Something to bash on

[kandrathe]

A humourous related anecdote; this last Easter our city government made employees take down Easter Bunny decorations from their offices. Since, you know, on the third day, the Easter Bunny came and gave all the Apostles jellybeans and chocolate eggs.

Thus, embracing them as some form of our cultural basis is in effect making the judo-cristian ethos our official state religion, barring the other religions of the world. And that is unconstitutional.

I would say not unconstitutional, but perhaps unfair to citizens who do not espouse a Judeo-Christian worldview. As long as the government does not require you to "believe" in them, or as in the case in the article I cited "be required to memorize them as a punishment" I wouldn't think the government has stepped into the "establishment" area. As we've discussed on numerous occasions, I believe the government can be (perhaps unwisely and boorishly) unfair to a minority and long as they do not violate their rights as described in the bill of rights or Acts such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I don't think they should be unfair, but also I think it is frivolous to scarify monuments and public buildings of things people might find offensive.

Yes and yes. Sometime ago I wrote an analysis of why "In God We Trust" is strictly a christian concept. Among other points is the multiplicity of gods in many religions, the lack of a personal relationship with god in many religions, and the complete absence of god as a distinct entity in others. Again, this phrase is an offense to any non christian American.

These acts performed by the federal government are more problematic than posting the Ten Commandments outside an Alabama courthouse, unless the State of Alabama also adopted language in its state constitution with an establishment of religion clause. They have not, so the Federal government forcing them to remove their religious monument is in fact a violation of the "free exercise" portion of that clause.

Regarding sport teams... My reference was more in the idea of taking modern offense with things historical that were done by people who are probably dead. Not that the two were comparable in a human "rights" context. As I've traveled around the world I find it extremely sad when I see beautiful historical architecture marred by modern zealots who became offended with the past, such as with the Taliban blowing up the Bamyan Buddhas.

The only way for all to have freedom of religion is for the state to practice freedom from religion. Anything else is tyranny.

I would be fine with the government not promoting religion, while not also interfering with it's exercise. Too often the "separation" clause is used to prohibit any religious activity done in public institutions. As far as phrases on money and Congress praying... I think that is more of a political sword no politician is going to throw themselves upon.

I would ask you to re-read the context in which Jefferson wrote about a "wall of separation".

So what did Jefferson mean when he used the "wall" metaphor? Jefferson undoubtedly meant that the First Amendment prohibited the federal Congress from enacting any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. As the chief executive of the federal government, the President's duty was to carry out the directives of Congress. If Congress had no authority in matters of religion, then neither did the President. Religion was clearly within the jurisdiction of the church and states. As a state legislator, Jefferson saw no problem with proclaiming days of thanksgiving and prayer, and even on one occasion prescribed a penalty to the clergy for failure to abide by these state proclamations. Jefferson believed that the Constitution created a limited government and that the states retained the authority over matters of religion not only through the First Amendment but also through the Tenth Amendment. (18) The federal government had absolutely no jurisdiction over religion, as that matter was left where the Constitution found it, namely with the individual churches and the several states.The Myth Behind "Separation of Church and State"

In that case, as President of the United States, he felt that the establishment clause prevented him in a federal sense to declare a national day of prayer. His objection had more to do with the federal government telling the states what to do.

Jefferson used the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" as a means of expressing his republican view that the federal or general government should not interfere with religious matters among the several states. In its proper context, the phrase represents a clear expression of state autonomy.ibid.