One more example that's too perfect to pass up. Via Ed Brayton, we learn that Pat Robertson's legal group, the American Center for Law and Justice, which in the past has defended the placement of Christian monuments on public property, is now representing a city arguing that they should not have to give the same accommodation to Summum, a fringe religious group that wants to put up a monument in a park where the Ten Commandments are already present.

I imagine the argument for this goes something along the lines of states that have tried to pass laws outlawing interracial marriage. Those laws were claimed to be "content neutral" because they punished both parties equally, in that case, black people and whites who liked black people.

I can picture a similiar argument coming for the ten commmandments. "People have equal access to the 10 commandments, those who believe in them and those who don't, and if the state wants to refuse other monuments, that's their right as a state (i.e. the point raised earlier about how some people feel states don't need to abide by federal laws)". It's not a position of defending religion, as some have been led to believe, but it's a campaign to defend christianity, which many of those same people probably wouldn't object to, but whether they do or not, it's a clear violation of the constituional seperation of church and state.

This Supreme Court case might be of particular intrest to you, since you seem unclear of the nature of incorporation via the 14th Amendment and how it applies to the state:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education

I dunno, maybe in another century of this sort of change we could switch our name to the Federal States of America or the Unified States of America.

Me: Really? I thought that was both your problem and mine with prayer, Ebon.
(I have no idea why my font just got big there for a second)

Sorry, I should have been more clear. What I meant was your claim that intent is more important than effect. I suppose it sort of is in this case, but doesn't that clash with your excellent post the other day about the rain prayers in Georgia? I'm sure if you really pigeonholed the governor and his supporters, they might admit, "Well, I don't know if this will really get us some rain, but it's a good spiritual exercise! It's our intention that's important." Heck, that's the undergirding mentality behind a lot of the culture wars: Posing and symbol-invoking that makes certain people feel good (or bad) and thus gets them to ignore actual meat-and-potatoes political and economic issues (war, poverty).

Still, the crux of my atheism and--I had thought--yours too was an insistence that we actually examine the effects of, say, people's prayers, of "miracles", of widespread societal belief in the supernatural. Is Islam really a "religion of peace" insofar as Muslims are statistically more peaceful than non-Muslims? Does intercessory prayer for sick people actually make them less sick or does it just give the praying people a fuzzy feeling inside, feeling like they're "supporting" their sick friend?

This is what I meant when I asked why you thought intent was more important than effect. If you meant just specifically in this case, then nevermind: I agree.

When the 1st Amendment was authored, Congress was the only lawmaking body in the nation. When the 14th was added, it was to prevent states from counteracting actions of the Federal government.

The way this all works is that all powers not explicitly granted to the federal government may be taken up by the state level... but the power of controlling establishment of religion (and free practice thereof) *is* claimed by the Fed, and simultaneously is revoked outright.

Apparently "Congress shall make no law..." was the clearest way of wording such a concept at the time, as the charge of placing something beyond the purview of law is sort of a complex idea to express. Compare:

"No governing body in these United States shall make any law..." , which may have been a better wording -- but at the time, with Congress being the only lawmaking body, the two were synonymous.

Unfortunately we can't dig up the Framers and ask them what they heck they meant by all this, so we're left to decide which option is best for our time. With thousands of mutually incompatible religions practiced in our nation, the only sensible response is to purge it from the public stage entirely, as attempting to represent every religion equally would be an illogical and extremely complex burden.

Imagine if every meeting of Congress began not with a prayer from the Bible, but with several thousand prayers, spells, chants, songs, meditations, yoga poses, and alien communication via LEDs wired onto hats.

It's nonsensical in the extreme. Even if it were possible to accommodate every imaginable religion in public spaces, we'd be spending hours doing rain dances and our streets would overflow with a million versions of holiday decorations...

It's supreme lunacy.

So! The only way for this to work is to prohibit it outright. Since giving everyone a chance is not even possible, then nobody gets one.

It scares me to think that a few hundreds years from now, historians will say "people at the time believed..." the lunacy expressed by the loudest morons. They will (perhaps rightfully) think no better of us than we of the people who thought the Earth was flat... or perhaps those poor fools who still do.

It is absolutely, without any question, a constitutional issue.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The 14th states that no state is allowed to make laws abridging privileges and immunities of citizens, nor are they allowed to deny equal protection. These privileges and immunities are the bill of rights, and the first amendment says no laws regarding religion; none in favor of or against. Using a public institution, like a public school, to favor a religious idea (any religious idea) is unconstitutional. "In god we trust" is a religious idea, and clearly a specific religion's idea. It would be similiar to walking into a school and seeing a sign that says "There is no god". Also unconstitutional and no equal protection.

And it's true - This would make it the responsibility of the states to enforce any privileges or immunities defined in the 1st amendment - Except that there are no privileges or immunities defined in the 1st amendment. If the 1st amendment had said, "All citizens shall have freedom to practice whatever religion they want" then the 14th amendment would apply.

What the the 1st amendment provides is not a right or a privilege or an immunity for citizens, but rather a restriction on the power of Congress. Therefore, even if the 14th amendment did apply, it would mean that the states would have to make or enforce no law abridging the right of the citizens to have Congress not make laws about religion.

Why would the Blaine Amendment (Which said: "No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof") have been introduced at all if the fourteenth amendment applied to the first amendment?

All I'm saying is that it's not a Constitutional issue. Most of the states have put freedom of religion in their own constitutions, and any legal challenge to school boards or whatever has to come from those laws. It would have been a Constitutional issue - if the Blaine Amendment had gotten 4 or 5 more votes in the Senate.

I had to advise her we shouldn't discuss that issue, since we were both going to end up angry - I was already getting steamed by that point. My mom is a very intelligent (IQ) woman, but she does not seem to have any clue when it comes to separation of church and state. I think it's at least partially a generational issue.