Did already. Wasn't there.
Lol. Yes, it is. Look under the main entry "approve."
It says ". . . respecting an establishment of religion", and you have to really torture the English language to make "establishment" not a noun, in my never-humble opinion.
Yes, very good, it's a noun. And it's a noun that refers to the act of establishing something. You aren't trying to claim that because it's the noun version, it somehow doesn't apply? Cause that would be really stupid.
::sigh:: No, "establishment" does not refer to the act of establishing, mostly because that wouldn't be a noun. That would be the verb, "establish".
It is clear that when the Constitution says, ". . . respecting an establishment of religion", it is referring to a thing which has been established, ie. a specific denomination or organization of religion. In other words, the injunction against Congress - and only Congress, by the way - in that Amendment is to not make laws RESPECTING - you can take that either to mean "favoring" or "regarding", whichever definition you like better - a specific church. It doesn't actually say anything about Congress establishing a church itself, although one assumes that to do so would be "respecting" such a church.
I know it's very popular to believe that the First Amendment freedom of religion section exists because the Founding Fathers were afraid of religion and government mixing, but that just isn't the case. In fact, it was intended at least in part to keep the federal government from interfering with the official churches that several of the STATES had.
What are you talking about? I've already stated that kids praying if they choose to is a protected right. Kids can pray whenever they want - they simply cannot subject others to their faith or take up others time with it. In other words, no organized prayer, and no standing at the door of the school in signboards saying all the non-Christians were going to hell.
Except it's not protected. It's merely a cherished fantasy among leftists that their militance on the subject of "organized religion in schools" isn't being used to oppress individual religious expression. The news is rife with stories, if you bother to look, of school officials interfering with the religious rights of students and their parents on the specious and occasionally even clearly-prohibited grounds that others somehow have a right to never be aware of their beliefs. And no, it is not enough for you to have this pointed out to you and then say, "Well, that's just WRONG", because we both know you're not really outraged and have no intention of doing anything about it except promptly forgetting it and going back to reserving your REAL outrage for anything you can use to convince yourself that Christians are trying to force their beliefs on you.
I have personally witnessed it. And if you honestly believe that you can universally speak for all Christians then you're living in fantasyland.
Oh, well, if you give me your personal word that you yourself have witnessed it, that certainly obviates any need for that pesky little item we call "proof I will actually believe instead of sneering contemptuously".
Or not.
Yes, it is my personal choice. If they're on the clock and making me wait while they pray, they're stealing. The fact that they have the ability to sneak and deny me my personal choice doesn't make it not my choice.
Actually, it's NOT your choice, because you have no freaking choice about it, other than to walk away and not get your business done. Oh, you can ***** and moan, just as you can ***** and moan about them taking a coffee break, but there's not a damned thing you can do about it.
And they're not "sneaking", dumbass. They don't owe you any explanation, any more than they owe you an explanation of going to the can.
I have not advocated any organized prayers, and you're setting up a straw man if you're trying to pretend that's the argument.
Then what are you arguing about? You responded to my post. I stated pretty clearly that kids could pray whenever they wanted, but that it can't be organized and take up others' time. Why did you disagree with me when I said the minority kids shouldn't have to sit in study hall during others' prayer time? You, for some odd reason, argued with that and have followed up with insults. Was it just too much for you to handle that you agreed with someone you clearly perceive as a leftist?
No, there's a big difference between what we were talking about, which is the school allowing for personal religious expression, and organized school prayer. That's just a leap you decided to take, since apparently you can't envision REAL tolerance of other cultures without it leading to the "horrific" vision of teachers - no doubt wearing swastika armbands - ordering children to pray under threat of punishment. Doesn't seem to be any middle ground in your mind.
Speaking of which:
When you "compassionate" leftists come even CLOSE to spending as much of your own personal money - not tax dollars you've stolen from your neighbors at the point of the government's gun - on the poor and downtrodden as Christians routinely do, MAYBE I'll be interested in hearing what you have to say about how they should practice their religion. But I doubt it, because I'm fairly certain it will still be akin to listening to a virgin give sex lessons.
What kind of nasty little hypocrite puts "Christians" on one side and "Leftists" on the other? I happen to have very dear friends who are both leftwing and Christian. I simply find it reprehensible to equate Christianity or any religion with a political side.
Sorry, Charlie, but it's not RIGHTIES treating Christians like a nasty, deviant fifth column in American society. If you people want to sit around, twitting yourselves on how "religious" you are, then you might want to rethink associating yourselves with people who consider Christianity to be the equivalent of having a venereal disease . . . except more distasteful. My mother always said, "You lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas."
Nice avatar gold.
