One of the basic intentions of the founders of our country was that the Constitution would be interpreted by the courts over time, making the Constitution actually a framework for present US laws. This has evolved into a strong and lasting custom of separation between the church and state in our country. The writings and opinions of early US statesmen have been used by the Supreme Court and other courts to formulate their decisions. Statements such as “…the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting the establishing of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.” by Thomas Jefferson and “The Constitution of the U.S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.” by James Madison have been even more influential than the Constitution itself. These ideas clearly show an intention by the founders of the US to maintain people’s individual rights to practice the religion they choose, or to have no religion at all, while preventing the Federal Government or any other US governmental agency from sponsoring a particular religion over others.

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.

Another way to look at the ACLU is to look at who opposes them. The Thomas More Law Center is one of their chief opponents. They support causes exclusively that advance the Christian (Right Wingers)agenda, which they euphemistically call Christian rights. Would you have no advocacy for Americans who differ in opinion from Thomas More? opinions

Is the football teem Congress or even the federal government?

The coach is an employee of the school. The school receives virtually all of its funding from local, state, and federal governments. This makes the school an agent of the various governments. The courts have ruled time and again that freedom of religion clause is applicable.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

Is the football teem Congress or even the federal government? The answer is no so we have already in territory untouched by the first Amendment so violating it is really not the question.

If you are going to lie to apply the First Amendment in the first place then what is going to stop you from lying again to achieve whatever gain you are after.

So why argue about a point that is very plain. The ACLU and anyone else attacking religions on public property is a liar.

If they attack legislation passed by Congress that they believe supports and establishment of religion then we possibly have an honest debate.

The common thread to most of these cases is that the ACLU and church state separation organizations is, that you cross the line when the religious act takes place in a public school, court room, or other entity where the government is in sponsorship. Those same individuals would be able to pass out leaflets in their own neighborhoods, churches or the streets of New York City to their hearts content, even though passing out leaflets could be condidered intimidating and coercive to those who recieve them.

What goes on a persons grave stone has been interpreted repeatedly as PRIVATE expresion of religion and has been allowed.

I’m sure that if a Muslim football coach (of a public school) wanted his team to pray to Allah before each football game that would be opposed by the ACLU and others even if the team were 80% and tha majority of the players wanted to have the prayers.

And somehow I know the ACLU would defend these Wiccans against that discrimination, whereas they’ll oppose the Christians.

If the ACLU wins this case, the precedent is set and the Wiccans would be out of line.

But if the ACLU loses this case, I sure hope some minority group tests this school district. If the district prevents the minority from doing something that the majority was allowed to do, you’d better believe the ACLU would jump right back in.

And somehow I know the ACLU would defend these Wiccans against that discrimination, whereas they’ll oppose the Christians. But we can speculate all night.