Originally posted by: JediSageNo argument. But this is far from your original comment. You originally said you cannot have freedom of religion without freedom from religion, which on the surface implies that all semblances of religion in public must be eliminated. Not quite the same as saying that one should have the right to choose none at all.
Freedom from religion simples means that one is not forces to choose to practice a relgion. And it means that the government must be free of religion. This is different from saying that all semblance of relgion in public must be eliminated.
This brings us back to my original point. The ACLU, with the tacit approval of the US government (via taxpayer funding) is relentlessly attacking towns, cities, states, courts, schools, etc...forcing them to remove any and all religious symbols, to deny employees the right to read the bible or pray on their own time, the list goes on and on. That is the big difference. In it's effort to embrace neutrality, it has instead embraced hostility. In the absence of a supreme power, the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong is the state.
Originally posted by: JediSageAgain no argument, however, the "Supreme" Court has ruled that saying a religion neutral prayer before a football game on school grounds is unconstitutional, somehow construing this to mean that the person saying it is really congress and that this act constituted establishment of a nation-wide religion. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...". A student body is NOT congress.
Just how in the world can you have a religion neutral prayer? Any prayer is not neutral to an Athiest. While a student body is not congress, if a prayer done as part of an offically sanctioned event at a school fuction, it the equivalent of the government supporting a specific religion over others or religion in general over nonreligion.