Hi Alex,

>>>>>>>>>>>>
>Oh.. Would you point out to me where that little line is in the Constitution please? <g> It's not there but I'll let you go find where it is. <g>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>Yeah, maybe you are right, couldn't find the words, but maybe you do not believe in the concept? Then again I'm only an immigrant so what do I know...

Well, I sure do not believe that any government should establish a religion. I am against the interpretation (false IMO) that government should make it it's duty to scrub religion out of public life.

IOW, I think that the government's job should be to protect the rights of all citizens to be free to exercise their religious beliefs.

Do I think there are limits? Sure, you bet, but it seems that we've gone too far one way.

There are some folks who just do not want to entertain religious thinking whatsoever. Witness the responses by Erik and John. That's fine but when they insist that there be no discussion because they don't like it I think they are unfairly imposing their 'belief system' on those who would differ from them. What's the difference? None in my mind. I think it is just as wrong to have no discussions as to force folks to engage in them. Last time I looked there were no 'Discussion Police' here forcing folks to read every message. <g>

>
>

---

>The Constitution of the United States (1787-1788; 1st Ten Amendments ["Bill of Rights"] ratified 1791; no reference to any god is to be found in the body or in the amendments to the Constitution)
>
>The senators and representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. (Article VI, Section 3, The Constitution of the United States.)
>
>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 freedom of press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (Amendment 1,The Constitution of the United States.)
>
>As Madison said, the national government had no "jurisdiction" over religion or any "shadow of right to intermeddle" with it. June 12, 1788, James Madison speaking to the delegates (speaking against Patrick Henry's assertions) at the Virginia Constitutional ratifying convention, as reported on page 330, The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution 1787, VOL III by Jonathan Elliot. J B Lippincott Company 1888)

Right. No jurisdiction. That also IMO would include as you point ou 'intermeddling' with it. But that's not the case today when you have judges ordering the removal of religious signs etc fro private property.


>
>The Founding Fathers could not have stated the principle of separation any more clearly than when they wrote: "No religious Test shall ever be required as a qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States" (U. S. Constitution, 1787, Art. 6, Sec. 3).

Sure, but that does not say that religion shall be eliminated from the public arena. If folks want to put up a copy of the 10 Commandments they should be free to so do as an expression of their rights. The athiest is free to not have any.

Thanks for your thoughts and thank you very much for your willingness to discuss the issues rather than just call names. <g>