No disrespect was intended. -- Government was to stay out of religious matters. -- This was original intent according to the USSC.
Why is this concept so difficult for you, betty?
"Original intent, according to the USSC."
But not the original intent of the Framers. If you don't see this, tpaine, then I respectfully request that you and I continue to respectfully disagree.
The USSC doesn't just pull opinions out of a hat, betty. Rest assured that there was plenty of hard fact as to the framers intent taken into account in the courts arguments.
As I noted, "government was to stay out of religious matters". Do you now admit that you want government involved in religion? - I don't understand your objection to church/state separtion. - Please explain.
Good morning, tpaine! No, I absolutely DO NOT want the government involved in religion. And, thanks to the establishment clause, the federal government IS completely "out of the religion business." But the people need not be; and their voluntary "free exercise thereof" is guaranteed by the Constitution. All the Constitution requires of the federal government is that it stay completely neutral as to faith confessions: It may not favor one or disfavor another. It does not have a mandate to prohibit religious expression. Again, recall that the religion clause of the First Amendment consists of two phrases. On the surface, they may appear incompatible. But if you think them through, using logic and reason, you will find that they are actually complementary.
The USSC's "interpretation" of "separation of church and state" effectively means, translated into actual practice (as we have seen), that the federal government has placed itself in the unconstitutional position of favoring one religion over all other religions. That favored religion is called Secular Humanism.