(10-09-2011, 10:10 PM)Jester Wrote: The separation of church and state has long been more an ideal to aspire to, than anything actually practiced in the United States. The irreligious will continue to have religion foisted upon them by their government for no defensible reason, because religion is treated as definitionally benign and harmless by its defenders, so long as it is "generic" enough to appease the "popular" denominations.The point of disagreement is whether government employees, and people in positions of authority have the right to express their religiousness. It is a conflict between an alleged infringement of establishment, with every persons (including the President) first amendment rights to have free exercise of religion. I agree though, that the NDP Act establishing a fixed day by Congress is unconstitutional.
If we had an Islamic president who wanted to declare August a voluntary month of fasting. I wouldn't have an issue with it. Would you?
(10-09-2011, 10:27 PM)Jester Wrote: This was practically inevitable. Compromise was tried, and failed. Unless, of course, we live in rosy counterfactual land, like so: I'm sure everyone would have lived happily ever after.Ah, but the British were so much more evolved and didn't have the same pigheadedness as our southern slave owners. Why did it work for Britain in 1933?
Quote:You do get the difference between individuals and non-state groups praying, and the *Federal Government* endorsing prayer? Like, maybe, that the Constitution binds one, and not the other? Exactly that same distinction that I told you you're ignoring?See my response. I do get the difference. I believe all people have the freedom to express their religiousness (and yes, care and guidelines need to be established for public schools). But, Congress shall make no law... That part is the infringement on establishment.