Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
I have no argument with what you say, but I bring up my examples of things which others have spoken against on Constitutional grounds however they then disregard the more substantial historical references regarding the Second as being vague and inconclusive. Obviously personal perspective influences things, however no one seems to be able to present a decent rebuttal.You seem to be equating church/state separation only with things like Christmas lights and nativity scenes, which is a really upside down way of looking at it. If you want to promote church/state separation, your very first principle is to ban the establishment of a state religion. Then and only then will you look at ways in which the state might indirectly endorse religion and try to ban those. So the Con accomplishes the first and most basic step right there in its text.
Just to make clear, I do not endorse religious interference in government nor would I support Creationism being taught as being correct or co-equal in any way to evolution in schools. Those are more serious things than Christmas lights but I'm not sure I want to go into this more deeply when it's likely to be derailed.