Case law over years then becomes the law of the land. The principal of “stare decisis” was created and requires courts to respect precedents established be previous court decisions. This will make it harder for right-leaning courts to overturn church state separation achievements as well as other important protections such as found in Roe v Wade

Crosses and Ten Commandments displays placed on public lands are a government sponsorship of religion, they are perfectly acceptable being displayed in private locations, just not on government property.

Forcing school children to pray in public is coercive. Even the Christian prophet mentioned:
“Thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men…
“But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret.” – Matt. 6:5-6 Implying that even the Bible itself favors people praying in private rather than in public.

Teaching of religion in any form such as Creationism in public schools is a form of government sponsorship of religion and is coercive, therefore not allowed by our Constitution or its long legacy of decisions.

Until the ACLU supports tearing down the Statue of Liberty and The statues of the Lady Justice I am sure they are full of garbage. I am forced to look at those false idols every time I go to a court house. While we are at is there is a sect of Islam that believe than any depiction of a human or animal which means all the statues and pictures that are on government property must be removed as we would not want the government to impartially support the law. I wonder how a teacher will teach when she can not show a picture of the event if it has either a animal or a person in it. Then there is the Jehovah’s witnesses that believe the flag is an idol. We better get rid of all the flags on government property too.

These are all items that are symbols of other religions according to some people. If we are going to eliminate one kind then we should remove them all.

Yelling fire in a crowded movie theater is illegal — not because some may disagree with whether the fire really exists or whether fire is harmful — but because causing a panicked stampede would likely result in physical harm to others — not quasi emotional distress.

I never said I have the right to be free of annoyance, that was a straw man you created to make your point. Just as your right to free speech does not allow you to yell fire in a theatre, it also does not allow you to prostylize in a forum where I am not free to leave.

“The ACLU helped ban the 10 Commandments sculpture. No one’s ever been forced to look at a statue. or a painting of Moses or Jesus or Mohammad. Free speech is free speech.”

If the sculpture is on prominent display in a courthouse and I am ordered by the state to be in that courthouse, then I could say that I was forced to look at it.

> Show me one case where the ACLU argued against religious speach that didn’t involve someone being forced to listen.
The ACLU helped ban the 10 Commandments sculpture. No one’s ever been forced to look at a statue. or a painting of Moses or Jesus or Mohammad. Free speech is free speech.

Show me one case where the ACLU argued against religious speach that didn’t involve someone being forced to listen.

“3. I’m FORCED to pay taxes, so government can pay for a little of what I want”

Not if it violates my rights.

1. No one’s ‘forcing’ you to listen
2. No one has the right not to be annoyed
3. I’m FORCED to pay taxes, so government can pay for a little of what I want
4. As long as government subsidizes art and speech that degrades religion, then it can also support art that respects religion

5. The bottom line is that there’s too much government, so more and more of what we do is ‘public domain’ rather than a matter of individual rights.

Out of curiosity which definition of establishment is the ACLU using since I do not see one that agrees with their doctrine. There is the word “an” which is referring to singular object and not plural. Then there is respecting which probably means regarding. It sounds to me like the writers were saying that Congress should not make a law showing favoritism to and one organized religion. The Anglican Church is an organized religion and so is the Roman Catholic but the Christian religion is not organized as it is not all one organization with one doctrine. On the other hand at the time of the Revolution War The Church of England was the established religion of England and the Catholic Church was the established religion of France.