what is or is not 'hardwired' is not the issue in the least. you have every right to protest anything being taught in public schools, pedophilia or whatever, that every other parent does. but we're not talking about what is taught in school that should not. we're talking about what is already prohibited to be taught in school which is religion. you might not want evolution taught in school but the constitution does not prohibit that as it does prohibit teaching creation. you keep wandering off topic, mh. again, separation of church and state is the issue, not what you or i don't want taught in public schools. i think many of the humanities taught in k-12 are a waste of time when it comes to preparing our kids for the job force they'll face as adults. but that was not addressed by the founders nor was pedophilia, which happens to be a crime. religion was. how homosexuality came into the discussion i've not the slightest clue but schools should and do teach an appreciation for diversity of all kinds be it sexual preference, skin color OR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. but an appreciation of diversity in religious beliefs does not mean supporting the practice of those beliefs openly in school whether it be open prayer in the classroom or a quote about god in a yearbook.

it seems to me that instead of arguing what the first amendment says you'd be better off arguing that it be abolished and another amendment written without the establshment clause. let it go throught the process and if you can convince thirty eight state legislatures to ratify it you'll have what you want. short of that you'll not get religion taught or even recognized in public school.

we can argue this all day nevertheless it's what the courts agree that matters. it would in fact be ruled as the school respecting an establishment of religion regardless whether or not you might agree. we have laws, the courts and a constitution simply because everybody does not agree on what individual rights should be protected and which government should and should not have the power to decide for us. and one issue that the government does not have the power to decide is the issue of religion either for or against. as you say, it must stay completely out of it. for god to appear in a yearbook would not amount to the government staying completely out of religion. it would mean the school district respecting an establishment of religion which is forbidden by the establishment clause. argue against it all day but it is what it is. you certainly have the right to nominate to the president yourself or anybody else who you'd like to see appointed to fill the next federal judgeship or supreme court justice position. then what you think would matter. short of that, the best any of us can do is understand the rulings as they are handed down. but we would not need a judiciary if we could all agree would we?

no. i experience myself seeing.



no. seeing the cup is good enough. i might choose to touch it instead but then i would have experienced feeling the cup on the table instead of seeing the cup. i experience many things, everything actually, using the five senses available to me.



what have i seen that is not there? or what have you seen that was not there?



i suppose, but i've yet to see anything that i doubted seeing. perhaps i didn't understand fully what exactly it was that i saw but i don't doubt that i saw it. slight of hand for instance. i saw the magician show me an empty top hat then watched as he pulled a rabit out of the hat. but i missed the slight of hand that made that happen. still, i experienced seein the empty hat and then experienced him pulling a rabbit out of the hat that he just showed me was empty. but it would require faith for me to believe that he actually pulled a rabbit out of an empty hat. which of course he relies on people doing just that to make his living.

sure. to claim an error in the bible would require justification to support the claim. but the justification may not satisfy the claimant and yet the person challenging the claim will not see the justification as valid. people have argued that there is justification to try dubya as a war criminal yet nobody has actually brought forth formal charges. so many if not most in the legal system do not see such a charge as justified. justification is very much an individual thing.

justification is not a public affair. a serial killer justifies his murder of prostitutes as a commandment he received from god to punnish women of the night. but does the public share in his justification? the roe v wade decision is justified based on the forteenth and fifth amendments but does the entire public agree in that justification?

but if you call me on the phone and tell me your cup is on the table, i've no way of knowing it's a true statement. so without my going to your home and observing your cup on the table it's your truth, not mine. for me to believe what you say is true would require faith.

that's far and away different from silent prayer, mh. the government, school district, sponsors yearbooks. for them to write religious quotes would be 'respecting an establishment of religion' clearly. can't do that.

perhaps, but it will not end in the courts nor would i expect an amendment abolishing the first amendment.

but there is no establishment clause, no separation of state when it comes to freedom of expression or speech in general. it's religion specifically that the establishment clause was written to address. the amendment does not say that congress shall make no law respecting and establshment of a media entity, mtv, or a heavy metal band, motley crew, or anything of the sort. in fact the free speech and expression clause protects the right to become a fan of such. we did not war on king george because of his favored music or rock bands. we wared against government respecting an establishment of religion, among other things, and the fist amendment specifically specically address that prior to the first comma.

i agree that religious dogma can be harmful but religion will not die in this country any more than racism will which is also harmful. skinheads and the kkk will always maintain their right to speak the crap the speak freely without government intervention so long as they do so peaceably.

nobody is trying to throw out religion from american society. nor could they. your right to free practice of your religion is well guarded and i support that right of yours. two clauses cover the topic of religion in the first amendment. this thread is about the establishment clause or separation of church and state. but you keep bringing up the free excercise clause which has nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

just like all speech is not free, as literally worded in the first amendment, all expression, religious or otherwise is not free. religion particularly is forbidden in schools on the basis of the establishment clause. i understand that you and most other folks of faith see it differently but numerous justices who practice christianity disagree with you. they opine that religious expression in school is barred by separation of church and state, states being the government entity that runs public schools. you are perfectly free to have your child educated in religious practices in school. you simply enroll them in a private school that teaches what you want taught or home school them yourself. but to have tax dollars educate your kids along with other kids whose parents may not want religion taught or even exposed to their kids through open prayer must be forbidden. we all have rights. your right to religious expression in schools cannot trump my right to not have it. you can freely shout your religious views on the street but i've the right to walk away. when religious views are shouted in schools my kids cannot just walk away nor should they have to. i pay my fair share of taxes, on which schools depend, just as you do.

in this you are quite correct.



indeed you cannot. but as you say, that's not what the establishment clause says.



the establishment clause means much more than prohibiting placing one belief over another. as you said again, by not respecting an establishment of religion it means that the goverment shall stay completely out of religion part of which means no teaching of religion in public schools or open prayer. public schools being government entities.



great. now hopefully everybody here has read the amendment word for word. for what it actually means requires in depth review of much case history. the constitution, all of two pages, hardly covers word for word what makes up modern society. that's the sole purpose of article three. to keep the constitution a living document by establishing a judiciary to interpret the constitution in order for it to apply to a changing society. in that the federal courts do a bang up job, imo, even though i don't always agree with their decisions such as the notorious dred scott case. the real beauty of it though was the reconstruction amendments which assured another dred scott cannot happen again.

not quite correct. government respect for religion is not in the constitution. many make this mistake. laws respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion are forbidden. there is a difference in that the congress does open sessions with prayer, god is on our money and in the pledge which respects religion without respecting the esstablishment of any religion. confusing somewhat i agree but the rulings are the rulings.

but barring religion in public schools is hardly a broad interpretation. it was what the first amendment was designed to do. separate church from government. government runs public schools. yes the first amendment does address laws but numerous court rulings have interpreted that to mean any effort to practice religion in a government setting such as a school board inserting intelligent design into a science curriculum or the practice of open prayer in class. the constitution must be interpreted as to meaning often simply because specific wording about a specific issue likely will not be found. abortion laws, for instance are not specifically addressed in the constitution yet the forteenth and fifth amendments were interpreted to apply in roe v wade. the founders could not have invisioned random road blocks to discourage dui yet the courts have ruled them perfectly legal so long as the fourth amendment protection against illegal search is held to.

disagree as you choose but when the supremes rule it's final. as a former justice said,'we are not final because we are infalible, we are infalible because we are final. the future is in the future. what is now is what is.

or you could logically conclude, right or wrong, that you can lean back safely.

then why is the percentage of america's and the world's population becoming less christian and more secular every year?

homerun, jeannie!!! ya got good wood on that hanging curve. it's outta the park!!! if we all could agree on the truth we wouldn't need laws.

a statement alone about someone's experience is true only to that person. the statement is not true to the person who listens to the statement. he might conclude that the statement is credible but that does not make in in fact a true statement. to think it true one would require faith that the person's statement is truthful.

that i experienced someone making the statement means that my truth is that the statement was made to me but not that the statement itself is true.