The Declaration is basically a copy of Locke- he wrote in terms of higher power because that was the dominant language of English law at the time- ie: Locke had to write like that to get people to pay attention to it.

The main point of Locke (and the DOI) is that government comes from the consent of the governed- rights are inalienable, but are not required to come from a higher power.

This is devolving into a debate over the nature of rights. Read Locke- he doesn't say what you say he (and the DOI) do. Your argument sounds like Augustine.

I'm not going to pretend that this statement is not ridiculous on its face.

That's not what atheism (simply the absence of belief) is. It's not even what most people who don't agree with atheism and don't want to understand it pretend that it is. This is, however, an accurate description of your characterization of how the separation of church and state has sometimes been implemented. Therefore, your circular argument is: "The separation of church and state is based on atheism. Atheism is a religion that demands separation of church and state. Therefore, the separation of church and state is religiously based."

"Edward Snowden shows up in a hotel in Hong Kong and announces to the world that he's leaked confidential National Security Agency memos and documents. He's now gone. Where is this guy? Gosh, if only there was a way to keep track of people." –David Letterman

I think that it behooves all of us just to remember that religion is a very personal thing, if one wants to exercise it. (And so is atheism, which in some people's interpretation of that word also seems to be a belief that is held quite "religiously.")

Religion has been a deep-seated part of human life and culture .. forever. I don't think that anyone set out, when founding this country, to try to shield people from it. They did very-specifically seek to prevent "The Church of the United States."

It really won't hurt you if the people in a community want to open their public meetings with a Christian prayer. If it is a long-standing custom in a particular part of the country where you live, and you don't happen to agree with it, then maybe it's still the best thing to do: to graciously keep that opinion to yourself, and not to (obnoxiously, if I may say ...) press the point. Let the people in that place do what they prefer to do, bow your head along with them, let the minute-or-so pass quietly by, and then ... get on with the business of the meeting.

There are times and there are places where one must pick one's battles ... and this isn't one of them. It's "a social custom," but social customs are important in societies.

It might offend or irritate you, but that doesn't mean that you must be or should be ... a jacka*s about it. Instead, just let it go. Graciously.

^ The problem here is the Bill of Rights is specifically written to protect minorities. "Just going with it" makes the First Amendment a shell of what it is supposed to be.


As it stands, opening public meetings with non-denominational prayers is permissible under current Supreme Court doctrine. Doing so in schools is not.

Sundialsvcs, everything you've written about not challenging the status quo should apply to the Christians in the ACLJ cases that Teckk referred to. I would suggest that you think about it.

I generally disagree with the approach of the people who attempt, for whatever good-to-them reason, to shove their interpretation of religion down my throat. Many of these people, in my view, are using religion merely as an avenue for politics, i.e. to champion their personal opinions in the name of some higher calling ... a deity who says about himself, simply, "My thoughts are not your thoughts." ("You haven't got a clue.") When I read their book (and I have carefully read the holy-books of many religions), I don't read about a person who himself held such views. "Pray in secret." "I tell you, he has all the reward he will ever receive." "Render unto Caesar." And so on.

But, I'm not going to rebuke that person in public and thereby add fuel to his campfire.

One of the large problems with religion in the public sphere, particularly in education, is forcing creationism into science curricula. Faith is one thing, religion is dogma -- the earth is 10,000 years old? Noah remembered the germs and viruses but forgot the dinosaurs? The constitution is there to protect us from such nonsense.

And this Christian, at least, frankly places a zero-importance view on both this and every other "-ism" that I can think of. My quiet views of such things more or less come down to this ... and I say this "FYI only":

• "Whether you are 'right' or 'wrong'," (the specific example in the text was about circumcision or somesuch) "if you cause your brother to stumble," you're in the wrong. Don't do that.
• "Why worry about a speck in your brother's eye, when you've got a 2x4 in your own eye?" (Good point.)
• "Where were you when the foundations of the world were laid? You seem to have all the answers! Teach Me!" (Gulp! backpedal.. backpedal..)
• "You can't understand The Father, anyway. For that matter, two thousand plus years of future history will one day show that you can't even understand me!" (Another good point.)

Personally, when I read texts like Genesis 1-2, I can hear the poetry. "And the evening and the morning were ..." And I see metaphor.

By the way, the best of the best is that when by the government you are OBLIGED to pay for being one of this religion, otherwise you are atheist.
Religion is NOT free in all countries, in terms of law.

Two quick questions, can't the school have a dress code similar to a restaurant saying you must wear shoes and shirt?

Is wearing a shirt exercising your religion or simply advertising? This is different from head-covering which is required in some religions so could be considered "practicing".

The problem with wearing a t-shirt is where does it end. One guy wears his I love Jesus shirt then the next wears a Jesus was gay shirt or I hate Muslim shirt... These are just examples but the point is where does it end and at what point does it detract from the purpose of the event.

If you do that it is somehow kinda discrimination?

A restaurant is a private establishment. If a school requires a dress code or forbids some form of dress there must be a compelling government interest do so which does not detract from education (Tinker v. Des Moines Indpendent School District, U.S. S.Ct. 1969).

Wearing a "I love Jesus" shirt is constiutionally fine. The question is whether it would be disruptive (see also Morse v. Fredrick U.S. S.Ct. 2007).

Exercising = practicing.

I should have said "expressing" instead of advertising but I think you got the point since you answered my question.

Around here most public schools have gone to uniforms to eliminate the gang affiliated dress. They also insist you pull up your pants which I'm in total agreement. Nothing like a young man showing us his boxers but I guess that's another form of expression.