>Just wanted to clarify. I'm pretty sure you meant the Constitution, both here and later in your message. The Declaration does mention God; the Constitution, which is, of course, the founding document of our system of government, is clear that we are not to be a theocracy.

Yes, Constitution - I was not long ago looking at it here in the Archives, I should know the difference better :-)

>I tend to disagree with you here. I think it's fine for _parents_ to raise children with a set of beliefs that reflects that family's choices and/or heritage. The piece that's missing in some places is teaching respect for the choices of others. And, of course, the government has no business teaching kids any one religious _belief_. (I have no problem with teaching comparative religion in age-appropriate ways.)

Okay, that's well-put, but I still disagree on the parent-issue. Too many parents "force-feed" their offspring religion, and too much of it is either superficial or negative. In a more perfect world, I'd agree with you, but at the moment, no, I'd rather have the children decide, at an appropriate age, entirely on their own what beliefs they choose. Of course many people do change beliefs once, or even several times (as I have). But it takes a very strong child to reject or question the parents socialization process until a much later age, and by that time they may have been conscripted into intolerance and perhaps violence.

>Not so sure about that, either. We've had other revolutionary changes made by the courts, both in this area (like removing school prayer) and others (Brown vs. Board of Ed comes to mind). In general, I think, in fact, that to make this sort of change requires a body to impose it from above. Otherwise, the majority continues to tyrannize the minority.

Well, we can always hope. But it's just not the right High Court environment now, and I don't think the case will have a "prayer." Maybe well down the road, when the Supreme Court makes one of its periodic shifts to the left a little, it could occur...