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!
You can have all the free exercise of religion you want, just about anywhere you like, other than in public facilities paid for with public taxes, and governed by publicly elected bodies. Because when you do so, it is quite obviously an establishment of religion, which is forbidden, for good reason, by the Constitution.
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.
It doesn't strike me as a "spectrum". It strikes me that if you use government resources to promote religious beliefs you are violating every part of the 1st amendment that addresses religion, because thru taxes, you are stealing resources from all beliefs to support whichever belief has gained control, and monopolizing an influential public forum that, for example, monopolizes compelling children, by law, to attend.
Perhaps if people spelled out their opinion on that aspect of things first, the flame wars would become a little more civil.
Fine, my theory is that there is no such spectrum--the post-civil war amendments pushed respect for individual rights established in the Bill of Rights down on all levels of local government, including school boards. And the 1st amendment doesn't say "you can establish a little bit of religion". It says "congress shall pass NO laws". Forgive me if don't think this will lower the temperature of the rhetoric an iota; I think the conflicts of opinion here are largely substantive, not due to misunderstandings.
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.
So what?
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.
No ambiguity is apparent to me. And you could hold my attention better, by saying what you have to say in a SHORT, straightforward, uninflammatory manner.