🚀 go-pugleaf

"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message 
news:41D79A08.D41941EB@hotmMOVEail.com...
> Scout wrote:
>>
>> "Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
>> news:41D74B40.29F0228E@hotmMOVEail.com...
>> > Sam Stone wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >>>--Your 'agenda' is but the blatherings of the intentionally 
>> >> >>>ignorant..
>> >> >>
>> >> >>You agenda is to banish any and all talk of a Creator, fa[..]
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Nope, but thanks for proving my point again..
>> >> >
>> >> > --See subject header for details..
>> >>
>> >> Your agenda is to banish any and all talk of a Creator, faith, prayer,
>> >> or that which does not completely conform to the anal parameters of
>> >> observational science of the day.
>> >
>> > The agenda, if any, is outlined in the Constitution and the forbidding
>> > of government to support any religion.
>>
>> With respect, where exactly is that?
>>
>> The only thing I find with respect to religion is the 1st Amendment, 
>> which
>
> Very good.
>
>> reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of 
>> religion,
>> or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."
>>
>> Now I can see where laws regulating religion are prohibited, and I see 
>> were
>> prohibiting free exercise is not allowed, but I can't seem to see that 
>> part
>> where they aren't allowed to support religion.
>
> Oooh, you're sooooo close.
>
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
>
> refers to such things as endorsement.

Sorry, but I'm unaware that endorsement is a law regulating religion 
particularly when it's done as private statements by individuals. I suppose 
if they came out with a law stating that religion X, Y or Z was the religion 
of America that might be construed as regulating religion. However what 
you're claiming as endorsement is NOT legal action by the government, but 
personal expression by people who happen to be IN government.




>There's a wealth of court opinions
> to this effect.

<yawn>

I don't consider court opinions to be particularly relevent since they are 
only opinions of the law and if we're going to debate the law then we should 
go directly to the source.


>> I certainly don't see how they can deny the free exercise of religion 
>> simply
>> because it occurs in public, on public property or even in a government
>> building.  Certainly I see nothing that prohibits members of the 
>> government
>> from being religious and freely exercising their religion in their course 
>> of
>> their duties. If it means hanging the 10 Commandants on their court room
>> wall to choosing to lead a prayer at the beginning of a session. Any
>> restraints on that would, IMO, seem to be in conflict with the free 
>> exercise
>> of religion. I certainly don't see any clause that says "except for 
>> public
>> employees".

By your silence, I take it you accept what was stated?