The False interpretation of the 1st amendment is outlined very clearly and in detail on the youtube vid.. he who wishes to be informed.. can do the appropriate.

The 1st amendment says 'nothing' about separation of Church and state. What DOES .. is a reference to it in Jeffersons letter.. but the context clearly shows that his intention was to deter government from establishing a 'denomination'... but that Christianity should be the prevailing faith framework.

If you don't wish to view Youtube.. hmm sounds like a lame cop out to me.

The change in the mentality of the supreme court is really something to behold.. how they went from a basing many of their decisions on the Bible..specifically.. to deciding that teaching the New Testament to children without explanation could cause them problems. (I'd agree partly.. 'if your hand sins..cut it off' surely needs explanation.

But that does not mean it is not beneficial for life and education.

The first educational primer for children in America was full to the brim with the Bible.

Once a culture has cut the anchor rope... it drifts.. aimlessly.. as we are doing.

That's a cop-out, Boaz, and you know it.

>>The False interpretation of the 1st amendment is outlined very clearly and in detail on the youtube vid.. he who wishes to be informed.. can do the appropriate.<<

The principle involved here is that you first provide an explanation of your position, then back it up with evidence. Simply saying "go here, do this, look at that" is extremely rude and totally unacceptable.

In a sentence, what was false about the court's interpretation of the First Amendment?

>>The 1st amendment says 'nothing' about separation of Church and state.<<

But it very clearly states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", and the Fourteenth states "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

And as I mentioned before, the learned judges' summary was that "..we think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that in this country it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government"

The First Amendment clearly protects your right to "the free exercise [of religion]", but it simply does not permit government to mandate it.

That is where "separation of church and state" occurs: personal freedom to choose your religion and the right to assemble, coupled with - and strengthened by - freedom from government interference in either.

Which part of this simple logical progression still escapes you?

Just back from a few days on the coast with the kids. How interesting that old Boazy has morphed into a new persona/sock puppet.

I had been thinking that "polycarp" might refer to a multitude of feral noxious fish, but I now see that it's just another pretentious Christian affectation.

Why the pretence, Boazy - and why persist with it now that you've been well and truly busted on this and other threads?

I dunno CJ. If the change in persona was accompanied with a change in attitude and a bit less of the 'holier-than-thou' aura that accompanied the last, then I'd be inclined to support a fresh start.

Though I'm not so sure that's what's happening here.

It seems that between us we may have put paid to Boaz's second career as Polycarp.

I wonder what his next incarnation will be?

Looking out for it will be a little like those "Where's Wally" games...

Pericles.

"Learned Judges"?

"..we think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that in this country it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government"

1/ Its a fine line.. between 'making a law' and a school 'deciding' to hold prayers of a pan denominational nature, but..it is a "line".
A school deciding to hold prayers at the beginning of the day at Assembly is nothing to do with 'making a law' and the judges know it.

This was an example of activist judges trying to re-write the constitution for the sake of their own fallen, alienated but intellectual constituency.

2/ No court took that opinion in the past.. why suddenly then? and.. there were plenty of attempts to achievie b4.. but none successful.
Seems to indicate its more about the 'thinking' of the judges than anything objective.

3/ The constitution does not allow the HINDERING of any religion by law either, and preventing prayer is just that!

Even CJ could see this I'm sure.

So, as long as government does not make it a LAW "You will have prayer each day" there is no breach of either the first amendment.. the 14th amendment or our own constitution when a school decides through it's appointed or elected officials to do so.

As long as the students understand that they are not required to participate INwardly if they so choose.
Thus, they are not being made subjec to any law which advances any religion, they are being subjected to a school rule as decided by the school. School rules say nothing about 'inner' convictions only outward behavior.

I think any school which tried to make the students adopt a specifically religious "posture" would be crossing a very important line.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1031784/Schoolboys-punished-detention-refusing-kneel-pray-Allah.html