[JerryLove]

It's not, but I think the difficulty of distinction here is b/w the ACLU and our legislative bodies. They are trying to write our laws for us. The thing is, the 1st ammendment says nothing about when a gov't official can or cannot practice religion

Actually, the first ammendment guarentees that a government official can practice religion.

other than it cannot be prohibited by law.

Really? The first ammendment says "Congress cannot pass a law prohibiting the practice of religion by individuals?"

No it doesn't. It says that they cannot pass any law regarding religion. More than two centuries of prescedent, and not just on religion, says that "law" is more encompasing than "bill passed by congress" and includes most acts of government, which is good or laws would be simple to make an end-run around.

So since "law" include acts, orders, decrees, policies, etc and the government is prohibited from laws regarding religion, the government is prohibited from acts, policies, etc regarding religion.

A school implimenting government-led prayer would be an act regarding religion.

No matter how much Supreme Court precedent there is, I don't have to agree with it because I truly think they are wrong.

You don't have to agree with anything. I'm curious why you are even bothing with what the constitution says or does not say: Just assert that it's wrong and that, like the Taliban, you want a state religion, and be done with it.

They are politicians with an agenda just like the rest of them. Just because their title includes the word "justice" doesn't mean they are "judicious" and honest. Just because they have plenty of legal education and experience doesn't mean their perception is correct. They are not the beholders of absolute truth and I question those who put their solid faith in them. In your case, I don't think it's a matter of faith, but of their concurrence with your opinion.

*yawn*rhetoric*yawn*

Where's the logical step between "not passing laws forbidding practice of religion" to actually passing laws forbidding the practice of religion (by teachers in schools)?

Show me the law that forbids teachers from practicing religion and we'll discuss it. Until then, you are hacking at a straw man.

Considering that particulat straw-man has already been exposed, I consider doing so quite dishonest.

It would be kin to forbidding your or my public cynicism. Those things are simply a part of us. Like I cannot divorce sexual attraction from romantic love, teachers cannot divorce their religious belief from knowledge, per se. Alas, the mantra here is "whatever it takes to de-humanize the country in the name of 'liberty'".

So you are incapable of not having sex in the workplace? I think you might want therepy.

Nice rhetoric, but I'm not so sure this is true. Doesn't the ACLU stand to gain from eroding the political power of Christians? The Christian right is known to be Republican, and the ACLU is unarguably on the side of the Democrats.

Hence the ACLU's staunch defense of Rush Limbaugh and of many Christian and Republican causes?

Couldn't they feasibly be opposed to Christianity? Enough to engage in the culture war they may as well have started?

Ahh yes, the many cultural disagreements involvind the Christian right are uniformly started by the other guy. Riiight.

["BrooksB"]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Actually, the first ammendment guarentees that a government official can practice religion.

Straw man

Really? The first ammendment says "Congress cannot pass a law prohibiting the practice of religion by individuals?"

Straw man, again

No it doesn't. It says that they cannot pass any law regarding religion. More than two centuries of prescedent, and not just on religion, says that "law" is more encompasing than "bill passed by congress" and includes most acts of government, which is good or laws would be simple to make an end-run around.

Precedent spelled correctly <--. Moreover, I agree... it's acts of government, not individuals. No, I'm not an idiot, and I realize that the government is technically comprised of people like a corporation is comprised of people. However, in reality, both are legal constructs that are nothing unless they exert power. And again, you know damn well that the 1st ammendment speaks explicitly only of laws. Anything else is an assumption, precedent, or extrapolation, however you want to put it. It's not necessarily constitutionaly, just part of the way particular ideologies have shaped the way our government functions, ie exerts power.

So since "law" include acts, orders, decrees, policies, etc and the government is prohibited from laws regarding religion, the government is prohibited from acts, policies, etc regarding religion.

*edited*

A school implimenting government-led prayer would be an act regarding religion.

I'm 99% positive that's not what this debate is about. I'll call "red herring" on that. Stay focused. I know it's tough sometimes.

You don't have to agree with anything. I'm curious why you are even bothing with what the constitution says or does not say: Just assert that it's wrong and that, like the Taliban, you want a state religion, and be done with it.

*edited*

For the umpteenth time, I'm not a christian. I don't want a christian state. I'm simply not hostile to christians like you. You clearly do not believe in the free practice of religion. Don't pretend like you don't know the difference between an individual's free practice of religion and government endorsement or establishment of religion. Learn to discriminate a little better. You might learn something about the world around you that doesn't fit in the narrow construct you have of reality.

*yawn*rhetoric*yawn*

*yawn* avoidance*yawn*

Show me the law that forbids teachers from practicing religion and we'll discuss it. Until then, you are hacking at a straw man. Considering that particulat straw-man has already been exposed, I consider doing so quite dishonest.

Teachers cannot practice religion at school.

That is, quite literally, a restriction on the practice of religion. As far as I know there is no "except for..." clause in any constitutional ammendments although liberal interpretations have snuck them in. (censorship, gun restrictions, etc)

So you are incapable of not having sex in the workplace? I think you might want therepy.

Ha. It's quite different. If my job were "romantic love", then yes. I supposed I should know not to use analogies with you since you rarely understand them or use them correctly yourself.

Hence the ACLU's staunch defense of Rush Limbaugh and of many Christian and Republican causes?

Are you seriously trying to say that the ACLU is not on the side of the democrats? I will not continue a discussion with someone so ignorant as to deny that.

Ahh yes, the many cultural disagreements involvind the Christian right are uniformly started by the other guy. Riiight.

Straw man.

Get freaking real, Jerry. You are such a hypocrit.

[JerryLove]

Brooks:The thing is, the 1st ammendment says nothing about when a gov't official can or cannot practice religion.
Jerry:Actually, the first ammendment guarentees that a government official can practice religion.
Brooks: Straw man

What did I assert was your position in my response that was not actually your position? I don't see the straw man. Either support your assertion or address my point.

Brooks: The thing is, the 1st ammendment says nothing about when a gov't official can or cannot practice religion other than it cannot be prohibited by law.
Jerry: Really? The first ammendment says "Congress cannot pass a law prohibiting the practice of religion by individuals?"
Brooks: Straw man, again

What exactly do you think "straw man" means? Because I'm pretty clearly on-point here. Either support your assertion on address my point.

I agree... it's acts of government, not individuals. No, I'm not an idiot, and I realize that the government is technically comprised of people like a corporation is comprised of people. However, in reality, both are legal constructs that are nothing unless they exert power.

OK. So you agree that congress passing an act regarding religion, or the president issueing an executive order regarding religion would be a violation of the first ammendment?

And again, you know damn well that the 1st ammendment speaks explicitly only of laws. Anything else is an assumption, precedent, or extrapolation, however you want to put it.

It also only explictly says "congress" which would allow other branches of government (like the department of the interior) to pass laws regarding religion. How foolish such strict literalism is.

You do know that congress isn't given any rights not spelled out for it (those are reserved to the states), so I suppose congress doesn't have the right to go to the bathroom. After all, we are being literal aren't we.

*edited*

Reported to moderators, this "conversation" is done. Do you live in Florida? I'm in the mood to have this "discussion" face-to-face.

["BrooksB"]

Brooks: The thing is, the 1st ammendment says nothing about when a gov't official can or cannot practice religion other than it cannot be prohibited by law.
Jerry: Really? The first ammendment says "Congress cannot pass a law prohibiting the practice of religion by individuals?"
Brooks: Straw man, again

What exactly do you think "straw man" means? Because I'm pretty clearly on-point here. Either support your assertion on address my point.

Clearly, you cannot read. You see your quotations in the second field? Can you show where that's what I said? I am very specific in what I said, and you generalized. You do this all the time. You take what I say, generalize (ie, build a straw man) and hack it down. So, this is me showing you that you're clearly not on point like you think.

OK. So you agree that congress passing an act regarding religion, or the president issueing an executive order regarding religion would be a violation of the first ammendment?

Yes, I agree. Keep in mind that it still stands that the ammendment explicitly refers to the institution and establishment of government, not of the individuals comprising it. It is of the power the government exerts, not the individuals and how they associate themselves. As was aptly mentioned by someone else, the president is always on duty, thechnically, but he can go to church if he wants to. However, religious executive orders are a far cry from individual association.

It also only explictly says "congress" which would allow other branches of government (like the department of the interior) to pass laws regarding religion. How foolish such strict literalism is.

I never realized that the department of the interior was a legislative body. I stand corrected. You are right. That is foolish.

You do know that congress isn't given any rights not spelled out for it (those are reserved to the states), so I suppose congress doesn't have the right to go to the bathroom. After all, we are being literal aren't we.

You are just being silly, now. May I remind you (again) that it is appropriate to note that the bill of rights concerns the government as an institution and establishment, not individuals. So, therefore, they can clearly go to the bathroom just like they can go to church. However, if the entire congress, as an institution, were to urinate, that would be quite strange. Essentially, I agree-- they do not have that right (if it were physically possible). Haha. It would have to be quite a big urinal.

May I also remind you of the following points I made that still currently "stand":

Originally Posted by Brooks

It would be kin to forbidding your or my public cynicism. Those things are simply a part of us. Like I cannot divorce sexual attraction from romantic love, teachers cannot divorce their religious belief from knowledge, per se. Alas, the mantra here is "whatever it takes to de-humanize the country in the name of 'liberty'".

They are politicians with an agenda just like the rest of them. Just because their title includes the word "justice" doesn't mean they are "judicious" and honest. Just because they have plenty of legal education and experience doesn't mean their perception is correct. They are not the beholders of absolute truth and I question those who put their solid faith in them. In your case, I don't think it's a matter of faith, but of their concurrence with your opinion.

Where's the logical step between "not passing laws forbidding practice of religion" to actually passing laws forbidding the practice of religion (by teachers in schools)?

Teachers cannot practice religion at school.
That is, quite literally, a restriction on the practice of religion. As far as I know there is no "except for..." clause in any constitutional ammendments although liberal interpretations have snuck them in. (censorship, gun restrictions, etc)

this "conversation" is done. .

No it's not. Or.... last word.