Friday, October 14, 2011

My reply to a commenter on the Rhode Island school prayer case

This comment is worth a post. This is in reply to my post on the high school kid in Rhode Island who is suing to force her school to remove a prayer in a mural on the wall:


Anonymous said...

So, protesting a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution is "thuggery"?

Display of a prayer on a wall in a school isn't a "violation of the U.S. Constitution".

The Constitution references religion in four places:

1) The Religious Test Clause (Article VI, paragraph 3), which prohibits the use of a religious test that requires a government official or employee to adhere to a religious belief.

2) The Establishment Clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an Establishment of Religion..." , which prohibits the establishment of an official National Church (analogous to the Church of England). A little prayer in a mural on the wall of a high school doesn't establish a National Church. The Constitutional Convention had regular prayers, as did government bodies at all levels. They still do. None of this establishes a National Church.

3) The Free Exercise Clause: "Congress shall make no law... prohibiting the free exercise thereof...", which clarifies the reason for the Establishment Clause. The purpose of the First Amendment is to foster free expression. Government is prohibited from censoring free expression. The First Amendment was enacted specifically to prevent just the sort of censorship that atheists demand.

4) The Freedom of Speech Clause: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech..." The reference to religion here is implicit, rather than explicit. Congress is prohibited from silencing free expression. This of course includes religious expression.


The Constitution is an impediment to atheists' use of censorship, so they misrepresent the Constitution to circumvent the Constitution.

The prayer displayed on the wall of the Rhode Island school is a violation of atheist sensibility, which makes atheists use force to stop it. Atheists are inveterate totalitarians. Can you name one lawsuit atheists have filed in which they weren't censoring someone?


Anonymous:
The school is a public school. A creature of the government, and despite your whining that it somehow isn't, it is a state actor. Hence, it may not express any endorsement of religion.
The government may not establish a National Church. A small prayer displayed on a mural in a school does not establish a National Church.

The government endorses religion everywhere and all the time:

1) "in God we trust" on money
2) "Under God" in the Pledge
3) Prayers to begin each session of Congress
4) Military chaplains (federal employees on the federal payroll)
5) The "National Cathedral"
6) Presidential invocations: "... and God bless the United States of America"
7) Presidential addresses: Nearly every Inaugural address and every State of the Union Address. Lincoln's Second Inaugural is a sermon.
8) Monuments in Washington D.C. are slathered with references to God (Capitol, Washington Monument, Jefferson Memorial, Lincoln memorial, etc)
9) The Declaration of Independence, displayed in the National Archives (oops!), explicitly asserts that our Creator is the Source of our rights.
10) Explicitly religious holidays are federal, state and local holidays (Christmas, Easter, etc)
11) Thanksgiving was established specifically as a day to give thanks to God. Here is President Washington's Thanksgiving address on October 3, 1789:

"Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor, and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me "to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness. Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be. That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks, for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation, for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his providence, which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war, for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed, for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted, for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us. And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions, to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually, to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed, to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shown kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord. To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and Us, and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best. Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789."

12) Here is Lincoln's Thanksgiving Proclamation from October 3, 1863:


"By the President of the United States of America.

A Proclamation.

The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God. In the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military conflict; while that theatre has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union. Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defence, have not arrested the plough, the shuttle or the ship; the axe has enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege and the battle-field; and the country, rejoicing in the consiousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom. No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity and Union.

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington, this Third day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the Independence of the Unites States the Eighty-eighth."

By the President: Abraham Lincoln 

13) Here are the salient passages in President Obama's Thanksgiving address on November 3, 2010:

"... As we stand at the close of one year and look to the promise of the next, we lift up our hearts in gratitude to God for our many blessings...As Americans gather for the time-honored Thanksgiving Day meal, let us rejoice in the abundance that graces our tables, in the simple gifts that mark our days, in the loved ones who enrich our lives, and in the gifts of a gracious God..."

14) etc, etc, etc...

Here, Anonymous, are just a few of the "state actors" who have endorsed religion much more frequently and emphatically than the miscreant high schoolers in Rhode Island:



Aarrgh!

What's an atheist totalitarian to do? Government endorsement of religion is... is... everywhere...

You are correct that the words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the Constitution.
Duh.
But the words "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", a provision that has been applied to the states as a consequence of the Reconstruction amendments to the Constitution. Posting a prayer as an official action, which this has been done, is a prohibited endorsement of religion.
Lincoln's Second Inaugural invoked God repeatedly. Lincoln quoted Matthew 7:1 and 18:7 and Revelation 16:7. His speech was delivered on the Capitol steps, and is reproduced in virtually all history schoolbooks.

Presidents endorse religion on an almost daily basis-- "God bless America", etc.

But a little prayer on a wall a school is a... federal case?

And thus is unConstitutional. I know that thugs like you aren't used to having your thuggery called out, so you project and call the minority (whose rights the Constitution is intended to protect) thugs, but the only thugs are the loudmouthed jackasses like you who are finally being called on their jackassery and are braying in shock that you can't run roughshod over everyone else anymore.

"Jackassery"?

This is not preventing the free exercise of religion or free speech.

Right. Federal court injunctions can be ignored without consequence.

You can pray all you want - as a private citizen.

I don't ask Anonymous to define my rights for me.

You can whine loudly all you want about it, as you have done. What you can't do is get the state, via a public school, to endorse any religious views.

The White House phone number is 202-456-1414. Give 'em a call, Anonymous. Let President Obama know that he's breaking the law by saying "... and God bless the United States of America" after his speeches. Call the Congress (Obama will know the number) and tell them that they're breaking the law when they open sessions with prayers. Call the National Archives ("... We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights...), the National Park Service (the monuments are slathered with God-stuff). Give 'em a tiny piece of your godless mind.


Government officials love to be told what they're allowed to say by atheists. Why restrict your bile to schoolchildren?

So go ahead, violate Matthew 6:5 by wandering the halls ostentatiously praying out loud for everyone - show us what hypocrites you truly are. But don't expect to be able to use the government to give you an assist.

The prayer on the mural in Rhode Island is silent, and quite small. But thanks for the spiritual advice. Coming from an atheist, it means a lot to me.

The Cranston school board will lose. This is a foregone conclusion. If the case reached the Supreme Court, Justices Alito, Roberts, and Scalia would whack the school board over the head and rule against them. The only ones who are costing them money are themselves, with their stupid refusal to obey the law.

Hey, why resist? We should just let atheists tell us what to do, and obey. Isn't that what this is all about, anyway?

Oh, and your post formatting skills suck.

Sue me.

33 comments:

  1. Michael,

    Where is your reference to prayers being held at the start of each day at the Constitutional Conference?

    Chris Rodda recently (in 2006) wrote a book 'Liars for Jesus. The Religious Right's Alternate Version of American History, volume I', in which chapter 6 'Did Prayer Save the Constitutional Convention?' deals with the claim that prayers were a part of the convention.

    They weren't. Benjamin Franklin proposed that it should be considered, but it was never acted on, and it was supported by no more than 4 delegates.

    Some of your other claims are a little dubious, such as the pledge of allegiance including 'under God', that wasn't included in the original pledge, being added later. Also 'In God We Trust' was added to currency during the Civil War when paper money was introduced and to coins during the '50s'.

    Also, making references to God or the Creator aren't giving preference to any particular religion. Having the Lord's Prayer on a mural is giving preference to Christianity over Judaism or Islam.

    ReplyDelete
  2. @Bach "'Liars for Jesus. The Religious Right's Alternate Version of American History, volume I'"
    Holy Commie, Batman! Is that a soviet publication?

    "Having the Lord's Prayer on a mural is giving preference to Christianity over Judaism or Islam"
    A regional or cultural preference is not the establishment of a state religion. No Muslims or Jews have FAKED offence at this plaque. Only Atheists have. Is YOUR religious BELIEFS offended by the reference to God in an American school, Bach? If not, what do you care what prayer if any hangs on a High school wall.

    @Mike,
    God in even mentioned in our Anthem in Canada. 'God keep our land, Glorious and Free'. And on special occasions we sing the old Anthem as well 'God Save The Queen'. Seems when given an inch, the godless require a light year. But almost all of the schools I have attended or seen my son pass through (public) have bronze dedication plaques. These plaques ALWAYS mention the Monarch and God. Sometimes even the PM and often a local war hero or achiever of some sort.
    Now here's the weird part: When I was a younger man and spending a lot of time living and travelling through the USA, I always felt it was a MORE religious land than ours. That has changed drastically in 20 short years.
    Religious rights are the canary in a mineshaft. This is what totalitarians ALWAYS go for first.
    As you said: DEFIANCE is required.

    ReplyDelete
  3. crus:

    [Religious rights are the canary in a mineshaft. This is what totalitarians ALWAYS go for first.]

    So true. Atheist totalitarians know that faith in God is the only real impediment to their agenda.

    They'll do anything to erase God from people's minds.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Glad not to be MurricanOctober 14, 2011 at 12:01 PM

    When the most powerful country of the world is based on a ridiculous medieval myth, I don't know if I should laugh, cry or fear.

    ReplyDelete
  5. @Glad not to be Murrican:

    [When the most powerful country of the world is based on a ridiculous medieval myth, I don't know if I should laugh, cry or fear.]

    The most powerful country in the world and the blessed Christian culture that sustains it is the reason that you have the choice to laugh, cry or fear.

    If it were not for Christian truth, you'd be told what to think, and you'd say "Yes Sir" in German, Russian, or Arabic.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Murrican
    "When the most powerful country of the world is based on a ridiculous medieval myth, I don't know if I should laugh, cry or fear."
    What's with all the communist style rhetoric today?
    The United States was founded in the Age of Reason. That foundation is about 100 years or so before your mythology was founded, but LONG after the medieval.
    The 'myth' your refer to is actually a physical object. It is a charter called 'The Constitution' that is designed to protect the rights of the citizens of that nation.
    Should you laugh, cry, or fear those rights and liberties? Sounds like you're already hysterical, so whatever reaction releases tension would be best.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @crusadeREX
    What the hell do you call "my mythology"?

    @Egnor
    You are insane.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Public schools have no business promoting specific religions. Egnor, you shouldn't worry too much over this lawsuit. The leaders of your own church are doing way more damage to your cult by protecting child molestors. Your religion is on the way out - get over it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. @Derping for dingdongs,
    Your mythology? Which part? The creation myth? The end times myths? The 'scifi'? The utopianism?
    Not sure what your asking me as your original statement did not make much sense.

    @Troy,
    "Public schools have no business promoting specific religions."
    Atheists have no business demanding the schools endorse their lack of it. You REALLY need to get over yourself. 'Cult'? Please....

    ReplyDelete
  10. Derping for dingdongsOctober 14, 2011 at 2:07 PM

    @crusadeREX
    I was referring to this statement: "That foundation is about 100 years or so before your mythology was founded". What is my "mythology"?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Great response Michael, as usual.

    I think we should however, start heeding at least some of the atheists demands for removing religion.

    For example, I strongly suggest that all businesses, government departments, public courts, schools and such, immediately demand that all atheists work 7 days a week.

    No religious holidays or work exceptions should be forced upon them against their views, including the Sabbath and Sunday.
    Such oppressive and forced practices are pure victimization through religious prejudice!

    They should also be immediately excused from being forced to take time off work during all religious holidays - Christmas, Easter and all other such that are offensive to them.

    I also support the creation of special judicial laws applying only to atheists to protect their rights.

    For example, atheists should have all special privileges regarding rights concerning freedom of religion removed. They claim to have no religion and since such privileges are based upon theistically derived values alone, we ought no longer oppress them such.

    Moreover, the death penalty should always be invoked for atheist murderers, regardless of circumstances. Since, without God and an overarching moral law, there is no ultimate purpose or reason to their lives. They have no fear of judgment after death and such.

    Therefore, they ought always - as per their own religion er beliefs er unbeliefs - with the approval of qualified doctors of psychology of course, be viewed as mere animals. Thus executing atheist killers is a no-brainer. Certainly, no worse than executing for example, a pit bull that serious injured a human.

    Why not? The Nazis, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pot and many many others practiced this with no problems at all under metaphysical reasonings quite similar to that of atheists on all points.

    Atheists ought never be subjected to being treated as though they were "made in the image of God" and therefore special, possessing inherent dignity and much more than mere animals. This is intolerable religious oppression! Government must not force atheists to be treated according to any such rule of dignity based on religion.

    All civil laws, consequential to such beliefs, ought not to apply to them either.

    Why should poor atheists be subjected to such terrible, oppressive measures - as being viewed as more than pigs for example - given they have no belief in any such dignifying qualifications of humans?

    I move that we must, out of respect for these poor victims of religious prejudice, remove all such religiously based biases; in their specific cases alone of course. I move we no longer establish any such religiously based legislation and that we remove all such existing laws, deemed so repressive to them.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Gary H,

    You sound just like Hitler talking about the Jews.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
  13. KW: it's the problem with the Internet. It can be hard to tell if someone is a real fundie or just a parody.

    ReplyDelete
  14. CrusadeRex,

    No, 'Liars for Jesus' isn't a Soviet publication. The date of publication (2006) indicates that, sins the Soviet Union went out of existence at least 14 years earlier.

    There's a large cottage industry in America writing books for the home school market, setting out alternate history and science. 'Liars for Jesus' was written partly in response to that, home schooling books setting out the idea that America was established as a Christian nation, and it should return to being a Christian nation.

    Have a look at the Treaty of Tripoli to disabuse you of that notion.

    Australia is a constitutional monarchy. Head of state is currently Queen Elizabeth II. When I went to school, the national anthem was 'God Save the Queen'. Later we had a plebiscite to select a national tune, to which new words would later be written. I favored 'Waltzing Matilda' over the winner 'Advance Australia Fair' and later, the government made the winner with its original words the anthem by decree. The words are forgettable; if I have to sing along it's 'mumble, mumble, mumble ...'

    Later on we had a referendum to change to a republic, but the conservative government set up the question so as to get a 'no' vote. The majority wanted an elected president. The referendum was for a president selected by parliament, so Australians remain 'subjects of the Crown' instead of becoming 'citizens of Australia'.


    MICHAEL,

    You still haven't answered where you got your claim that prayers were part of the Constitutional Convention. Where did you get it?

    'Liars for Jesus' has a lot of documentation, such as letters written by the delegates to the Convention, demonstrating that your assertion isn't true.

    ReplyDelete
  15. @bach:

    I haven't the time now to sort it out. It's irrelevant to the massive argument I made, for which you have no answer.

    ReplyDelete
  16. >implying you don't live in a world of paranoid delusions

    ReplyDelete
  17. Michael,

    You certainly had the 'time' to write a 'massive' argument. But you don't have the time to do a little fact checking, do you? You seem to just read websites that reflect your viewpoint and recycle their opinions uncritically.

    Politicians doing things that are politically not legally right happens all the time. Abraham Lincoln using religious imagery during the American Civil War is perfectly understandable. 400,000 Union deaths from a total Union population of 21 million is enormous, and fostering a sense of justified self-sacrifice was the right thing to do, and religion is ideal to do that. Stalin did the same thing in 1941 when Russia was attacked by Germany. The Church and defending Mother Russia suddenly became very important.

    Putting 'In God We Trust' on coins in the '50s was thought a good idea to distinguish America from the godless communists. Similarly with the 'under God' in the pledge of allegiance (although why school children should be made to recite a pledge everyday is beyond me, it seems like the pledges in 'Catch 22').

    ReplyDelete
  18. @bach:

    Are you asserting that a reference to God by the President is unconstitutional?

    Yes or no.

    ReplyDelete
  19. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Michael,

    I don't know what the American constitution says, so I don't know. In Australia, it's OK for a politician to refer to a god, because there's no constitutional separation of state and religion.

    I personally think it's OK for an American president to make a personal reference to God, I don't think that it's OK for an American president to be making a claim justifying a particular religion and recommending that the entire country ought to adopt it.

    How about commenting about your claim that the original constitutional convention included prayers before commenting again or starting another thread?

    ReplyDelete
  21. @Bach,
    '2006'. It was not a serious comment. Obviously yours was not either, quoting such a source. The very title of the work belies it's stance as BIGOTED BULLSHIT. Designed to offend. Seditious, libellous trash.
    I'll judge that book by it's TITLE and have no interest in discussing such crap.

    "was written partly in response to that, home schooling books setting out the idea that America was established as a Christian nation,"
    Ah! A remedy to history. I see. We call that revisionism here. I guess my little joke was pretty close to fact, eh? Not Soviet, but Marxist.

    " and it should return to being a Christian nation."
    I hope that is the nature of the impending political backlash... better for the Americans and rest of the world that way.

    'Treaty of Tripoli'? When do treaties trump charters? The only one I give a Damn about is Ghent.

    "Later on we had a referendum to change to a republic, but the conservative government set up the question so as to get a 'no' vote. "
    Not the way I remember it. I remember the Republican side losing the vote - BADLY. Australians who had an opinion did not want to sever ties with the ELITE nations of the Commonwealth to get in bed with India and China. The rest just preferred Status Quo and we apolitical. That's how I remember being reported on the pro-republican US media at the time. Much worse a loss for your than our Separatists (Quebec 'Nationalists')had in their votes. Australia stays Australia for a few more years/decades.
    Good riddance to the age of polarizing and seditious referenda. If Australians or Quebecers want republic - GO TO THE STATES. They should no more be pushing that crap on us that we should be pushing Monarchy on the Yanks. Live and let live. Otherwise it ends up being more like a Paul McCartney.

    I have SERVED with Australians you know? I have met dozens of them both in theatre and in exercises. NONE of them that I spoke to were republicans. NCO's, Officers, medical staff, civilian support (got us some beer, GB them). NOT a single ONE. Actually most took my questioning on the matter as an insult. There response was kind of like that about Separatists in Quebec from a Canadian, or Southern/ Texan / Californian Secessionist from an American : 'We all know one or two', 'that's kids shit', 'how stupid do you think we are', 'no way only some idiot from _____ would think that way'
    etc etc.

    'Subjects of the Crown'
    Your in good company. So are we, the Brits, and the Kiwis. Some of the NICEST places to live on EARTH. Some of the most productive and civilized people. Coincidence? I think NOT.


    "I personally think it's OK for an American president to make a personal reference to God, "
    Good, well and good. The US constitution protects the presidents rights as any citizen. He is free to speak his mind. They often pray or invoke God's name in speeches.

    "I don't think that it's OK for an American president to be making a claim justifying a particular religion and recommending that the entire country ought to adopt it."
    Obviously this plaque/mural is NOT a Presidential endorsement of a state religion. Rather it is student's work from the late 60's and a historic asset of the school.

    ReplyDelete
  22. @Charles Derprin'
    Neo Herpism. Based on the travels of Charles Derpin' and his herpoatoloical study of finch beaks.
    You also seem to be a bit of a herpitivist. You seem to think herping is the only path to truth and understanding this universe.
    Am I wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  23. CrusadeRex,

    The treaty of Tripoli starts; 'As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion ...'. It was ratified by Congress with an overwhelming majority.

    And you remember the Australian republic referendum wrongly. The question was tamed to get a 'no' vote, similar to the way the Conservatives gamed to retain first past the post voting retained.

    'Liars for Jesus' was deliberately chosen as the title to be provocative. The author had been answering the misinformation published by conservative Christians both in books and also on the 'net (similar to the rubbish Michael publishes) and he had been urged to publish it in book form.

    It's available as a free download, but I chose to pay for my copy from Amazon.

    I suspected that you were joking, but it's often difficult to know with you ...

    ReplyDelete
  24. I haven't the time now to sort it out. It's irrelevant to the massive argument I made

    you didn't make an argument. You parroted a collection of tired and counterfactual arguments that have been trotted about by people like Barton who don't know what the hell they are talking about.

    There were no prayers at the Constitutional Convention. The statements you quote don't mean what you say they mean. Two hundred years of jurisprudence on the Establishment clause is directly counter to your whining. You can't even formulate your own thoughts on the matter. You have to copy from half-baked apologist websites, and their rampant errors in history and jusrisprudence litter your so-called "argument".

    You even misunderstood the reference to Matthew 6:5 - you said students should ostentatiously wander the halls of their high school saying prayers and loudly proclaiming their faith. Which runs counter to the directives handed down by the authority you purport to follow. You are, in short, a hypocrite.

    The key indicator here that demonstrates that this is an Establishment clause matter is the braying that the theists have engaged in in response. If this wasn't a big deal as the apologists claim, then no one would care. But it is of critical importance to the theists that their religion be validated by the power of the state. So they squeal in shock when their assumed privilege to ignore the Constitution is challenged. It exposes the weakness of their faith by exposing the fact that they are so insecure in their position that they think they need to have their government comfort them.

    The government doesn't have free speech rights - which you seem to think it has. No one is preventing private individuals from speaking, exercising their religion, or anything else. You just can't get the government to do it for you. I know it seems to threaten your ability to practice your faith to have the government refuse to endorse your faith, but that's the way the law is written, and that's how it works. Get used to it.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Sue me.

    You're the one who looks like an idiot because he can't even get his HTML coding right. It seems that simple things like that, fact-checking your historical sources, and understanding basic Establishment clause jurisprudence are beyond your ken.

    ReplyDelete
  26. @anon:

    Is the president violating the Constitution when he invokes God?

    ReplyDelete
  27. You seem to have a hard time distinguishing between statements made by an individual and state action. There is the thing out there called "case law". It will help you sort this out. You seem to be having trouble with basic legal issues. Given this, it might be best if you hold your braying until you understand better.

    ReplyDelete
  28. @anon:

    Is the president violating the Constitution when he invokes God?

    ReplyDelete
  29. You might want to check sources other than your echo chamber of historical revisionists and figure out the answer for yourself. You just make yourself look like an uneducated idiot otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  30. @anon:

    Is the president violating the Constitution when he invokes God?

    ReplyDelete
  31. If you weren't an uneducated boob, you'd know the answer to that depends on the context.

    ReplyDelete
  32. @anon:

    Is the president violating the Constitution when he invokes God?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Michael,

    You are like a record with the stylus stuck in the groove...

    ReplyDelete