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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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


there are many things I would opt my children not be exposed to at school as well but they are protected , yet my child does not have that same type of protection for things that others may not want to be 'forced' upon THEM,,

,, 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.

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 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.

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.

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,,,,

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.

I disagree. ITs a 'quote', its not respecting anything but someones right to express themself the way they choose to. IT only represents the person from whom the QUOTE is taken. She did not take a verse from a bible even,, she said something about how SHE personally turns to God. How could that be so broadly interpreted as the publishers of the book RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT of religion,, as opposed to the publishers giving each PERSON A chance to represent what is important to THEM,, religious or not.??

No, I agree there.

there is no comparison there at all.

Homosexuality is a natural human state of being from birth.

Religion is a belief.

Not comparable at all.