Of course, you're from Oregon. That might explain a lot.
Make a point I can understand, or go insult someone else.
My point was that you only mentioned the "establishment" and left out the "free exercise".
And quoting from post 2543:
Where in the constitution is the so called principle of "separation of church and state specfically enunciated."
...
Word-lawyering aside, the principle is established in the 1st amendment,
Now to borrow from Patrick Henry's post #112--
If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever?
To follow from the logic of that post, it struck me as odd that you only quoted a portion of the first amendment.
There is a whole continuum from establishing a specific religion by statute or fiat, to endorsing a religion, to mentioning, to accomodating it, to suppressing it, etc.
Everyone on this thread seems to beg their own question about where the Dover school board lies on that continuum. And the result is a long-drawn-out "less-filling, tastes great" dispute, without the amusing anecdotes.
Perhaps if people spelled out their opinion on that aspect of things first, the flame wars would become a little more civil.
As far as the Oregon remark, much of the "Left Coast" including Oregon is tainted by hostility to Christianity. From some of your posts, it looked like some of the hostility had rubbed off; from other of your posts, it seemed like you were expertly defending the supernatural.
That ambiguity is why is used the word "might"; and the use of such a phrase did accomplish the intended purpose, of attracting your notice to the point of replying.
Cheers!
...and Merry Christmas!