Dec 16th 2011, 16:51:36
Originally posted by ViLSE:
In the United States, the term is an offshoot of the phrase, "wall of separation between church and state," as written in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. The original text reads: "... I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." Jefferson reflected his frequent speaking theme that the government is not to interfere with religion.
If that is so, then why do I keep hearing about religious functions in public places being blocked by activist judges because one or two ppl go to these and suddenly get "offended" by them? If there is no legislation against such functions, then there should be no judicial action taken against these functions. If there IS legislation against these public functions, then either our Constitution is moot, or nobody's bothered to call the government out on it.
EDIT: When I say "religious functions" I mean anything from using public buildings to hold religious "social-gatherings" to a replica of the 10-commandments in a building lobby to those triple crosses on the side of the highway.
I am a troll. Everything I say must be assumed to be said solely to provoke an exaggerated reaction to the current topic. I fully intend to bring absolutely no substance to any discussion, ongoing or otherwise. Conversing with me is pointless.