Originally Posted by
debruynda
This thread is dead but I read something that irks me to no end and I thought I should share it for those who care (and those who don't might learn something):
Pick up the constitution, the 1st Amendment in clear, unambiguous language states that "Congress" (the legislative body that sits in the big domed building and does nothing but screw things up for our country) shall make no law respecting religion. The Supreme Court, in extending the the phrase to cover all branches of government (both federal and state) shows once again how it is right only because it is final. Why don't you tread the constitution before urging others to do so? You're "reading" of the constitution is grossly inaccurate: you're simply parroting the Supreme Court's faulty interpretation of a plainly worded statute. Furthermore, the first amendment says nothing of the states advancing or inhibiting religion, it applies to the federal government. The Supreme Court, through the application of the 14th Amendment, which was written so as to apply to the states, through what they call the incorporation doctrine has applied the 1st Amendment to the states.
There is a big difference between what the Constitution says and what the Supreme Court says it means.
Oh the irony, you can't display anything religious anymore on public property (which isn't a legislative act in any ordinary sense or meaning of the phrase) but you can certainly pass laws or render judgment against said displays.
The excessive government entanglement or advance/inhibit Lemon test nonsense is exactly that: if people are bright, then why do they need the law to protect them from religion? I guess we need to protect the stupid people from their own ignorance.