The creationists are BACK

[AllieBaba]

I have remembered that. Obviously you have completely forgotten it, and like the bible, have interpreted the constitution to mean whatever you want it to mean to suit your needs at any given time.

the 1st Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Can't get any plainer than that.
Yet there are all kinds of attacks taken into the courts about not having any religious symbols in public,especially Christian ones.

The law is pretty simple. You guys keep wanting to complicate it.

A.) "Respecting an establishment" means that a government or public entity can't endorse any particular religion.

B.) "Prohibiting the free exercise thereof" means that a government or public entity can't hinder a private individual from exercising their faith.

Again, not a difficult concept. What I see a lot of, is fundamentalists claiming that A.) = B.). That is not true and only a dense person would claim that it was.

What fundamentalists? You mean people who don't read things into the Constitution that aren't there? I guess that's a sort of fundamentalism.

Respecting an establishment doesn't mean the government can't endorse. It means the government cannot seek to ESTABLISH. You are right, it's a simple concept. Endorsing and establishing are two different things.

es·tab·lish [ i stábblish ]

1. start or set up something: to start or set up something that is intended to continue or be permanent
2. place something permanently: to place something securely and permanently in a position, situation, or condition
3. confirm truth of something: to investigate something and prove or confirm its truth or validity

Synonyms: set up, found, start, create, begin, launch, bring about, form, inaugurate, institute

en·dorse [ in dáwrss ]

1. approve something formally: to give formal approval or permission for something
2. support somebody or something: to give public support to somebody or something, especially during an election
3. promote product: to give public approval of a product for advertising purposes

The founding fathers endorsed Christianity every time they turned around. Our founding documents endorse Christianity. But at no time did they seek to ESTABLISH a theocracy, or create any stipulations that it was necessary to adhere to a particular religion.

Do you see the diff?

No, of course you don't.

 

[Gadawg73]

the 1st Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Can't get any plainer than that.
Yet there are all kinds of attacks taken into the courts about not having any religious symbols in public,especially Christian ones.

The law is pretty simple. You guys keep wanting to complicate it.

A.) "Respecting an establishment" means that a government or public entity can't endorse any particular religion.

B.) "Prohibiting the free exercise thereof" means that a government or public entity can't hinder a private individual from exercising their faith.

Again, not a difficult concept. What I see a lot of, is fundamentalists claiming that A.) = B.). That is not true and only a dense person would claim that it was.

What fundamentalists? You mean people who don't read things into the Constitution that aren't there? I guess that's a sort of fundamentalism.

Respecting an establishment doesn't mean the government can't endorse. It means the government cannot seek to ESTABLISH. You are right, it's a simple concept. Endorsing and establishing are two different things.

es·tab·lish [ i stábblish ]

1. start or set up something: to start or set up something that is intended to continue or be permanent
2. place something permanently: to place something securely and permanently in a position, situation, or condition
3. confirm truth of something: to investigate something and prove or confirm its truth or validity

Synonyms: set up, found, start, create, begin, launch, bring about, form, inaugurate, institute

en·dorse [ in dáwrss ]

1. approve something formally: to give formal approval or permission for something
2. support somebody or something: to give public support to somebody or something, especially during an election
3. promote product: to give public approval of a product for advertising purposes

The founding fathers endorsed Christianity every time they turned around. Our founding documents endorse Christianity. But at no time did they seek to ESTABLISH a theocracy, or create any stipulations that it was necessary to adhere to a particular religion.

Do you see the diff?

No, of course you don't.

So you claim our government endorses Christianity over all other religions?

 

[newpolitics]

Science proved there was no substances before there was light?
Science proved the atmosphere came before light and substances?
Science proved the earth was not seperated from the sea?
Science proved that plant life came after animal life?
Science proved the moon was here before the earth was here?
Science proved that mammals came before sea creatures and birds?
Science proved that animals have dominion over men?
Science has proved that there was never an Adam and Eve?

I don't see how any of these questions matter at all. That these are mentioned in the bible, if at all (specific passages?), isn't saying much. Of course there was darkness before light. Go into a dark room, and turn on a light. Voila! LIght and substnaves before atmosphere? What does that even mean? I don't even understand the third questions. It is common sense, even to ancestors, that built such things as the Great Pyramids, that looking at nature, it is clear that plantlife is the foundation of the entire animal kingdom. I assure you, they were attuned to this. Native Americans were very attuned to this nature. Attuned to the Earth. This is not a big deal. I don't even know where you are getting the sixth question. Obviously men have dominion over animals if we are the ones writing the books, otherwise we would be hiding in caves and wouldn't have time to write books. How does that help the case of creation? How has science proved there was an Adam and Eve. ANY links to any of these claims would be much appreciated. I'm just curious as to where you are getting your info. If you are going to say such things and be taken serious, be prepared to back it up.

there is no genetic Adam and Eve as you say either. Prove it. Provide a link.

If "science" had proved any of those, then "science" would have an original thought. Science has not proved any of those. Science has uncovered evidence that the order of creation was as it is stated in Genesis (first chapter for the Biblically illiterate). That is my point; science is saying the same thing the Bible does (right up to evolution), only it puts in more details about specific times which it has no way of proving. If "science" reaffirms what the Bible says, why not pay attention to what the Bible says? If you want to say that other religions have their own creation theories, I am okay with that, if science backs it.

I understand what you are saying, and it doesn't mean that the Bible owns the truth, and science can only follow or affirm that truth. It doesn't give the Bible credibility because you think it correctly sequenced events of the past, which it didn't.

A little knowledge: The OT bible is a collection of stories from around that time (1000 BC for old testament) in and around Mesopotamia. Those stories, including Genesis, the flood, and others, had been floating around long before they put it in a book, labeled it monotheistic, and sent it off to the press. Jesus was heavily plagiarized as well, as I have already posted, and is not an original mythological character. These truths- such as dark came before light, that plants came before animals, are pretty common sense, since it is the rising sun each day that chased away all of the darkness (like "Jesus"). All of the material in Genesis was plagiarized from already existing pagan religions at the time, so I don't know what you are bragging about. I asked you for specific references in the bible to the questions you asked, and you did not. I asked you for a link to this genetic Adam and Eve. You have not.

Where does it say in the bible, specifically, that mammals came before sea creatures and birds, not that it proves anything even if it does... I have never heard or read that before. Or the Earth being separated from the sea. What does that even mean? that the earth and the sea were at one point "one?" What would that even look like? Mud? The reason we have separation of layers in the earth is because of the differing densities of substances. Basaltic crust forms the ocean floor, which is sub ducted below the less dense continental crust, all riding on convection currents circulating between the Earth's Hot Core and the 'crust.' The H20 on this earth, naturally will fall to the lowest point, which is on the basaltic crust which contains the majority of our water, except for natural lakes and rivers on continental crust, which all leads to the oceans eventually. The earth was not made of mud at any point in history. No substance before light? That's not even true. After that big bang, there was no light for about 300,000 years until the first stars started forming, but there was plenty of 'matter' and substance in the universe. Until then, pitch black, bitches. Like I said, it is obvious men have dominion over animals since it was the domestication of animals that took us out of the hunter-gather stage and led to the possible of towns, cities, then 'countries' after the last ice age in Mesopotamia. By the way, it was after the last ice age when the ice receded and the water melted that caused GREAT FLOODING in Mesopotamia around that time, and exposed the 'fertile crescent' where farming and animals domestication really began... no doubt this flooding is where the flood stories, which were heavily circulated around then in many pagan religions, came from.

 

[newpolitics]

the 1st Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Can't get any plainer than that.
Yet there are all kinds of attacks taken into the courts about not having any religious symbols in public,especially Christian ones.

The law is pretty simple. You guys keep wanting to complicate it.

A.) "Respecting an establishment" means that a government or public entity can't endorse any particular religion.

B.) "Prohibiting the free exercise thereof" means that a government or public entity can't hinder a private individual from exercising their faith.

Again, not a difficult concept. What I see a lot of, is fundamentalists claiming that A.) = B.). That is not true and only a dense person would claim that it was.

What fundamentalists? You mean people who don't read things into the Constitution that aren't there? I guess that's a sort of fundamentalism.

Respecting an establishment doesn't mean the government can't endorse. It means the government cannot seek to ESTABLISH. You are right, it's a simple concept. Endorsing and establishing are two different things.

es·tab·lish [ i stábblish ]

1. start or set up something: to start or set up something that is intended to continue or be permanent
2. place something permanently: to place something securely and permanently in a position, situation, or condition
3. confirm truth of something: to investigate something and prove or confirm its truth or validity

Synonyms: set up, found, start, create, begin, launch, bring about, form, inaugurate, institute

en·dorse [ in dáwrss ]

1. approve something formally: to give formal approval or permission for something
2. support somebody or something: to give public support to somebody or something, especially during an election
3. promote product: to give public approval of a product for advertising purposes

The founding fathers endorsed Christianity every time they turned around. Our founding documents endorse Christianity. But at no time did they seek to ESTABLISH a theocracy, or create any stipulations that it was necessary to adhere to a particular religion.

Do you see the diff?

No, of course you don't.

Wow Allie. You really are blind. Congress can not make a law that respects one religion over another. It can not give preferential treatment to any one religion. Doing so would be synonymous with an endorsement of that religion. You resort to semantics to try to squeak your point through, but the two ideas of "congress not respecting an establishment" and not endorsing a religion are synonymous. You just have no ability to think.

 

[Old Rocks]

The problem here is very simple. Our forefathers created a secular state to prevent the sort of nonsense that went on in Europe where various sects of 'Christians' slaughtered and tortured each other in the name of religion.

Jefferson was afraid of religion corrupting government. Madison, of government corrupting religion. Both were correct.

No government branch or agency should be supporting or teaching anyone's religion on a preferential basis. And religion has absolutely no place in the science class. People trying to force their religious beliefs on the rigorous framework of observations and tests done over the past two hundred years is a travesty. The observations and experiments in biology and geology have been made in search of the truth of what happened and how it happened. Trying to straight jacket those observations and experiments into a religious framework is why the fundementalists face derision.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I see christians on here play the victim card, then when they're asked how government has legislatively made them into victims you get nothing but an eery, chilling, deep space silence. The "best" example they usually cite is the horrifying, unbearable pain of having to put up a manger at a church instead of a city building around christmas time.

I went to a public school, saw christian stuff whether it be crosses or bibles or t-shirts on with kids every single day of the week and no one who worked for the school ever made a murmur, nor should they have.

 

[peach174]

So Congress can not make a law that respects one religion over another?
Congress passed Christmas as a national Holiday in 1870 and Our President Ulysses S. Grant singed it into law.
Jesus is the reason for the Holiday.
It has always been an all inclusive holiday but the left secularists are trying to get the very name of out, by trying to rename it Happy Holidays instead of Christmas.
We have God in our pledge of allegiance, God in our coin and paper money,prayer before each session of or house, senate and supreme court.
No where in our Constitution does it say separation of church and state.

 

[Dr.Drock]

So Congress can not make a law that respects one religion over another?
Congress passed Christmas as a national Holiday in 1870 and Our President Ulysses S. Grant singed it into law.
Jesus is the reason for the Holiday.
It has always been an all inclusive holiday but the left secularists are trying to get the very name of out, by trying to rename it Happy Holidays instead of Christmas.
We have God in our pledge of allegiance, God in our coin and paper money,prayer before each session of or house, senate and supreme court.
No where in our Constitution does it say separation of church and state.

Although I don't really like it, God isn't specific to one religion.

 

[Gadawg73]

So Congress can not make a law that respects one religion over another?
Congress passed Christmas as a national Holiday in 1870 and Our President Ulysses S. Grant singed it into law.
Jesus is the reason for the Holiday.
It has always been an all inclusive holiday but the left secularists are trying to get the very name of out, by trying to rename it Happy Holidays instead of Christmas.
We have God in our pledge of allegiance, God in our coin and paper money,prayer before each session of or house, senate and supreme court.
No where in our Constitution does it say separation of church and state.

So you want government and religion to be together?

 

[Vanquish]

So Congress can not make a law that respects one religion over another?
Congress passed Christmas as a national Holiday in 1870 and Our President Ulysses S. Grant singed it into law.
Jesus is the reason for the Holiday.
It has always been an all inclusive holiday but the left secularists are trying to get the very name of out, by trying to rename it Happy Holidays instead of Christmas.
We have God in our pledge of allegiance, God in our coin and paper money,prayer before each session of or house, senate and supreme court.
No where in our Constitution does it say separation of church and state.

Thanks, myopic reader, for proving that you know precious little about the Constitution, how it is interpreted, and what case law is for.

A body of law, based on valid judicial interpretations, has arisen around this concept of separation of church and state. Either you believe in the plain reading of the document, which you hope the Fathers would have expected...or you believe in the judicial system that the Fathers created and intended to settle issues just like this one.

Which is it?

 

[Jack Fate]

For students to use on their own? Sure. That isn't against the law as it stands.

As part of the reading curriculum or for teachers to use on students? Absolutely not.

How has the government infringed upon your right to worship?

I'm answering your question.

I think I see you thinking. Correct me if I'm wrong. You don't want the teacher indoctrinating the children. Is that correct?

Indoctrination is a loose term that implies hyperbole and I know where you are going with this.

Let's stick to religion.

I don't want public school teachers reading scripture to school children or leading prayer, and I support the law as it stands on this. Your assumption is that, if this were allowed, every teacher that engaged in this would be Christian. However, quite hypocritically, if a teacher started reading out of the Koran in front of class, you guys would have a shit fit.

Evoking religion as it relates to history? No problem. Religion is an important facet of history. I draw the line at proselytizing.

If you are convinced your children are being deprived without religion in the school, send the to parochial school. It's not against the law (quite logically) for religious schools that are privately funded to evoke religion in the class room.

It is against the law to use taxpayer dollars to support a glorified bible school.

Again, simple.

Again, how have your right's to practice your religion been hindered by the government?

The law can be changed. Leading a prayer is not "proselytizing". Why are you afraid of the little baby Jesus? He never hurt anyone.

You give away your bias by this statement..."glorified bible school". The idea of separation of church and state is to keep the government out of our lives so Americans can be free to experess their religious beliefs. There is nothing in the US Constitution about keeping any references to God out of our schools.

How come we have a chaplain in the congress who leads in prayer, but to lead in a prayer at school is against the law? Are you all afraid some little kid might find out Jesus loves him and not fall in line like everyone else?

 

[Woyzeck]

I'm answering your question.

I think I see you thinking. Correct me if I'm wrong. You don't want the teacher indoctrinating the children. Is that correct?

Indoctrination is a loose term that implies hyperbole and I know where you are going with this.

Let's stick to religion.

I don't want public school teachers reading scripture to school children or leading prayer, and I support the law as it stands on this. Your assumption is that, if this were allowed, every teacher that engaged in this would be Christian. However, quite hypocritically, if a teacher started reading out of the Koran in front of class, you guys would have a shit fit.

Evoking religion as it relates to history? No problem. Religion is an important facet of history. I draw the line at proselytizing.

If you are convinced your children are being deprived without religion in the school, send the to parochial school. It's not against the law (quite logically) for religious schools that are privately funded to evoke religion in the class room.

It is against the law to use taxpayer dollars to support a glorified bible school.

Again, simple.

Again, how have your right's to practice your religion been hindered by the government?

The law can be changed. Leading a prayer is not "proselytizing". Why are you afraid of the little baby Jesus? He never hurt anyone.

You give away your bias by this statement..."glorified bible school". The idea of separation of church and state is to keep the government out of our lives so Americans can be free to experess their religious beliefs. There is nothing in the US Constitution about keeping any references to God out of our schools.

How come we have a chaplain in the congress who leads in prayer, but to lead in a prayer at school is against the law? Are you all afraid some little kid might find out Jesus loves him and not fall in line like everyone else?

The only thing that ever influences a Congressman is large amounts of money, not prayer.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I'm answering your question.

I think I see you thinking. Correct me if I'm wrong. You don't want the teacher indoctrinating the children. Is that correct?

Indoctrination is a loose term that implies hyperbole and I know where you are going with this.

Let's stick to religion.

I don't want public school teachers reading scripture to school children or leading prayer, and I support the law as it stands on this. Your assumption is that, if this were allowed, every teacher that engaged in this would be Christian. However, quite hypocritically, if a teacher started reading out of the Koran in front of class, you guys would have a shit fit.

Evoking religion as it relates to history? No problem. Religion is an important facet of history. I draw the line at proselytizing.

If you are convinced your children are being deprived without religion in the school, send the to parochial school. It's not against the law (quite logically) for religious schools that are privately funded to evoke religion in the class room.

It is against the law to use taxpayer dollars to support a glorified bible school.

Again, simple.

Again, how have your right's to practice your religion been hindered by the government?

The law can be changed. Leading a prayer is not "proselytizing". Why are you afraid of the little baby Jesus? He never hurt anyone.

You give away your bias by this statement..."glorified bible school". The idea of separation of church and state is to keep the government out of our lives so Americans can be free to experess their religious beliefs. There is nothing in the US Constitution about keeping any references to God out of our schools.

How come we have a chaplain in the congress who leads in prayer, but to lead in a prayer at school is against the law? Are you all afraid some little kid might find out Jesus loves him and not fall in line like everyone else?

They are afraid of the idea that people answer to a power higher than any on Earth. To them, the state is the highest power. It is a very simplistic notion actually.

 

[Jack Fate]

Indoctrination is a loose term that implies hyperbole and I know where you are going with this.

Let's stick to religion.

I don't want public school teachers reading scripture to school children or leading prayer, and I support the law as it stands on this. Your assumption is that, if this were allowed, every teacher that engaged in this would be Christian. However, quite hypocritically, if a teacher started reading out of the Koran in front of class, you guys would have a shit fit.

Evoking religion as it relates to history? No problem. Religion is an important facet of history. I draw the line at proselytizing.

If you are convinced your children are being deprived without religion in the school, send the to parochial school. It's not against the law (quite logically) for religious schools that are privately funded to evoke religion in the class room.

It is against the law to use taxpayer dollars to support a glorified bible school.

Again, simple.

Again, how have your right's to practice your religion been hindered by the government?

The law can be changed. Leading a prayer is not "proselytizing". Why are you afraid of the little baby Jesus? He never hurt anyone.

You give away your bias by this statement..."glorified bible school". The idea of separation of church and state is to keep the government out of our lives so Americans can be free to experess their religious beliefs. There is nothing in the US Constitution about keeping any references to God out of our schools.

How come we have a chaplain in the congress who leads in prayer, but to lead in a prayer at school is against the law? Are you all afraid some little kid might find out Jesus loves him and not fall in line like everyone else?

They are afraid of the idea that people answer to a power higher than any on Earth. To them, the state is the highest power. It is a very simplistic notion actually.

Bullseye.

 

[Vanquish]

I'm answering your question.

I think I see you thinking. Correct me if I'm wrong. You don't want the teacher indoctrinating the children. Is that correct?

Indoctrination is a loose term that implies hyperbole and I know where you are going with this.

Let's stick to religion.

I don't want public school teachers reading scripture to school children or leading prayer, and I support the law as it stands on this. Your assumption is that, if this were allowed, every teacher that engaged in this would be Christian. However, quite hypocritically, if a teacher started reading out of the Koran in front of class, you guys would have a shit fit.

Evoking religion as it relates to history? No problem. Religion is an important facet of history. I draw the line at proselytizing.

If you are convinced your children are being deprived without religion in the school, send the to parochial school. It's not against the law (quite logically) for religious schools that are privately funded to evoke religion in the class room.

It is against the law to use taxpayer dollars to support a glorified bible school.

Again, simple.

Again, how have your right's to practice your religion been hindered by the government?

The law can be changed. Leading a prayer is not "proselytizing". Why are you afraid of the little baby Jesus? He never hurt anyone.

You give away your bias by this statement..."glorified bible school". The idea of separation of church and state is to keep the government out of our lives so Americans can be free to experess their religious beliefs. There is nothing in the US Constitution about keeping any references to God out of our schools.

How come we have a chaplain in the congress who leads in prayer, but to lead in a prayer at school is against the law? Are you all afraid some little kid might find out Jesus loves him and not fall in line like everyone else?

First of all, Congress saying a prayer shouldn't technically be done. But because of politics it still happens. Warped reality inside the beltway means that will never change.

Second of all, the Constitution doesn't bear a "plain reading" approach. There are lots of legitimate bodies of law that have arisen from case law...and aren't "in" the Constitution.

Third, why should an atheist be forced to listen to the prayers of a group that they don't believe in? Or a Christian be forced to listen to a Muslim prayer (you bet your ass people would get pissed at that)?

I'm the son of a Methodist minister married to the daughter of a Baptist minister. So when I say that Christians operate in their own world, I know what I'm talking about. Your opinion of Christian prayer being innocuous is just plain unrealistic. Christians are such the majority that if things ever did change and you were the minority, you'd see things in a totally different light.

 

[Jack Fate]

Indoctrination is a loose term that implies hyperbole and I know where you are going with this.

Let's stick to religion.

I don't want public school teachers reading scripture to school children or leading prayer, and I support the law as it stands on this. Your assumption is that, if this were allowed, every teacher that engaged in this would be Christian. However, quite hypocritically, if a teacher started reading out of the Koran in front of class, you guys would have a shit fit.

Evoking religion as it relates to history? No problem. Religion is an important facet of history. I draw the line at proselytizing.

If you are convinced your children are being deprived without religion in the school, send the to parochial school. It's not against the law (quite logically) for religious schools that are privately funded to evoke religion in the class room.

It is against the law to use taxpayer dollars to support a glorified bible school.

Again, simple.

Again, how have your right's to practice your religion been hindered by the government?

The law can be changed. Leading a prayer is not "proselytizing". Why are you afraid of the little baby Jesus? He never hurt anyone.

You give away your bias by this statement..."glorified bible school". The idea of separation of church and state is to keep the government out of our lives so Americans can be free to experess their religious beliefs. There is nothing in the US Constitution about keeping any references to God out of our schools.

How come we have a chaplain in the congress who leads in prayer, but to lead in a prayer at school is against the law? Are you all afraid some little kid might find out Jesus loves him and not fall in line like everyone else?

First of all, Congress saying a prayer shouldn't technically be done. But because of politics it still happens. Warped reality inside the beltway means that will never change.

Second of all, the Constitution doesn't bear a "plain reading" approach. There are lots of legitimate bodies of law that have arisen from case law...and aren't "in" the Constitution.

Third, why should an atheist be forced to listen to the prayers of a group that they don't believe in? Or a Christian be forced to listen to a Muslim prayer (you bet your ass people would get pissed at that)?

I'm the son of a Methodist minister married to the daughter of a Baptist minister. So when I say that Christians operate in their own world, I know what I'm talking about. Your opinion of Christian prayer being innocuous is just plain unrealistic. Christians are such the majority that if things ever did change and you were the minority, you'd see things in a totally different light.

I don't believe anyone should be forced. I never said that. I said people should be free to practice their religion. You do not have the right to not be offended. Your family history isn't the topic.

 

[Vanquish]

It's not the topic until someone calls into question my biases. Scroll up and you'll see that happened not but 2 or 3 posts ago with some other guy. That's why it's relevant.

People should be free to practice their religion until it affects someone else. A prayer in a school classroom isn't innocuous. A Jewish child either has to sit there and take it...or go outside the room and feel ostracized/unnormal. Even a bland prayer that only says "God" - be it the Muslim god or Jewish god or what have you...still puts an atheist child in a separate box.

 

[Jack Fate]

It's not the topic until someone calls into question my biases. Scroll up and you'll see that happened not but 2 or 3 posts ago with some other guy. That's why it's relevant.

People should be free to practice their religion until it affects someone else. A prayer in a school classroom isn't innocuous. A Jewish child either has to sit there and take it...or go outside the room and feel ostracized/unnormal. Even a bland prayer that only says "God" - be it the Muslim god or Jewish god or what have you...still puts an atheist child in a separate box.

You do not have the right to not be offended.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Indoctrination is a loose term that implies hyperbole and I know where you are going with this.

Let's stick to religion.

I don't want public school teachers reading scripture to school children or leading prayer, and I support the law as it stands on this. Your assumption is that, if this were allowed, every teacher that engaged in this would be Christian. However, quite hypocritically, if a teacher started reading out of the Koran in front of class, you guys would have a shit fit.

Evoking religion as it relates to history? No problem. Religion is an important facet of history. I draw the line at proselytizing.

If you are convinced your children are being deprived without religion in the school, send the to parochial school. It's not against the law (quite logically) for religious schools that are privately funded to evoke religion in the class room.

It is against the law to use taxpayer dollars to support a glorified bible school.

Again, simple.

Again, how have your right's to practice your religion been hindered by the government?

The law can be changed. Leading a prayer is not "proselytizing". Why are you afraid of the little baby Jesus? He never hurt anyone.

You give away your bias by this statement..."glorified bible school". The idea of separation of church and state is to keep the government out of our lives so Americans can be free to experess their religious beliefs. There is nothing in the US Constitution about keeping any references to God out of our schools.

How come we have a chaplain in the congress who leads in prayer, but to lead in a prayer at school is against the law? Are you all afraid some little kid might find out Jesus loves him and not fall in line like everyone else?

They are afraid of the idea that people answer to a power higher than any on Earth. To them, the state is the highest power. It is a very simplistic notion actually.

I'm an unapologetic atheist and there's no one on this board who's more small gov't than me.

Trying to fit everyone into perfectly arranged little boxes doesn't work as often as people like to think on this board.

 

[Vanquish]

Sure you do. That's what the law is all about. If the offense is a civil one, I go to civil court. If it's a criminal offense, we go to criminal court.

Equal protection under the law...and constitutional violations such as these would be heard in civil court under a civil cause of action.