[ForGod'sSake]

This is tantamount to establishing that religion. If they broadened it to religious statements and documents in general they would be safer, but then the states would have a problem when they tried to stop other religions (which they would).

Thank you for playing. I won't even rebutt your reply since I disagree with just about everything you posted. There are so many if's, and's, and but's in your reply, it becomes meaningless.

FGS

[antiRepublicrat]

I won't even rebutt your reply since I disagree with just about everything you posted. There are so many if's, and's, and but's in your reply, it becomes meaningless.

I'll make really simple as you apparently require:

Part 1: The government officially endorsing a religion or sect is not good in a society that values religious freedom.

Part II: If this law did not single out one religion (well, three religions, but we know which version will be used), then it would be more likely to survive constitutional challenges. But they will not do that, because the aim is to endorse one religious sect.