't cite the first amendment.

It says "no laws respecting the establishment of religion".....guess what.

States could and did establish religions.....most of those colonies were divided along lines of religion and they were allowed to keep that.

And that is the beauty of the Constitution as a piece of diplomacy between the states! Again it demonstrates itself as a political tool, a 'subtle' agreement, a propaganda piece to unite the colonies!

Yes, most states had a " state" religion, but few were identical! And no one group of christian wanted a different brand of Christianity dictating to them.

The Constitution said that it would not submit to any religious group and hence you could practice your brand of Christianity as the way you see it without fear of the federal government!

The major part that most modern Christians miss is that in the day of our forefathers, the different christian sects were bitter rivals. They would start fights based on their different understandings of their bible. Hell, some did not have the exact copy of the bible! To unite this group of self-righteous Christians, the constitution declared not to take a side in the argument. In other words, play a neutral role in the argument.

Many people like to claim that we are a christian nation. If so, then it is a nondenominational one at best. Which means no christian group has a claim over it.

But, if this is the case. That is, our nation is founded on nondenominational christian principles, then it can not recognize any other christian group as its model!

You may think this is not a problem, until you try to find the bible that our government supposedly. Turns out, there is no bible mandated by the federal government. It can not by way of the first amendment!!

Hence, America is not a christian nation. It is a nonreligious secular nation. Nonreligious through compromise by the various different state religions that could not see eye to eye to form a simple compromise on which denomination the government should follow!

Yes, Christians did help found it. No, it is not christian because the various denominations at the time did not trust each other!

Thomas Jefferson Wall Of Separation Letter


Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.

So, are you saying Our government is a vehicle for Christianity?

If so, which denomination?

PS--you could search our forefathers works, letters and use their opinions as much as you like. The government is secular through compromise. Not because deists just thought secularism is idea. Because the various christian groups did not trust one being more powerful than another..

Our federal government wasn't going to be one.....

But there was never any intent to disallow states to encourage and support a particular denomination.

I suspect, carried to the extreme, South Carolina would have been a muslim state and been O.K.

The individual states? Oh No!
Funny thing, there is nothing in the US constitution that bars individual states for recognizing an institute of religion!

The religions of the states in the original 13 were not abolished, and the idea that SC could become an Islamic. State is not so far fetch
At least as to how the founders intended this.

So who founded Pennsylvania? Is it not a christian state? What is its denomination? There is one, I have to look it up!

 

[Synthaholic]

This is what I googled...

"Images for michelle obama school lunch"

That one of the pics.....

Your Google results are based on what you have previously searched for. If you're a wingnut, you'll get results from other wingnuts.

Just another subject you're ignorant about.

Get used to it: I'm never wrong.


"Families Are Outraged to See Michelle Obama-Approved School Lunches (YUCK!)

Read more: Families Are Outraged to See Michelle Obama-Approved School Lunches (YUCK!) - The Political Insider

More wingnut results from a wingnut Googler.

"More wingnut results from a wingnut Googler."

I was kinda hoping to get you to stick your foot in your mouth again....I posted one from the Washington Post.

Mine was also from the Wapo.

School lunch debate is clash of cultures, with some districts saying kids don’t want to eat healthy

Now post your source.

 

[JoeB131]

Let's not lose sight of what caused this thread.....this thread centered on the way the Left has altered the liberties and freedoms by, largely, offering material rewards to Americans in place of same. When America was a more religious and spiritual nation, this would not have been possible.

Yes, this was the bit of crazy you started this thread with... and it was crazy then.

It's crazy now.

People are not "less free" because the government keeps them from starving when the 1% has no use for them.

 

[Dot Com]

PoliSpices venerated Founders JoeB131

 

[Synthaholic]

Which means nothing when it comes to states wanting to put the Ten Commandments in front of state court houses.

How have courts ruled on Ten Commandments in court houses?

They have ruled against it.

 

[Synthaholic]

Of course Rehnquist was correct.

The majority of the Justices say he was wrong.

That's the only thing that matters.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Founders wouldn't be welcome in a secular nation, would they.

the founders were largely deists.

and they wanted religious nutters as far away from government as possible....

but thanks for your usual cut and paste.

What proof do you have that they wanted religion far away from government.

Please don't cite the first amendment.

It says "no laws respecting the establishment of religion".....guess what.

States could and did establish religions.....most of those colonies were divided along lines of religion and they were allowed to keep that.

We’ll do better than that, we’ll cite its case law:

“[T]he First Amendment's language, properly interpreted, had erected a wall of separation between Church and State.”

Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education of School District

And the First Amendment in fact applies to the states, where the states may not establish an ‘official religion’:

‘The First Amendment, as made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth [Amendment], commands that a state "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’

Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI of the Constitution.

“But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’