>>The problem with this whole discussion is that people forget that the 'state' is supposed to be, at best, neutral. It currently is not neutral. It is forcing a godless point of view upon those who do believe by virtue of prohibiting the free exercise of faith on public grounds. That is not neutral. The state would only be establishing a state religius system (like the Church of England that the founders were trying to avoid) by actively promoting one religious point of view over another.
>
>>To use a simple analogy the State has put the gearbox in reverse as a response to a false notion that being in Neutral is the equivilent of Drive. Neutral is not the equivilent of active promotion of any particular pov.
>
>>Personally, I think that each community should establish rules that allow for any and all points of view. For example, have a designated public park that allows for menorahs, creches, and little buddahs or golden cows for that matter.
>
>Neutral: agreed. Therefore do not push any. You can have faith in whatever you want, even golden cows. The State should not force you or anybody else. Adding a mention of god in the Pledge o Allegiance ignores the 14% or so of non-theists.
>
>
>>By actively promoting the "no god" position the state has actually promoted the religious faith of athiesm - at the expense of everryone else. That sure doesn't sound neutral to me.
>
>That's your opinion. The state should stay away from it, not promote. You can pray whenever you want.


IF only that were true we'd have no arugment. BUT, it is not true, as the ACLU reminds us every day. In fact, just a month ago the ACLU won a quick suite in a friendly court to enjoin the Validictorian of a small high school from refering to God or using prayer during her speech. (So much for your arugment.), simply because ONE atheist parent didn't want their child to hear it. At the end of her speach she sneezed. The entire audiance, with the probably exception of that athiest child, said "God Bless You!" in response. Beautiful thumb in the eye of those who give lip service to the 1St Amendment but don't want it equally applied.