Modern legal systems in Western societies owe their existence to law codes that preceeded them. For that reason, we (as a society) should acknowledge their existence and pay a certain amount of homage to them.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

You don't think so? You think that it's government's place to mandate people must have some religion, then? What about "Congress shall make no law..." Am I not free to NOT exercise religion?

Kind of a reversal for you, isn't it? I would have expected you to agree.

Thank you! I agree entirely, but when I mention that, I get shouted down. So, I was being charitable. Please inform others on various forums, who vehemently have argued otherwise: "America is a Christian Nation!".......

I thought the Founders were "deists", and were generally pretty careful to not address religion in anything but relatively vague terms.

Still, I see it as at least improper. Hence its arguability.....

Plopping a big stone tablet up in a public space is an endorsement, or can be viewed as such. Many people think that even the money motto is dicey.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" I suppose one could argue that the State wouldn't be "establishing" Christianity, per se, but ultimately, it's up to the Courts.

Government can't/won't legislate against religions at all, so those "religion-haters" are out of luck. BUT, government really shouldn't be allowing that stuff in the public space. That certainly is an endorsement.

__________________
Unfortunately, the Founders did not address the possibility of this nation becoming populated with obnoxious twits.

No, we really shouldn't.

To view systems of law, like the Constitution, with near-religious fervor, is really creepy and inappropriate, and the way many people worship both the Bible and the Constituition as inviolate, inflexible holy writ and Ultimate Truth, is, in my opinion, indicative of a certain sickness.

__________________
Unfortunately, the Founders did not address the possibility of this nation becoming populated with obnoxious twits.

Freedom from religion (as in freedom to not be exposed to religion in any way whatsoever) is not the same thing as freedom to not exercise any religion (the freedom to not be religious). The former I reject, the latter I fully support.



I, too, have been attacked (on other forums) for daring to suggest that America is not (and has never been) a Christian nation.

Some were deists, some were Christians, some were Unitarians.

But the First Amendment doesn't say "endorsement," it says "establishment" as in establishing an official Church of the United States. And it wouldn't be endorsement if alongside the big stone tablet of the 10 Commandments were big stone tablets of other legal codes such as Hammurabi's or Justinian's.

No, it isn't up to the Courts. Article III of the Constitution does not give the Courts the power to insert its own meanings (interpretations) in the place of the intent of the founders. The Constitution means exactly and only what the author and ratifiers meant.

Are you sure about that?

Again, the First Amendment says nothing about endorsement of religion.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

Well, the Constitution does have an amendment process built into it. However, it is what defines the United States of America as a nation and, for that reason, is entitled to a certain amount of reverence.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

The Supreme Court's chambers do this nicely already. But they pay homage to ALL of these ancient & modern codes, not just the 10 commandments. As I said earlier, as soon as the Anton LaVey monument can go up right next to the 10 commandments monument, let's talk.

You see, that's part of how courts decide this issue. Are the monuments being presented as part of an historical collage, or are they being presented as singling out one religion as dominant? In almost all monument cases, the commandments are disallowed based on the fact that this is the only monument to be placed on public land. And as soon as you try to introduce another religion into the mix, many Christian groups cry foul.

Why can't we just have a nice little secular government that represents everyone equally & let everyone decide for him or herself how, or if, they would like to worship?----preferably in private.

__________________
Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime. ~Potter Stewart

Because it clearly doesn't belong in the public square?

If you'd like me to quit bashing religion, you religionists should quit doing things just to pi$$ off those of us who'd rather not be bothered with your mythology.

__________________
Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime. ~Potter Stewart

I agree with everything you state here except the first sentence. It not only implies it, freedom of religion would completely fall apart without also being able to be free FROM it. Jefferson's & Madison's writings on the subject make this abundantly clear. Even the revered George Washington said as much.

Wrong, Chan, reread my posts. I'm all for having religious expression in the public square, so long as ALL religion can have equal footing. But because that will never happen, we have to fall back on what our Founders stated, which is that it's best to leave religion out of our secular governance. I'm not asking anyone to legislate against religion; I'm just asking that we, as both Jefferson & Madison stated when defining the 1st amendment, keep the wall of separation high & thick. No need to add any more legislation; just enforce what we've had on the books now for 219 years.

Finally, it seems you really only have a problem with ME, not with the substance of my posts. Yes, I am anti-Christian becuase I think it is a flawed, silly system. But that has nothing to do with this thread. You'd do well to keep the post & the poster separate in your mind & instead concentrate on content, not the fact that I (like Jefferson, Paine, & Ethan Allen) think Christianity is absurd.

__________________
Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime. ~Potter Stewart

But Anton LaVey didn't write a legal code; so, the comparison is invalid.

In order for them to not be an establishment of religion they would have to be part of a historical collage. Singling out one religion as dominant is, in effect, an establishment of religion and, therefore, a violation of the First Amendment. Keep in mind, though, that there is a segment within evangelical Christianity that wants to take over the government and social institutions (do a Google search on dominion theology and Christian Reconstructionism or read Kingdom Coming).

We can have a secular government but we cannot disenfranchise religious people from participation in that government.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

The public square is for all Americans!

Bashing is supposedly against the rules of this forum.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."