That wasn't a trick at all.

You are just plain retarded. There is no way getting around it. All you would have to do is read about the Establishment Clause on the internet, in a book, go ask an attorney who lives near you, I imagine even most police officers would be able to explain it to you as well.

But for some reason, you think you're right and you clearly have not double checked from some credible academic or law source, because if you had...well we wouldn't be having this conversation. Perhaps, like Bill O'Reilly, you have a serious psychological barrier when it comes to admitting to people that you are wrong or have made a mistake, especially when those people don't agree with your political opinions, or when those people are much younger than you in age. I'm not sure what it is.

The Establishment Clause does not specfically or only mean that the government can not establish a state religion. It means far more than that. It reflects the concerns of framers who moved to colonies that accepted religious freedom at their inception. That the government can not establish one religion or any was assumed. The very principle of Separation of Church & State, and all its ambiguity, is embodied in the Establishment and Free Excercise clauses, and all thier ambiguity.


From FindLaw, a list of subsections under First Amendment and Religion http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...t01/index.html
Establishment of Religion
# Financial Assistance to Church-Related Institutions
# Governmental Encouragement of Religion in Public Schools: Released Time
# Governmental Encouragement of Religion in Public Schools: Prayers and Bible Reading
# Governmental Encouragement of Religion in Public Schools: Curriculum Restriction
# Access of Religious Groups to Public Property
# Tax Exemptions of Religious Property
# Exemption of Religious Organizations from Generally Applicable Laws
# Sunday Closing Laws
# Conscientious Objection
# Regulation of Religious Solicitation
# Religion in Governmental Observances
# Religious Displays on Government Property

"Gee Mister, I thought it just meant the government couldn't establish a religion!"
"Not even my boy, it means much more! Read on to see what actual Supreme Court Justices have said about it!"

"These opening words of the First Amendment to the Constitution set forth a dual guarantee of religious liberty. Both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause operate to protect the religious liberty and freedom of conscience of all Americans. Quoting Thomas Jefferson, the Supreme Court has stated that the Establishment Clause was intended to accomplish this end by erecting a "wall of separation between Church and State." Everson v. Board of Educ. of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947).

It is one of the fundamental principles of the Supreme Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence that the Constitution forbids not only state practices that "aid one religion . . . or prefer one religion over another," but also those practices that "aid all religions" and thus endorse or prefer religion over nonreligion. Everson, 330 U.S. at 15. See Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 53 (1985)("[T]he individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all"); see also County of Allegheny v. ACLU Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U.S. 573, 589-94, 598-602 (1989); Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock, 489 U.S. 1, 17 (1989); Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495 (1961).


alias, you sorry sorry stupid man....

It also means if something is totally true, someone can change it. Duh!!!!

Now is you chance to prove the blogger wrong. That is your job, not mine.

You should probably go read post #80 in this thread. Surely you do not disagree that Incorporation exists in the Constitution and that post #80 is the truth. Do you?

Jesus is a big boy, he already graduated!

He's been dead wrong about all of this. You can tell because he hasn't admitted it.

Talk about circular logic. I'm wrong because I haven't admitted it. Admitted what? That you're right? Of course I can't admit that because you're both wrong. Man are you guys funny. So in post #80, you want me to agree to wickipedia. I've already said wikipedia is not a credible source becuase anyone can access the site and put whatever they damn well please to make it say whatever they damn well please. Talk about stupid.

The reason for the establishment clause is to make sure congress cannot make any religion the state religion like was done in England and a few states. Incredibly ignorant is all I have to say to you 2.

So you are seriously saying that you don't believe Incorporation exists? You've never heard of Incorporation, and you expect people to take you seriously? You expect people to look at your posts and say, "Oh that alias is probably right" when you don't understand the concept of incorporation?

It isn't even that you don't believe in it as much as that you refuse to educate yourself, not only on the Constitution but on everything. Just because you originally thought something was true doesn't mean it is; stop being so stubborn. There are uncountable resources on Incorporation. You could bathe in the vast amount of knowledge available on Incorporation. It's probably the first and most important concept you learn when studying the Constitution. And you've never heard of it! You claim people are stupid for thinking it exists!

Look, more links! I'll find even more if you like! You can have as many as you want! Just read something!

http://politics.humanbeams.com/p1204...ncdoctrine.php
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=23
http://www.members.tripod.com/candst/14thamend.htm
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_bor.html
http://www.krusch.com/real/14th.html

Wikipedia's got a nice summary of incorporation. These other links are more difficult to understand. But if you don't like Wikipedia, try one of these. Or just Google it yourself. But don't call people stupid when you're the one who doesn't even believe Incorporation exists.

Did you even read the quote by Madison? You are disagreeing with James Madison. James Madison! Do you understand the words that you are typing into the computer? James Madison wrote the Bill of Rights. You don't think he knew what he was writing?

Not only that, but you're disagreeing with the English meaning of the words written on the Constitution. It says, quite clearly, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." This is completely different than "Congress may not establish a national religion." The law isn't talking about Congress "establishing" anything, it's saying Congress cannot make a law which respects an already-established religion. "Establishing" something is not prohibited in this sentence. The word that describe what laws cannot do is "respect". What in the world makes you think this sentence has to do with Congress "establishing" something?

And not only that, but you disagree with just about every Supreme Court ruling on the matter. Here are a few examples:

Lemon v. Kurtzman:
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/207/

Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=413&invol=756

Sloan v. Lemon:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=413&invol=825

Engel v. Vitale
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/...emocrac/47.htm

Abington School District v. Schempp:
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/2/

Do you want me to continue? There are more. But I seriously doubt you'll read even one of these links, let alone the contents of my post. So should I even bother?

So you disagree with James Madison, countless Supreme Courts, and the English language. This is what I'm to believe? And you're trying to claim that you are right? That we're stupid for believing these things? Give me a break; you're basically just making things up. You made things up when you talked about gay people and gay marriage, and now you're making things up when you're talking about the Constitution. Maybe you heard something on Rush or from some conservative leader and assumed it was reality, but it's not. You are being stubborn.

It's okay to be uninformed about something so long as you are ready to educate yourself! So do it! Educate yourself! Prove that I'm wrong about you. Read the Wikipedia link on Incorporation and take a look at some of the court cases I linked to. Make an honest effort to learn about the Constitution.

This is outstanding news. It gives me hope that maybe America is still making progress.

Want to live in a theocracy? Move to Iran.

Hear hear!
I'll never understand why religious can't seem to understand that to preserve their freedom of religion, religion can't enter the public domain.

It's a part of the ESTABLISHMENT clause.
This has been explained to you REPEATEDLY.

The government cannot endorse a religion, ANY religion, by a governmental official, such as a high school coach getting paid by the state, leading a team in religious prayer.

Your refusal to understand that is not an argument.
Your insistence in saying things haven't been shown to you, when they have been explained and shown to you, is not an argument.
Insisting on a verbatim statement being in the constitution, and demonstrating an abject refusal to actually INTERPRET is not an argument.