Replies

That's interesting, but I'm not buying your interpretation. There is a vast difference between affording a religion "protection" and giving one "preference."

The point is that the Fathers knew that while most people here were Christian, the government needed to be religion-neutral in order to ensure freedom. This woman is not asking for preference, merely equal treatment.

The first Muslim prayer was given in the U.S. Senate in 1992. If your broad interpretation of Jefferson's words are correct, one would have expected that to occur much sooner.

The timing doesn't matter, only that our society has enough representation of these other religions. It now does.

If we continue down this road to multiculturalism while denying our plain heritage, enslavement will result. The secular humanist religion is the real threat to our liberty, not Christianity.

History shows that preference and support of one religion by the government results in slavery and oppression. Look no further than the recently deposed Christian Charles Taylor (a good friend of Pat Robertson's) to see what happens in an absolutely Christian government.

religion-neutral

The idea of being "religion neutral" or "morally neutral" is both a logical fallacy and an impossibility. Atheism is also a religion, as is secular humanism. Rejecting religious moral values does not mean they are replaced with nothing - as we plainly see today.

preference and support of one religion by the government results in slavery and oppression

Wrong again. The preference of one religion (Christianity) has resulted in the most free and most prosperous nation on earth, as well as the leadership and success of Western Civilization as a whole, while antipathy toward Christianity has resulted in the most imhuman, murderous regimes ever known. Over 100 million dead due to Godless Communism, millions more lost to Nazism, still millions more to the horror of abortion - not to mention the religious persecution by Islam, as opposed to the tolerance fostered by Christianity.

The point is that the Fathers knew that while most people here were Christian, the government needed to be religion-neutral in order to ensure freedom.

You're projecting your ideology on the Founding Fathers. They never expressed this typically modern idea.

The federal government should stay out of it. The constitution only says what rights are given to the federal government by the people. What is not specifically spelled out remains the right of the states and/or the people.

The town council has the right, since they were elected by the people, to decide who gets to talk at their meetings. If she doesn't like it, she should move to a town who finds her more acceptable. Mind you, nobody is telling her she can't be a witch, they're just telling her they don't want to listen to what she has to say. It's their right.