I disagree. Whose god are they talking about and which god and what about the plural or more gods in one religion?

I think they did not want to redesign the money and did not realize how very divisive just the word god can be. It will be addressed again in the future I am sure.

there are no such LAWS, that is my point

the constitution , as it relates to religion, only addresses it in terms of LAWS

yet judges constantly interpret it much more broadly to favor EXCLUSION of religion from many places, like schools, for instance

Oh I guess you still don't get it, okay....

There shall be no "respect" in the government for any religion. NONE.

So in order for there not to be respect there can be no acknowledgement which our money violates and our courts violate and prayer in public schools violate and prayer in public places violates, etc...

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.

the constitution does not say there shall be no 'respect' for religion,,,wth

it says congress shall pass no LAW respecting an establishment of religion (nor, by the way, PROHIBITING its exercise of freedom of speech)

how can you allow people religious beliefs while not RESPECTING their right to them,,,,,,?

the congress may not pass LAWS placing one belief over another or a non belief over another,, instead they are to STAY out of beliefs and respect the citizens rights(one of which is freedom of expression)

'Congress shall make no LAW respecting an establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING the free exercise thereof; OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH , or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.'

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.

Confusing and not separating like it should be. This will be addressed in the future again. Religion is going to die in this country since it is harmful and not a positive influence for our country.

I believe it broadly contradicts freedom of religious expression

forbidding a mandate toward religion would be seperate

forbidding ANY religious expression would be prohibiting which is also a part of what the constitution was trying to prevent

people arent going to stop being able to believe what they want to, the 'founding fathers' were supposedly trying to get away from religious persecution,, I Cant imagine a time when this country will function based in that very thing,,,,


there is plenty of positive contributions in this country that stem from religious organizations and congregations, to toss it all out because some are harmful would be like imagining that teen pregnancy will stop because it is 'harmful and not a positive influence'


many amazing people were raised by those who started as teen moms,

though I would never promote it, I certainly would never just paint all with the same brush and advocate for them all to just die out,,,

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.

Confusing and not separating like it should be. This will be addressed in the future again. Religion is going to die in this country since it is harmful and not a positive influence for our country.

I understand that , I just disagree with it and my disagreement holds no significance because its the courts decision

my feeling is that part of not respecting or prohibiting just requires the government stay out of it period

which to me means, just because I am of faith, I cannot dictate no motley crue shirts at school, I cannot dictate no mtv shirts at school, I cannot dictate no secular music at schoools,, and that does plenty to protect freedom of expression for NON RELIGIOUS persons

but non religious persons can be the basis that someone dictates my child cannot say a prayer at their high school graduation,, for instance

,, that is unfair and unequal application based in nothing BUT religion,, which I Think is not consistent with the idea of a government which stays out of it and respects all our rights equally,,,,

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.

I understand that , I just disagree with it and my disagreement holds no significance because its the courts decision

my feeling is that part of not respecting or prohibiting just requires the government stay out of it period

which to me means, just because I am of faith, I cannot dictate no motley crue shirts at school, I cannot dictate no mtv shirts at school, I cannot dictate no secular music at schoools,, and that does plenty to protect freedom of expression for NON RELIGIOUS persons

but non religious persons can be the basis that someone dictates my child cannot say a prayer at their high school graduation,, for instance

,, that is unfair and unequal application based in nothing BUT religion,, which I Think is not consistent with the idea of a government which stays out of it and respects all our rights equally,,,,

I think as we get smarter which will happen if we don't kill ourselves along the way, it will end or at least how we know of it today it will end. The belief of a magical being or beings that control things on the planet will go away anyway.

Except there is no restriction for your child to pray in school. The school cannot be involved or advocate for child to pray in school but my understanding of prayer is that it can be done silently any time of day or night with no persecution what so ever.

I think school officials broadly interpret things sometimes, just recently my baby cousin was asked for their yearbook to give a 'personal' quote she wanted to be remembered by

she simply stated something about turning to God and they made her pick a different quote

I think thats a BROAD net to throw out to avoid offending non religious,,,, a 'personal' quote should be a reflection of a person, and not a reflection of any institution, government, or school

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.

I think school officials broadly interpret things sometimes, just recently my baby cousin was asked for their yearbook to give a 'personal' quote she wanted to be remembered by

she simply stated something about turning to God and they made her pick a different quote

I think thats a BROAD net to throw out to avoid offending non religious,,,, a 'personal' quote should be a reflection of a person, and not a reflection of any institution, government, or school

it feels like the in type of bigotry is anti religion,, people want to express themself and have freedom for what they want to do, but they want to put peoples religious beliefs in a closet and force them to hide


I am taken aback that a school can have rainbow days explaining and celebrating homosexuality, but a student at a graduation cannot say a prayer,,,,