I think we all have to live with this. Trying to make things look nice takes a lot of work on a forum. Maybe some day somebody will stick on a decent editor.
Be good.
Under God
- Thread starter ShoeshineBoy
- Start date
I think we all have to live with this. Trying to make things look nice takes a lot of work on a forum. Maybe some day somebody will stick on a decent editor.
Be good.
Problem is, bottom line, Feldman goes no further in answering the basis of the argument than you do.
The Constitution is an unproven statement?
Trying to call in Feldman, hasn't helped to establish your own personal alterations to common understandings and dictionary definitions of words. Nor has it altered one iota the problem you are having squirming around with the simple and clean cut proposition that the Pledge is unconstitutional.
I don't need to select the words that are the basis of the argument, they are already present in it, and very obvious.
Progress indeed.
You were correct up to the "the majority of the people, common and uncommon alike". This is a Constitution about representing ALL of the people. Not the majority or a minority. That is something you seem unable to comprehend.
The same was said of those who held the opinion that the Pledge was unconstitutional on a previous occasion.
The Court made a ruling to override what you describe as the common man and leaders and founders of of religions.
The Court found Congress's messings with the Pledge unconstitutional,
It stands today.
Without that opinion being voiced, the children you so eagerly refer to, would not be free to participate or not participate in saying the pledge, they would have no choice but to participate. So much for 'impotent opinion' then.
Then you would most likely have predicted the same previously and your prediction would have been wrong then also. However that has nothing to do with whether or not the Pledge is unconstitutional.
Thanks to the Pledge being ruled unconstitutional... they are free.
Not quite as free as it should be.
Your attitude to argument has shown itself to be basically dishonest. I don't think you are interested really in argument as a form of debate. If something doesn't fit with your opinion, you would prefer to be argumentative.
Why are you so hung up about this. Is it that your own antecedence is a little, shall we say, wanting on the nationality side of things? Perhaps you are not as American as I am or you want to show in some way you are more American. You think perhaps this supports your otherwise contradictory argument in some way? And as your arguments are seen to be dishonest, you may well lie to yourself as well as to others if asked the same question.
I guess you are can't stop yourself chipping to see if you can marginalize people, instead of dealing with the argument. The very same tactic being used in the article beginning this thread.
You are caught and fixed. The Constitution is clear in meaning and context . The Pledge is unconstitutional as it stands. It has been proved to be unconstitutional previously when Congress messed with it then.
Not liking that, you attempt as always, to argue deceitfully using contradiction and irrelevance.
I am pretty sure we are done.
You accuse me of arguing deceitfully.
What is the point of continuing?
So when stu can't win, he accuses someone of arguing deceitfully.
Sore loser.
You accuse me of arguing deceitfully.
What is the point of continuing?
So when stu can't win, he accuses someone of arguing deceitfully.
Sore loser.
by Robert Garmong
(from an article published on http://www.mensnewsdaily.com)
June 16, 2004
In refusing to rule on the merits of Michael Newdow's challenge to the Pledge of Allegiance, the Supreme Court attempted to stay out of the "culture war" between the (religious) Right and the Left. The American public has no such luxury.
Michael Newdow, an atheist, argued that the Pledge's reference to America as "one nation under God," constitutes governmental establishment of religion. The Bush administration countered that the pledge is "a patriotic exercise, not a religious testimonial," and should be allowed.
This might seem to be a trivial case. But as part of a "culture war" between the Right and the Left, it has taken on an ominous significance. Both sides have demonstrated naked hostility to the independent mind: the Right, by its desire to force school-aged children to profess religious belief; the Left, by its demands for governmental support for secular ideas.
The First Amendment established what Thomas Jefferson termed a "wall of separation" between Church and State--a deliberate break with the then-standard European practice of establishing an official church by governmental edict and supporting it by taxes. The purpose of Church/State separation was to protect the right to disagree in matters of religion: to ensure that the power of the government would never be used to force a person to profess or support a religious idea he does not agree with. Government officials may make whatever religious pronouncements they wish, on their own--but they may not use the power of the government to promote their ideas.
On religion or any other topic, an individual's ideas are the matter of his own mind, decided by the application (or misapplication) of his own rational faculty. To force a man to adhere to a particular doctrine is to subvert the very faculty that makes real agreement possible and meaningful, and thereby to paralyze his mechanism for recognizing truth. The kind of forced "agreement" obtained by governmental edict is every bit as meaningless as was the Iraqis' "love" for Saddam.
Yet it is precisely this kind of forced agreement that the political Right seeks, through its support of religion. The Pledge of Allegiance is a perfect example: in 1954, when Congress replaced its original language, "one nation indivisible" with "one nation, under God," then-President Eisenhower expressed pride that "millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty." This can only mean the attempt to demand religious agreement by the power of the government, which means ultimately "agreement" at gunpoint. Whether this premise is implemented by means of a nativity scene on public property, prayer in public schools, or the Ten Commandments in a public courthouse--the meaning is that the government should dictate the contents of the individual's mind.
The political Left has properly condemned governmental support of religious ideas--but at the same time, it demands that taxpayers support secular ideas, via National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities, among myriad smaller agencies. If the Right's attempt to impose religion by force is destructive of intellectual freedom, the Left's demand that taxpayers support their ideas is openly contemptuous of the intellect. Liberals do not care whether you or I in fact agree with or approve of the ideas and images our tax dollars support--be they the latest collection of paint splotches or a Madonna smeared with elephant dung--just as long as we hand over our taxes. Thus, our minds have been rendered irrelevant, our agreement or disagreement pointless, as long as we serve as cash cows for the "artist" or "intellectual" to exploit.
Conservatives, who properly argue against public support for secular ideas, endorse the use of publicly funded institutions to promote religious ideas. Liberals, who properly object to religious displays on public property, advocate public funding for their pet ideas. It's politics without mirrors: each group feels free to attack its opponents for violating rights, as long as they don't have to notice that they are committing the exact same crime.
This so-called culture war truly is a war: a war against the individual mind. It is a particularly dirty kind of war, with both sides of the political spectrum vying for the right to enslave the minds of legally disarmed victims, and to do it by means of money expropriated from the victims themselves.
The only way to end this war is to re-assert the First Amendment, with its guarantee of intellectual freedom--and the only way to do that, is to get the government out of the business of supporting ideas.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Garmong, Ph.D. in philosophy, is a writer for the Ayn Rand Institute (http://www.aynrand.org) in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.
(from an article published on http://www.mensnewsdaily.com)
June 16, 2004
In refusing to rule on the merits of Michael Newdow's challenge to the Pledge of Allegiance, the Supreme Court attempted to stay out of the "culture war" between the (religious) Right and the Left. The American public has no such luxury.
Michael Newdow, an atheist, argued that the Pledge's reference to America as "one nation under God," constitutes governmental establishment of religion. The Bush administration countered that the pledge is "a patriotic exercise, not a religious testimonial," and should be allowed.
This might seem to be a trivial case. But as part of a "culture war" between the Right and the Left, it has taken on an ominous significance. Both sides have demonstrated naked hostility to the independent mind: the Right, by its desire to force school-aged children to profess religious belief; the Left, by its demands for governmental support for secular ideas.
The First Amendment established what Thomas Jefferson termed a "wall of separation" between Church and State--a deliberate break with the then-standard European practice of establishing an official church by governmental edict and supporting it by taxes. The purpose of Church/State separation was to protect the right to disagree in matters of religion: to ensure that the power of the government would never be used to force a person to profess or support a religious idea he does not agree with. Government officials may make whatever religious pronouncements they wish, on their own--but they may not use the power of the government to promote their ideas.
On religion or any other topic, an individual's ideas are the matter of his own mind, decided by the application (or misapplication) of his own rational faculty. To force a man to adhere to a particular doctrine is to subvert the very faculty that makes real agreement possible and meaningful, and thereby to paralyze his mechanism for recognizing truth. The kind of forced "agreement" obtained by governmental edict is every bit as meaningless as was the Iraqis' "love" for Saddam.
Yet it is precisely this kind of forced agreement that the political Right seeks, through its support of religion. The Pledge of Allegiance is a perfect example: in 1954, when Congress replaced its original language, "one nation indivisible" with "one nation, under God," then-President Eisenhower expressed pride that "millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty." This can only mean the attempt to demand religious agreement by the power of the government, which means ultimately "agreement" at gunpoint. Whether this premise is implemented by means of a nativity scene on public property, prayer in public schools, or the Ten Commandments in a public courthouse--the meaning is that the government should dictate the contents of the individual's mind.
The political Left has properly condemned governmental support of religious ideas--but at the same time, it demands that taxpayers support secular ideas, via National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities, among myriad smaller agencies. If the Right's attempt to impose religion by force is destructive of intellectual freedom, the Left's demand that taxpayers support their ideas is openly contemptuous of the intellect. Liberals do not care whether you or I in fact agree with or approve of the ideas and images our tax dollars support--be they the latest collection of paint splotches or a Madonna smeared with elephant dung--just as long as we hand over our taxes. Thus, our minds have been rendered irrelevant, our agreement or disagreement pointless, as long as we serve as cash cows for the "artist" or "intellectual" to exploit.
Conservatives, who properly argue against public support for secular ideas, endorse the use of publicly funded institutions to promote religious ideas. Liberals, who properly object to religious displays on public property, advocate public funding for their pet ideas. It's politics without mirrors: each group feels free to attack its opponents for violating rights, as long as they don't have to notice that they are committing the exact same crime.
This so-called culture war truly is a war: a war against the individual mind. It is a particularly dirty kind of war, with both sides of the political spectrum vying for the right to enslave the minds of legally disarmed victims, and to do it by means of money expropriated from the victims themselves.
The only way to end this war is to re-assert the First Amendment, with its guarantee of intellectual freedom--and the only way to do that, is to get the government out of the business of supporting ideas.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Garmong, Ph.D. in philosophy, is a writer for the Ayn Rand Institute (http://www.aynrand.org) in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.
"the Right, by its desire to force school-aged children to profess religious belief..."
The pledge is optional, because the court determined that forcing children, or anyone to make a formal, verbal pledge of patriotism was itself unconstitutional. Their decision had nothing to do with the phrase "under God" directly.
No one needs participate in the pledge, singing America the Beautiful, or saying "God bless you" etc after someone sneezes.
No one needs to believe in the constitution itself, they just need to act in a manner that doesn't violate the law.
I believe it is very much a culture war, and ideological going on between the atheists and the theists in this country.
The problem of course, is determining exactly what constitutes establishment of religion, versus maintaining part of the culture and fabric of our society, and keeping us in touch with the ideas and beliefs of the very religious men who founded this country.
The atheists have a political agenda, as much as any other homogenous group that has a vision of they believe may be best for themselves, for America, and for other Americans who do not share their point of view.
Jefferson's wall was intended to protect religion as much, if not more so than it was to afford protection to the government.
We have seen in the past what happens when walls are erected in societies where there is a lack of acceptance and tolerance for the ideas and cultures of others living on the other side of those walls.
No one should be forced to think in either an atheistic, or a theistic manner, and as long as that freedom of thought is allowed, and as long as the actions of a majority group or groups doesn't damage minority groups, I see no problem.
The majority does as it always has done, i.e. set the tone, that is just a simple reality of life in a culture such as ours. As long as you can put in your own earplugs, or change the channel, or sing your own words, think your own thoughts, practice your own belief systems without punishment, and there is no coercion or repression by the government, I don't see any constitutional rights being abridged.
America is a religious country, at least as people report that they have a belief in God.
Is America a moral country?
Different question, different answer.
As far as the final comments of the author:
"The only way to end this war is to re-assert the First Amendment, with its guarantee of intellectual freedom--and the only way to do that, is to get the government out of the business of supporting ideas."
No doubt the author wishes the government to support the author's ideas over the ideas those who would not agree with him.
In essence, it brings us to the question: "What is it that enslaves intellectual freedom? The government? The school systems? The media? The family structure?
None of the above, for an adult the only slave master of intellectual freedom is the human mind itself. No one can force someone to think a different way than they choose to think, unless someone is implementing advanced brainwashing techniques to gain control of a weak mind.
As is so often the case, people want to blame the government, and equally believe their intellectual conclusions should be forced on the masses, even the concept of intellectual freedom that Randites preach.
The bell curve being what it is, I am not surprised that the extremes would act they way they do, and that the sheep in the middle simply play follow the leader.
The pledge is optional, because the court determined that forcing children, or anyone to make a formal, verbal pledge of patriotism was itself unconstitutional. Their decision had nothing to do with the phrase "under God" directly.
No one needs participate in the pledge, singing America the Beautiful, or saying "God bless you" etc after someone sneezes.
No one needs to believe in the constitution itself, they just need to act in a manner that doesn't violate the law.
I believe it is very much a culture war, and ideological going on between the atheists and the theists in this country.
The problem of course, is determining exactly what constitutes establishment of religion, versus maintaining part of the culture and fabric of our society, and keeping us in touch with the ideas and beliefs of the very religious men who founded this country.
The atheists have a political agenda, as much as any other homogenous group that has a vision of they believe may be best for themselves, for America, and for other Americans who do not share their point of view.
Jefferson's wall was intended to protect religion as much, if not more so than it was to afford protection to the government.
We have seen in the past what happens when walls are erected in societies where there is a lack of acceptance and tolerance for the ideas and cultures of others living on the other side of those walls.
No one should be forced to think in either an atheistic, or a theistic manner, and as long as that freedom of thought is allowed, and as long as the actions of a majority group or groups doesn't damage minority groups, I see no problem.
The majority does as it always has done, i.e. set the tone, that is just a simple reality of life in a culture such as ours. As long as you can put in your own earplugs, or change the channel, or sing your own words, think your own thoughts, practice your own belief systems without punishment, and there is no coercion or repression by the government, I don't see any constitutional rights being abridged.
America is a religious country, at least as people report that they have a belief in God.
Is America a moral country?
Different question, different answer.
As far as the final comments of the author:
"The only way to end this war is to re-assert the First Amendment, with its guarantee of intellectual freedom--and the only way to do that, is to get the government out of the business of supporting ideas."
No doubt the author wishes the government to support the author's ideas over the ideas those who would not agree with him.
In essence, it brings us to the question: "What is it that enslaves intellectual freedom? The government? The school systems? The media? The family structure?
None of the above, for an adult the only slave master of intellectual freedom is the human mind itself. No one can force someone to think a different way than they choose to think, unless someone is implementing advanced brainwashing techniques to gain control of a weak mind.
As is so often the case, people want to blame the government, and equally believe their intellectual conclusions should be forced on the masses, even the concept of intellectual freedom that Randites preach.
The bell curve being what it is, I am not surprised that the extremes would act they way they do, and that the sheep in the middle simply play follow the leader.
So let's say in a fantasy world, the court prohibits the current pledge from being voluntarily recited in the public school as it is currently done on the basis of a finding of establishment of religion in the use of the current pledge.
What might congress do?
Imange that they pass a new piece of legislation nearly unanimously to establish a new procedure in the schools, a new pledge of allegiance.
The procedure of the new pledge follows:
The children are to stand and face the flag.
They then recite the following words together as the teacher leads them in the reading of the new pledge, with the words of the new pledge below in bold face print:
I pledge allegiance to the flag, and the United States of America, which declared its independence on July 4th 1776.
Our Declaration of Independence says:
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.âThat to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
They then close the new pledge by saying "With Liberty and Justice for All."
In the above hypothetical example, would the above pledge, which the government endorsed by having children repeat it daily, be considered a violation of the Establishment Clause?
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0101022.html
What might congress do?
Imange that they pass a new piece of legislation nearly unanimously to establish a new procedure in the schools, a new pledge of allegiance.
The procedure of the new pledge follows:
The children are to stand and face the flag.
They then recite the following words together as the teacher leads them in the reading of the new pledge, with the words of the new pledge below in bold face print:
I pledge allegiance to the flag, and the United States of America, which declared its independence on July 4th 1776.
Our Declaration of Independence says:
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.âThat to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
They then close the new pledge by saying "With Liberty and Justice for All."
In the above hypothetical example, would the above pledge, which the government endorsed by having children repeat it daily, be considered a violation of the Establishment Clause?
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0101022.html
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Its suprising the % of leadership of America & Israel;
that is and was
Hebrew or Hebrew -Christian .
President John Adams , like many commander in chiefs, certainly recieved & lived the Judeo-Christain life.
Interesting, Jack Dreyfus was in the same IBD ''investors.com'';
the old time chart watcher mentioned GOD in a respectful way.
Probably not random both were in ''investors.com''
7/2/2004. Its still free & readable saturday.
The topic as it developed appears a simple enough argument .
The Pledge is unconstitutional as it stands. It was not unconstitutional as it was written.
If the words "under God" or "under God Almighty" or "under our Creator the Almighty God" or any other such similar phrase, however strong religiously - had been written by the author and recited in every school and every meeting in the land by public consent, the Pledge would NOT be unconstitutional.
Because the word God is a religious word and because the words "under God", were put there by government within law , government and the law itself is respecting an establishment of religion.
The words in the First Amendment are unequivocal
The U.S. Constitution is thereby violated.
And as far as the law is concerned, the law falls into disrepute.
You may think it doesn't matter. You may think who cares. You may say no one has to say it out loud. But the fact remains - it is unconstitutional.
Generally speaking it might be reasonable to conclude, Constitutional - good, unconstitutional - not good.
The Pledge is unconstitutional as it stands. It was not unconstitutional as it was written.
If the words "under God" or "under God Almighty" or "under our Creator the Almighty God" or any other such similar phrase, however strong religiously - had been written by the author and recited in every school and every meeting in the land by public consent, the Pledge would NOT be unconstitutional.
Because the word God is a religious word and because the words "under God", were put there by government within law , government and the law itself is respecting an establishment of religion.
The words in the First Amendment are unequivocal
The U.S. Constitution is thereby violated.
And as far as the law is concerned, the law falls into disrepute.
You may think it doesn't matter. You may think who cares. You may say no one has to say it out loud. But the fact remains - it is unconstitutional.
Generally speaking it might be reasonable to conclude, Constitutional - good, unconstitutional - not good.
Quoting stu, prefacing the part in large letters that he left out of his comments:
In my opinion, ".....The Pledge is unconstitutional as it stands."
I can't call it an argument, as he does nothing but make declarative statements....statements that are in direct contradiction to the opinions of the high court, the common man, and religion's leaders/founders and practitioners.
My conclusion is simple:
The pledge as it is written and currently voluntarily practiced is constitutional according to the High Court, and considered constitutional by those who actually practice religion, and considered constitutional by those leaders of all major religions in the USA.
I have given supporting evidence to my conclusions in 4 ways:
One is the High Court and their opinion, and I provided a link to the Courts own words on the matter.
Second is the historical framework of the Bill of Rights, its evolution, and the intention of the Framers to uphold the spirit of Locke's "Freedom of Conscience" and I provided a link to a Law Review article to support that information.
Third is the common man, and common sense.....and what the common man understands religion to be, i.e. creed and dogma, enacted upon and motivated by faith in God. To the common man, someone who simply repeats "Under God" but does not do so with full faith in God is not engaged in the practice of religion. A parrot can be trained to say "under God" and no reasonable man would say a parrot is practicing a religion by a simple repetition of the phrase "under God." A computer can be programmed to say the words of a prayer, is the computer actually praying and practicing a religion? Nope. The meaning is provided by the speaker or listener of the word God, not by the word God itself. As the beauty is in the eye of the beholder, not the object itself, the religious quality of humanity is in the heart of man, not in the words of some scripture.
Fourthly, the religious leaders, the real experts in what is religion, all agree that a simple repetition of the word "God" does not constitute a religious practice. Only when the word God is said with full faith in prayer to God and as implemented as part of the entire practice of religion, does the word God have any value from a religious perspective.
stu loses. Yet, stu thinks he has won. stu thinks saying the word God makes something a religion. stu is wrong. Who says he is wrong? The religious leaders of all major religions, the common man, and the high court, congress, and all presidents we have ever had who were in power when the current pledge was said.
Yet, stu continues to believe he is right, and all the others who disagree with him wrong.
Hmmmmm......
I guess stu thinks he knows more about religion and what it is than anyone else.
How odd, first we have axeman who thinks only he and the atheists are the only ones qualified to define properly what atheism is---not the religious people......and now stu thinks he is better qualified than those religious leaders, religious practitioners among the common people, and the Supreme Court to define what is religion, and what constitutes practice and/or establishment of religion.
Stu thinks we can throw out context, the wishes of the Framers (who 3 days before ratification of the First Amendment approved paying a chaplain's wages to say a daily prayer to God at their meetings), the history of this country, the use of the word God and the Creator in the Declaration of Independence, etc. stu doesn't think he needs to build a foundation for his argument and reach a conclusion citing case law, the accepted tests of what is religion determined by the high court, nor any historical references. He simply has to say it is so, and it is so.
Does stu have a God complex in this case? It would seem so, he sees and claims fact where others don't, only he knows what the words mean and what the Framers intended, and only he is entitled to say what is fact....not simply a point of view or opinion.
I am glad as an American citizen, which stu is not, that we follow the law, which grants the High Court final decision in matters of what is actually constitutional, and not leave it up to extremist groups or individuals who have problems with others saying a word voluntarily.
Want to scare stu? Don't say Boo!, say God! He appears terrified of the word.
In my opinion, ".....The Pledge is unconstitutional as it stands."
I can't call it an argument, as he does nothing but make declarative statements....statements that are in direct contradiction to the opinions of the high court, the common man, and religion's leaders/founders and practitioners.
My conclusion is simple:
The pledge as it is written and currently voluntarily practiced is constitutional according to the High Court, and considered constitutional by those who actually practice religion, and considered constitutional by those leaders of all major religions in the USA.
I have given supporting evidence to my conclusions in 4 ways:
One is the High Court and their opinion, and I provided a link to the Courts own words on the matter.
Second is the historical framework of the Bill of Rights, its evolution, and the intention of the Framers to uphold the spirit of Locke's "Freedom of Conscience" and I provided a link to a Law Review article to support that information.
Third is the common man, and common sense.....and what the common man understands religion to be, i.e. creed and dogma, enacted upon and motivated by faith in God. To the common man, someone who simply repeats "Under God" but does not do so with full faith in God is not engaged in the practice of religion. A parrot can be trained to say "under God" and no reasonable man would say a parrot is practicing a religion by a simple repetition of the phrase "under God." A computer can be programmed to say the words of a prayer, is the computer actually praying and practicing a religion? Nope. The meaning is provided by the speaker or listener of the word God, not by the word God itself. As the beauty is in the eye of the beholder, not the object itself, the religious quality of humanity is in the heart of man, not in the words of some scripture.
Fourthly, the religious leaders, the real experts in what is religion, all agree that a simple repetition of the word "God" does not constitute a religious practice. Only when the word God is said with full faith in prayer to God and as implemented as part of the entire practice of religion, does the word God have any value from a religious perspective.
stu loses. Yet, stu thinks he has won. stu thinks saying the word God makes something a religion. stu is wrong. Who says he is wrong? The religious leaders of all major religions, the common man, and the high court, congress, and all presidents we have ever had who were in power when the current pledge was said.
Yet, stu continues to believe he is right, and all the others who disagree with him wrong.
Hmmmmm......
I guess stu thinks he knows more about religion and what it is than anyone else.
How odd, first we have axeman who thinks only he and the atheists are the only ones qualified to define properly what atheism is---not the religious people......and now stu thinks he is better qualified than those religious leaders, religious practitioners among the common people, and the Supreme Court to define what is religion, and what constitutes practice and/or establishment of religion.
Stu thinks we can throw out context, the wishes of the Framers (who 3 days before ratification of the First Amendment approved paying a chaplain's wages to say a daily prayer to God at their meetings), the history of this country, the use of the word God and the Creator in the Declaration of Independence, etc. stu doesn't think he needs to build a foundation for his argument and reach a conclusion citing case law, the accepted tests of what is religion determined by the high court, nor any historical references. He simply has to say it is so, and it is so.
Does stu have a God complex in this case? It would seem so, he sees and claims fact where others don't, only he knows what the words mean and what the Framers intended, and only he is entitled to say what is fact....not simply a point of view or opinion.
I am glad as an American citizen, which stu is not, that we follow the law, which grants the High Court final decision in matters of what is actually constitutional, and not leave it up to extremist groups or individuals who have problems with others saying a word voluntarily.
Want to scare stu? Don't say Boo!, say God! He appears terrified of the word.