[Levy78]

I simply don't agree with those measures. I totally believe in the first amendment, IE. your right to worship as you see fit without fear of persecution from the gov. or another party within the union (or outside) Again, I do not agree with the USA gov in any way furthering the cause, or acting in the interest of organized religion, beyond protecting it's right to exist.

[radicalamericannationalist]

So you think you know the First Amendment better than its drafters?

[robertpaulsen]

"Again, I do not agree with the USA gov in any way furthering the cause, or acting in the interest of organized religion, beyond protecting it's right to exist."

Hmmmm. You conveniently left out, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Why did you do that? Were you ignorant of the wording of the First Amendment?

Seems to me that if the majority of the public wished to exercise their religion by placing a creche on property they paid for with their taxes, it would be unconstitutional for the government to prohibit that.

[Dec31,1999]

I totally believe in the first amendment, IE. your right to worship as you see fit without fear of persecution from the gov. or another party within the union (or outside)

I would generally agree. But what if there were a religion that directly called for the conversion or death of non-ahereants? What would be you call then?

Let's say a new religion arose claiming that its believers should kill or convert all others? What if said religion took advantage of our Constitutionally based tolerance to further its aims? What would you say then?