Do you love communism?

[Joe Guy]

Would anyone here even think of such a thing as using a baby as a propaganda tool?

[Bicycle Bill]

The mind of the communist is sub-human, but what can you expect from a people that first make war on God, such a people have no sense of right and wrong only expediency.

Not to mention labeling several million agnostics and atheists as "Untermenschen" ??
(look it up — I'll be damned if I'll do your work for you — and note well its origins)
-"BB"-

Are the atheist and agnostic closing churches and persecuting church members?

What would you call it when known atheistic activist groups like Freedom From Religion constantly file lawsuits about "Ten Commandment" monoliths or scenes depicting the Biblical story of the birth of Christ being placed in public places?

• And let it be known right here that I am not now nor have I ever been an atheist or agnostic, nor do I support their central premise(s), but I acknowledge that — like termites, disease, and Republicans — we are stuck with them so we had better learn to at least get along with them.

Oh yeah — the principle of a "separation of church and state"; a concept that was never formally codified in any part of the Constitution or its amendments, but was merely a phrase found in a letter between Thomas Jefferson and the Danbury (CT) Baptist Association written some fifteen years after the Constitution and the original Bill of Rights had been ratified.  And as we have all become 'woke' and have since realized that Jefferson was a slave owner and a — gasp — racist(!!), we all know that anything else he may have said, done, or written is now permanently tainted and not worthy of further consideration.

-"BB"-

[BoSoxGal]

Not to mention labeling several million agnostics and atheists as "Untermenschen" ??
(look it up — I'll be damned if I'll do your work for you — and note well its origins)
-"BB"-

Are the atheist and agnostic closing churches and persecuting church members?

What would you call it when known atheistic activist groups like Freedom From Religion constantly file lawsuits about "Ten Commandment" monoliths or scenes depicting the Biblical story of the birth of Christ being placed in public places?

• And let it be known right here that I am not now nor have I ever been an atheist or agnostic, nor do I support their central premise(s), but I acknowledge that — like termites, disease, and Republicans — we are stuck with them so we had better learn to at least get along with them.

Oh yeah — the principle of a "separation of church and state"; a concept that was never formally codified in any part of the Constitution or its amendments, but was merely a phrase found in a letter between Thomas Jefferson and the Danbury (CT) Baptist Association written some fifteen years after the Constitution and the original Bill of Rights had been ratified.  And as we have all become 'woke' and have since realized that Jefferson was a slave owner and a — gasp — racist(!!), we all know that anything else he may have said, done, or written is now permanently tainted and not worthy of further consideration.

-"BB"-

Separation of church and state isn’t codified in the constitution or amendments?

THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE US CONSTITUTION

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.

Also:

Article Six of the Constitution

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

See also extensive body of caselaw from the federal judiciary and SCOTUS that flesh out that CODIFICATION of the separation of church and state.

[Bicycle Bill]

Neither one of those examples you cited have a damned thing to do with someone putting up — or giving anyone the authority to prevent someone from putting up — a stone with the Ten Commandments carved into it, or a manger scene as part of a ⃥C⃥h⃥r⃥i⃥s⃥t⃥m⃥a⃥s⃥  — sorry, "The Annual Winter-time Celebration of Shameless Marketing, Needless Consumerism, and Conspicuous Over-Consumption" (we mustn't use the 'C'-word, y'know) — display.

-"BB"-

[Scooter]

I must have missed the post where you told us about your doctorate in constitutional law or the many opinions you wrote on the subject as a judge. Because otherwise you come across as more ridiculous than our resident village idiot when you purport to elevate your interpretation of the Constitution over decades of settled law.

[Bicycle Bill]

Bob Dylan said it best — "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows."  

It still comes down to simple logic and common sense.  I know how the "freedom of religion" clause been interpreted over the course of time, so that nowadays as long as something like a Ten Commandment monolith or a manger scene is on public property, even if it wasn't put up by the public entity, or if so much as two brass farthings of government money is expended to maintain it, it's the same as if the public entity — state, country, or community — endorses it.  Note by the way that even if it IS endorsement, it's still not the same as "establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."  The fact is, though, that Article 6 and the First Amendment make specific statements about specific things.  For that matter, so does the Second Amendment, and of course we are supposed to read and follow that down to the last letter, comma, semi-colon, and periood, with no wiggle room for interpretations taking modern arms into consideration. So why are we allowing the SCOTUS to 'read between the lines' and cast themselves as clairvoyants able to go back 200 years or more with decisions that say "this is what the framers of the Constitution really meant" with regard to anything having to do with religion or religious displays?

Just as an example, suppose some group stated they were adherents to one of the Meso-American religions as practiced by the Aztec or Incan peoples.  Do you seriously think that, since the government is enjoined against "prohibiting the free exercise thereof", that this group would be allowed to perform human sacrifice as part of their rituals?  I'll give you a hint — abso-fucking-lutely NOT!
(and yes, I know this is an example that borders on the absurd, if it hasn't already actually pole-vaulted across the line and straight on into it ... but I'm quickly realizing that no matter how far-fetched, how ridiculous, or how absurd a concept I could come up with, someone else has already been there before me)

As the old saying goes, "If it waddles like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck."  Just because the majority of nine jurists in black robes decided to call it a peacock or a bald eagle at some point in time doesn't change that fact.

-"BB"-

[Big RR]

Bill--I'm not about to delve into the subject Constitutional law (you can look it up for yourself if you're interested), but there are no absolutes and the government can, under strict conditions, restrict the exercise of Constitutional rights (see freedom of speech vs shouting fire in a crowded theater, e.g.); human sacrifice is likely one of those areas in freedom of religion (as was drug use in a number of cases, although churches could still make and distribute communion wine during prohibition). And for as to how these decisions arose, I commend to you reading a number of them and see how much attention is paid to the actual words and the circumstances surrounding thier adoption (from debates to the Federalist Papers (key to the ratification process) to ...).

[MajGenl.Meade]

Take away the law-establishment, and every religion re-assumes its original benignity.
Thomas Paine

Despite the howls of protest, it is fairly clear by common understanding of language, that the "establishment" of a religion means and always has meant the adoption by the state of one particular religion to the detriment of all other religions. When Christianity became the established religion of the Roman Empire, it received favorable treatment over and against all others. In reality, it was the Roman church (not Christianity per se) that was established - the Roman group was the only Christian church, as they insist to this day.

Henry VIII established the Anglican church in opposition to the Roman church and, later, against all variants of Protestantism that arose on the continent and emigrated to Britain. Among these variants were the Non-Conformists of various stripes. Many escaped from the requirement to belong to, tithe to and pay taxes to the Anglican church by taking ship to Amerca. They also escaped from marriage, funerals, baptisms and so on being allowed only in and by the "established" church.

In what would become the U.S.A., there grew the pleasing idea that the state (and by that, they originally meant the King of England) should not dictate which brand of religion should be established by the state as the only religion granted indulgence. They (AFAIK) had in mind the question of denomination - no church collective should be supreme by state fiat - and that the state should not and could not compel a person into or out of a faith or a non-faith.

It is seemingly obvious that the founders had the above in mind. The new Congress should never, ever make any one religion the state religion, placing people under compulsion to belong to that church or abjure atheism - the state should allow people the free exercise of their faith (or lack of it). It is unlikely that they considering Islam, Buddhism, etc. to be of any concern - and it seems by the language of the Constitution that they did not have in mind that the new Federal government could not, under any circumstance, permit public funds or lands from being utilized by "religions". Establishment does not and never has meant "support" but a rule of orthodoxy required by a state.

In the ensuing years, the Supreme Court has issued rulings chipping away at the clear sense of the Amendment using whatever excuse was convenient at the time until we reach today's "understanding" - that there should be utter and complete separation of government, its revenues, its lands, its programs and so on from any contamination of religion.

I speak not of whether this should or should not be so. It seems to me (at times) much better that the government should not fund any religious exercise rather than that it should equally support Islam, etc.
I only point out that the meaning of "establishment" in the 18th century is not what it has become in America since then. I think.