HUGE difference! HUGE!

IF you were a student of history, you would understand what happens when a government becomes a theocracy. THAT is what our founding fathers were trying to guard against.

Well, alias was saying that it is okay for the government to start its events with Christian religious services. Isn't that moving us a step closer to theocracy? Isn't that something which the first amendment guards against? Isn't this both the government entering a religion and a religion entering the government?

How should I distinguish when religion in the government is okay, and when it is wrong?

There is a HUGE difference, and it amazes me that you cannot see it.

Separation of Church & State does NOT require the eradication of "all things religious" from public life. That's STUPID as well as IMPOSSIBLE. An example: Since there are those who ascribe to Animism and Pantheism, we should - according to your view - destroy all nature because it is, after all, religious.

First, a wiccan has to be elected president. Not in my lifetime thank God.

Thanksgiving and Christmas are religious holidays and the government workers get the days off. Public schools get vacations for these religous holidays. I don't see them complaining about the time off with pay. How about we do away with those government-sponsored religious events? Not likely. There's a word for that.

I agree. Public life should include as much religion as each individual introduces. I am saying only that our government should not make any endorsement of religion, such as putting up monuments to Christianity or starting up government services with Christian rituals. There is no reason for these things except to display a government endorsement of Christianity. Or if I am wrong, what is the purpose of these prayers and monuments?

Not at all. We should not destroy things that are religious. We should not even look down on things that are religious. Religion is perfectly fine.

But as I said, the government shouldn't make any endorsement of religion, and it shouldn't coerce anyone to worship in any fashion contrary to his own individual belief.

I said, "Just let someone try to lead a Wiccan prayer/chant at a government event...." I did not say, "Just let someone try to lead a Wiccan prayer/chant at a presidential inauguration...."

The discomfort you felt at the thought of a Wiccan prayer/chant is the same discomfort someone of a different religion feels. This is the reason I advocate moments of silence instead of prayer.

If someone is uncomfortable, then ignore it. I ignore things all the time to allow people their freedom. I don't give to panhandlers so they will still be free to panhandle. I don't try to walk into a strip joint and yell at the girls to put some clothes on. I step over the drunk lying on the sidewalk rather than kick his feet out of my way. I'm always being tolerant. If someone wants to pray out loud, that is their right. I don't tell the idiot walking downtown mumbling to himself to shut up. That would be intolerant of me. You don't sound very tolerant. I thought liberals were supposed to be tolerant and inclusive?

Soooo... you are saying you would tolerate a Wiccan prayer/chant if one was scheduled at an event you were attending?

Well I guess I would have to if I attended an event that had a wiccan prayer chant. Chances are though that I will not have to tolerate that. I don't hang with wiccans. I hang with rock and country musicians and red necks. None of em are into that crap.