Something to bash on

[Occhidiangela]

It's blatantly wrong, because it's a strawman. There is no movement "to excoriate all religiosity from the public's view."
-Lemmy

Fine strawman your own self, Lemmy.

Welcome to the war of ideas. Start the current phase, call it phase eleventy-seven, with the French Revolution. See you when you catch up. The fact that two (heck three or four or nine) sides are fighting to spread their agenda, rather than your presumed one, seems to have escaped you. The Constitution's flexibility and ability to capture the growth of ideas and social themes is continually tested, I'll again refer to Prohibition and the Court's "unconstitutional" death penalty pronouncement of 1972 as examples of "it is a work in progress, forever." There is not correct answer to this exam, but a hell of a lot of partial credit.

I suspect that you would, under your line of reasoning, suggest to me that the American military should cease and desist in paying for Chaplins, as that would violate "separation of Church and state." I disagree with Jefferson's wall, unless it is built with gates. That image segue's into my core irritation of late, the bloody border. I'll stop here, rather than rant about the Pope's endorsing an invasion of my land for his political aim of further Catholicising America. Being that the Constitution was written by a group who were by and large anti-Papist, and the ban against formal State religion was aimed explicitly at the Papacy and the C of E, it is germane to the topic, correctly addresses the motivation of the establishment clause, and ends my participation in this discussion.

As to the "lecture," thanks for the coffee bone, it appears the food for thought provided wasn't to your taste. By the way, it's a "no touchee!" zone, on the patting my head, oh furriest of Mods: my hair on top is getting thin enough as it is! :blink: No extra friction desired. ;)

Occhi