[Reactionary]

"If the government (i.e., taxpayers) promotes one religion over others, it is by definition "establishing" a religion."

I see. So the premise is that if a nickle is spent on religious expression by the government the government has, in fact, "established" a religion.

Does this rule apply to politicians who derive their livelyhood from the people? You know, people like Jesse Jackson, Bush, the Reverend Al Sharpton? Hillary?

[Long Cut]

I do not understand your question. None of those you cited, especially President Bush, are promoting any ONE religion over another. Jackson and Sharpton of course, despite their "reverent" titles, are longtime hustlers and conmen. They do in fact rob the government of taxpayer money and should be prosecuted for fraud at the least and usury at the worst. That's not to say that their religions should be outlawed, of course. If a paerticular church is engaged in criminal behavior, its heirarchy can be prosecuted, and it can be atacked under RICO statutes. It can be shut down. However, the religion itself cannot be banned.

The Catholic faith, for example, will not be banned no matter how many corrupt dioceses or pederast preists are found.

My point was that the government, being financed by everyone's tax dollars, is establishing a religion if it proclaims one religion or even having a religion as somehow "better" than all other belief systems. It is simply wrong and unConstitutional to ask people to support a religion that is not theirs with their money in that fashion. It is also extremely divisive to create a circumstance where a person might doubt his equal treatment under the law due to his not being a member of the "official" religion.