[JasonInPoland]

More specifically, Alamo-Girl, the first amendment says there shall be no laws “respecting an establishment of religion.”

It does more than prevent the government from establishing a religion. It prevents the government from making any laws which support or decry religion.

[tpanther]

It prevents the government from making any laws which support or decry religion.

---

Which begs the original question of this thread...by what authority do atheists sue to silence Christians?

[Alamo-Girl]

It does more than prevent the government from establishing a religion. It prevents the government from making any laws which support or decry religion.

The caselaw involving the Establishment Clause is much more complex than your simplistic retort suggests.

Findlaw: Cases and Codes, Constitution, First Amendment, Establishment Clause

''[F]or the men who wrote the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment the 'establishment' of a religion connoted sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity.'' 41 ''[The] Court has long held that the First Amendment reaches more than classic, 18th century establishments.'' Supp.3 However, the Court's reading of the clause has never resulted in the barring of all assistance which aids, however incidentally, a religious institution. Outside this area, the decisions generally have more rigorously prohibited what may be deemed governmental promotion of religious doctrine.

Be sure to read the footnotes and the continuing pages.

I also suggest reading this very important decision:

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals, Kaufman v. McCaughtry

For purposes of this discussion, emphasis goes to pages 3-5 where the court affirms that "atheism" is a "religion" in interpreting the First Amendment.

This of course demolishes the atheist argument under the Establishment Clause, since atheism is a religion per Supreme Court caselaw.

I will be buying popcorn on the day this Kaufman decision is used in litigation for an expanded publicly funded science curriculum vis-à-vis evolution. The legal theory would be that limiting publicly funded explanations of origins to metaphysical naturalism (atheism) is unconstitutional since it is an establishment of religion based on the same caselaw plus Kaufman.

[metmom]

It does more than prevent the government from establishing a religion. It prevents the government from making any laws which support or decry religion.

That is NOT true.

The First Amendment is very specific about what it says. It restricts the powers of the federal government when it comes to meddling in religion. It specifically addresses what can and cannot be done and by whom. It specifically prohibits Congress only from making laws. It says NOTHING about supporting or decrying, or even endorsing, religion.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

And in typical liberal or atheist fashion, you totally ignored the second clause in the First Amendment which is *prohibiting the free exercise thereof*.

There is nothing unconstitutional about the President proclaiming a national day of prayer.