Sarge. I just plain DO NOT HAVE TO show what you demand I show.
The constitution is regarding ENDORSING a religion.
Not just FUNDING a religion.

Check out the ten commandments monument in Alabama. That wasn't "funding" any religion either. But it was unconstitutional just the same.


Wrong.
Just HAVING the book IN A LIBRARY is not an issue.
If you had ONLY the Bible or ONLY the Torah, while excluding the others, that might be an issue.
But you are describing an INDIVIDUAL book in a LIBRARY OF MANY.

The ENDORSEMENT of a religion I am talking about is when a SINGLE picture of Jesus is hung, and ONLY Jesus and no others.


Sarge, my argument is that SINCE the legislature FUNDS the schools...
And they write LEGISLATION to fund the schools...
THAT makes the schools SUBJECT to the establishment clause.

YOU have gone off on this tangent of demanding proof of "funding to a religion" which is totally irrelevant.
Either you don't understand my argument, or I don't see how your demand is relevant to my argument.
Either way, you're going to have to do better than just demand I show a religion which has funding given to it.
Otherwise, I'll start complaining that you haven't proven the picture was made with water-based paints and not a photo-copy...


No harm is needed to be shown.
The first amendment's establishment clause is not about requiring a proof of "harm".
Again, you are requiring irrelevant demands.

Show to me WHY I have to show a harm while ACTUALLY USING an establishment clause case as reference.
Show me an establishment clause case which was thrown out because the plaintiff could not show "harm".

Until then, drop this irrelevant line of demands.


Fine Sarge.
SHOW ME the secular significance of Jesus.


Yeah. And any Christian that looks at a picture of jesus and thinks of their religion must also be having a "preconceived preference or idea", and thus those Christians are...
... prejudiced against Christ????


WoW!
If you don't realize how your second phrase, invoking teaching children of CHRISTIAN doctrines/philosophies, isn't an answer to your first phrase...
... then I don't know what to tell you.


It doesn't have to "advance" religion.
Just show an endorsement or favoritism towards the religion.

If Jesus picture hangs there, and NO OTHER religious icons are hanging there, that shows favoritism.

If you have kids, try hanging pictures from ONE of the kids on the refrigerator while refusing to put up pictures from ANOTHER of the kids up there too.
Tell me if they don't see through your argument as well...


You are trying to dis-entangle the "morality" of a RELIGIOUS TEACHING with the religion itself.
And more to the point, the constitution (and it's application) is not hindered by meaningless nitpickery. If the hanging of the picture can give the perspective of favoritism, it must be removed.

It doesn't matter if you sit there and try to persuade people that they should squint with one eye and blink rapidly with the other to make this picture of Jesus somehow "moral" without "religious morality".


Let's review the Lemon test, shall we?

The Court's decision in this case established the "Lemon test", which details the requirements for United States legislation concerning religion. It consists of three prongs:

1) The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
2) The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and
3) The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion.
If any of these three prongs is violated, the government's action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_test

1) YOU have to show the government's actions have a "legitimate secular purpose". To that end, you have dictated to presume that a picture of Jesus should have SECULAR significance ABOVE AND BEYOND that of its RELIGIOUS significance.
The counter-argument to that is proven by YOU YOURSELF as you argue removing this picture is a sign of RELIGIOUS discrimination.
You fail prong 1.

2) The clause talks about the PRIMARY EFFECT. Not just any perceived / potential effect, but the ACTUAL primary effect.
Considering the person involved IS a religious figure (whose secular purpose is CLEARLY over-shadowed by the religious one), it's an OBVIOUS advancement of religion. Showing a picture of ONE religious figure, and ONLY one religious figure, is an advancement of the religion of that figure.

3) I see the third prong as the weakest against the picture hanging. But since ANY of the prongs being violated constitutes a violation of separation of church and state, it doesn't really matter.


There is no HOSTILITY towards any religion here.
NO religion can put up a picture of their religious figures. Equilateral application.
Your very logic would lead one to proclaim that the first amendment itself is "bigotry for religion".
I have no "bigotry" for religion. I just don't feel the government should be used to further or favor religion.


Do you have any documentation on this claim?

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but you are completely wrong. That clause was put in there so the USA would not make a religion the state religion of America.

Give me some evidence of this. Reading the words of the amendment in English, they do not say what you claim. I explained this and explained what those words mean.

I also showed you what James Madison, the author of the amendment, had to say. He agrees with me.

If both English and the author of the amendment agree with me, what do you have backing yourself up? Is it just "Whatever you say goes"?

1774
Eighteen Baptists are jailed in Massachusetts for refusing to pay taxes that support the Congregational church.


1776
Virginia's House of Burgesses passes the Virginia Declaration of Rights. The Virginia Declaration is the first bill of rights to be included in a state constitution in America.


1777
Thomas Jefferson completes his first draft of a Virginia state bill for religious freedom, which states: "No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever." The bill later becomes the famous Virginia Ordinance for Religious Freedom.


1776
The Continental Congress adopts the final draft of the Declaration of Independence on July 4.


1786
The Virginia legislature adopts the Ordinance of Religious Freedom, which effectively disestablished the Anglican Church as the official church and prohibited harassment based on religious differences.

http://tinyurl.com/kh7yc

I can give you more if you'd like. The 1st amendment is precisely directed to the government not being able to establish a state religion like England had.

First of all, that is false. We're talking about the Establishment Clause which is in the First Amendment. You need to know what specifically you are talking about before you say something about it.

Secondly, want to explain why there have been hundreds of cases before the Supreme Court regarding legislation and whether it violates the Establishment Clause? Want to explain why justices from all over the political spectrum have quarrelled and quarrelled as to what the Establishment Clause means, what sort of jurisprudence should be used in Establishment Clause cases?

Do you honestly think that any of that is possible if the Establishment Clause meant simply and specifically that the government can not establish a state religion? There is no ambiguity in that sentence whatsoever.

I could have told you this as an 8th grader. Did you just not pay attention in school or something?

It is well-understood and widely known that the first amendment applied only to the Federal government until the fourteenth amendment was passed. Prior to the fourteenth amendment, it was constitutional for states to establish religions, and they did so all the time. Heck, the Bill of Rights didn't even have a prohibition against states executing people of a certain religion. Now that the fourteenth amendment has been applied to states, states are not allowed to do these things.

I went into more detail on this in previous posts in this thread. I am most notably talking about post 10 and post 39. You may also wish to take a look at this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorpo...ill_of_Rights)

Wikipedia isn't completely correct, but it will give an idea of what I'm talking about.

Nice trick. You say my statement is false and that I know nothing about it, and yet you don't tell us where I am mistaken. I'm as right as rain and you know it. I'm sure you could have told an 8th grader this and he probably would have believed you. But since I have more knowledge than you or the 8th grader on this subject, your probably correct in that it would be best for you to discuss this with someone who has your education level like the 8th grader.

That is exactly why it was passed, to avoid what happened in Virginia to the entire country. 1+1=2.

I do not consider Wikipedia a credible source. Anyone can access it and add or delete.

Yet you cite blogs which anyone can create. I think wikipedia is more credible because anyone can edit it. That means if there is something that is totally false, someone will change it. A blog written by one person has no form of fact checking and can write anything to support the author's own view.

I do not understand what you are talking about in this sentence. Are you talking about why the first amendment was passed or the fourteenth? Neither was related to an event happening specifically in Virginia.

And what event are you talking about in Virginia? The ordinance for the establishment of religious freedom that you mentioned earlier? That ordinance was proposed and passed by Thomas Jefferson and is widely considered a great achievement. Jefferson himself considered this bill his greatest work, even greater than the Declaration of Independance. The bill is written on the walls of the Jefferson Monument in Washington DC. Jefferson had his gravestone read this: "Here was buried Thomas Jefferson, Author of the Declaration of American Independence, of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom, and father of the University of Virginia. Born April 2 1743 Died July 4 1826."

Are you saying an amendment was passed to prevent this ordinance from being mimiced in other states? Are you saying Jefferson's statue for the establishment of religious freedom in Virginia was a bad idea?

I didn't offer Wikipedia in an effort to prove myself. Anyone even remotely familiar with Constitutional law, Constitutional history, or Supreme Court rulings knows what I am talking about. I presented that link so that you might get an overview of the concept of Incorportation, hoping that you might be interested in learning something.

I suggest you take this opportunity. Read the Wikipedia link and learn a little about the Constitution. Like I said, the Wikipedia article isn't one-hundred percent correct, but it's correct enough to give you good idea of what Incorporation is.