Replies

I cited a few cases up above that more or less capture the state of the law. Check up there.

You posted judicial activism run amok. Now I know you don't have a problem with judicial activists but that's what you posted.

The same displays and prayers that were Constitutionsl for the first 170 years of the union are now Unconstitutional.

When was the Constitution amended in the twentieth century making such a thing possible?

I was asking for the "Constitution" not case law.
Please quote what Constitutional text forbids "promoting" religion generally.

For me, citing a quote from the reliably wrong and incorrigible Justice Brennan on proper Constitutional law is about as convincing as a cite from Yasir Arafat on how to achieve mideast peace.

What stuck in my craw was "promote". IMHO part of the bogosity of Federal jurisprudence on establishment is this false idea that anything that remotely, indirectly or partially promotes religious sentiment is a bad thing. SORRY, that is *not* what the establishment clause is meant to forbid, and "promotion" does not generally deny other people freedom. Is it really pervasive, exclusionary and non-volutnary, or is the promotion open, non-exclusionary and more of an expression than a prosyltization?

A US Army general does more to "promote" a religious sect when he hires a Catholic chaplain that Judge Moore has done. IMHO your statement would deny the right of much that we do today! Quite dangerous and wrong!

It's why we've had these horrid rulings that make it so difficult for proper govt support to private schools that happen to have a religious component to them. Yet the Govt can fund exactly te same stuff (eg sending secular textbooks) for secular private schools. the net result is to really hamper *real choice* in education. Once again this becomes BIAS AGAIST RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION rather than any fairness.