Danes feel Obama is greater than Jesus

[Jester]

Trijicon is like that. The statements I'd read on their web site indicate their concern is for the safety of the soldier.

"We believe that America is great when its people are good. This goodness has been based on biblical standards throughout our history and we will strive to follow those morals."

That's a little further than concern for the safety of soldiers, no? It kind of sounds like Dominionism. The Good (explicitly religious Good) are the Great (militarily powerful). Strangely enough, this is exactly what Wahhabi nutcases are arguing back in the middle east, that the decline in Islamic power is due to their failure to sufficiently embrace Islam.

I didn't find anything indicating their blood lust for killing terrorists, however, I'm sure some of the people who work there would personally express their support for winning the current conflicts we are involved in. Are they zealots? No.

They manufacture rifle scopes with coded references to bible verses on them. That sounds like zeal to me. But I'm glad you know them better than I do, and can vouch for the fact that they aren't zealots.

When Christians begin strapping explosives to themselves and walking into crowds, I'll begin worrying about neo-crusaders.

It's often pointed out that the suicide bomb is a weapon of poverty. This obscures some nuances, but it is generally true. If the country/god/cause you support is backed by the world's largest military with a truly staggering quantity of war materiel (including scopes!) that does not require you to blow yourself up, why on earth would you bother with suicide bombing? If Al Qaeda could park an aircraft carrier off the coast of Los Angeles and launch cruise missiles, or invade with overwhelming air and ground superiority, do you think they'd be spending their days trying to stuff home-made explosives into some idiot's underwear?

But, this is not your position. You want to never see or hear anything religious be expressed at all.

Could you please cite me something I've written that implies I would prefer a total end to all religious expression? It certainly doesn't sound like my opinion. I believe strongly in peoples' right to practice their religion free from the interference of government. Depending on the form of that expression, I may appreciate it or not, but the right to free worship is fundamental.

If it is done in public in any way by anyone however loosely connected to any government entity you unleash the wrath of the ACLU upon it declaring that the wall of seperation has been violated. I believe often that violates the free exercise clause, when that speech has no sovereign authority.

I unleash the wrath of the ACLU? What do I have to do with this? I've never so much as said a word to anyone in the ACLU, for the obvious reason that I don't live in the US. Or have I just become a metonym for liberals generally?

The ACLU is a private entity, and entitled to bring suits as they see fit. They are not bound by the Free Exercise clause which restricts only the actions of the government. I also have no objection to public officials making *private* statements about religion. But if they're wearing the government hat, "however loosely," they're bound by the Constitution, and should act accordingly.

I don't see anything in the Constitution indicating a wall, it's more like a hedge where some things pass through both ways as long as there is not an expression of support or favoritism by the government.

James Madison is the "Framer of the Constitution" and the "Father of the Bill of Rights." He referred to it as a "wall of separation." Jefferson said the same. He made no mention of hedges, or shrubberies, or other semi-permeable plant barriers. If the United States has failed to live up to both the letter of the law and the intent of the framers, it is because the prejudices of the overwhelming majority are very strong, and *not* because the Establishment clause is (or should be) permeable.

If you look through the overview in the link you gave, you would come across the landmark case that is still the controlling one: Everson v. Board of Education. Merely not expressing a preference for any given religion does *not* clear the constitutional hurdle. The decision in Everson specifically references the "wall of separation."

So, there it is. Both the framers and the courts go with the "wall" interpretation. It might not be literally written into the constitution, but it might as well have been - it's the obvious meaning, the historical meaning, and intended meaning of Madison, and the current legally binding interpretation. Don't like it? Take it to the Supremes.

-Jester