So?
Nope, read that post again, carefully. You are confusing my views with the Constitution. The Constitution (establishment clause) prohibits laws and policies based on religion. That is why they did not want an established church.
So, it shows the establishment clause means much more than simply prohibiting an established church. That is the simplistic version by those who want government to impose religious practices on the people.
Next you should try reading some constitutional law. Start with some of the establishment cases so you understand the meaning.
So? Nobody claimed being exposed to ideas makes a person adopt them (except those who think a book about gays will turn kids day). You keep arguing against points nobody ever made.
Absolutely it is when it is enforced by those in government pay with no regard and out right discrimination against those who either do not share their religious beliefs and or wish to be free from them.
Bullshit. Practice your religion at home or your house of religion and keep it away from those of us who want nothing to do with your beliefs. I have every right under the constitution to be free from your religious beliefs. I know how this shit works out in the public arena because when it does those who share your religious beliefs and have any power will fuck over those who don’t without a second thought because you view those who don’t share your beliefs as subhuman.
This reminds me of a similar discussion wherein some forced-birthers claim that those who support reproductive freedom are in favor of something that never happens -- abortions right up to the mom's due date. Some even claim that there are abortions post-birth.
Well Columbus, Ohio isn’t Coldwater, Ohio and its population isn’t 98% German Catholic like Coldwater and Columbus isn’t stuck in the 1920’s like Coldwater. The religious discrimination was so bad against non-Catholics that while I and my younger sister attended there multiple times non-Catholic parents had to call in the State to address the situation and several of those times it was my parents who called the State. My father was livid because they wanted to put me in a special education class when at my previous school I had been a high performing college prep student with a 136 IQ and a reading comprehension level of a graduate student that was tested when I was 15. Eventually enough complaints about religious discrimination at Coldwater high that the State threatened an administrative decree to take over the administration of the school that the overt discrimination stopped…for a time. I hear from good sources that are friends who still live in Coldwater that nothing much has changed there in the intervening years.That isn't a problem here now is it? (Our public schools follow Jewish holidays, etc.... No one seems to complain...)
I'm really sorry that you had to go through that.... And I hope you're wrong that things haven't changed...
I am
Because you are ignorant of constitutional law cases about establishment of religion does not mean others are lying. You keep claiming nobody was required to engage in religious behavior; but you are not aware of cases requiring the reading of a prayer, reading a Bible verse, standing and reciting the pledge, etc.
This shows your basic ignorance of the Bill of Rights. It was written to restrict government from imposing or restricting our rights. The Bill of Rights applies to government action only. You are the only one wanting a government oppressive enough to mandate religious practices in schools. The establishment clause wanted government to remain neutral on these matters. Some of the establishment cases explain these principles in detain including original material by those who wrote these documents. Try Reading to learn about the Constitution and what communism involves so you don't keep embarrassing yourself with uninformed posts.
The Supreme Court can't "step in." They must wait for somebody with standing to bring suit and be accepted on appeal by the lower courts. Then, the SC might hear the case (only 10% of cases appealed to the SC are accepted).
