Muscatine

The other part that libs like to conveniently ignore from the Const. is the phrase, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,..."

BS

How do you reach that conclusion?   Librals embrace the first amendment.   It is one of our most cherished parts of one of our most important documents.   It is what really makes this country what it is.

Mall has trouble with the sep of ch & st not being lieterally written in the Const., but the above phrase limits this section's applicability to Congress...not schools or local gov'ts.

Mall doesn't have that trouble.

The Supreme Court ages ago removed any troubles I may have had by wisely ruling that establishment and prohibit apply to all levels of goverment.   Perhaps they reasoned that all lower levels of government derive their powers courtesy of Congress.   Perhaps they reasoned that if the intent was to separate church and state, it made no sense to apply it only to Congress.

I don't know, but it was one of the most important decisions they have ever made.

Mal said:  "So why "separation of church and state"?  What's your trouble with those words not being in the constitution?"

I don't have any "trouble" with those words not being in the constitution!   I'm just fine with the wording the founding fathers used in the constitution, and the exclusion of those words.  Evidently you are not.

I'm fine with them as written AND interpreted.

 :

"Support" would mean the same as facilitate, promote, or sponsor in any way.  But I believe the government does support religion, if you use those definitions.  You would have to say the tax exempt status granted religions and churches is definitely "support", wouldn't you?  So I don't the Constituion prohibits all "support".  If it does, we don't follow the Constitution, do we?

I think we allow the exception of tax exempt status for religious property because the power to tax is also the power to destroy so it's best to allow it and not step over the boundary against prohibition

I could accept taxing the buildings for fire and police protection.

Salaries are subject ot income tax.

"Religion" in the current context of our discussion, means to me: Any particular denomination (such as Methodist, Roman Catholic, Hasitic Judahism, Sunni Muslim, etc.).  It does not mean Christianity or any general set of Western Culture Morality.  So the Constitution does not prohibit the promotion of Christian principles and morality.  In fact they were used in the construction of the basis for legal system.

You can't redefine Christianity as being something other than a rligion.   When we speak of the great religions of the world, we include Christianity.   We don't exclude Islam but limit ourselves to the various branches like Sunni, Whahabi, Shia etc.

"Involved in government"?  I really don't know what you mean, or would I adopt that principle nor would I have a meaning for it.  There is no prohibition against religions getting involved in government.  Churches cannot promote particular political parties without risking the loss of their tax exempt status, but they certainly are not prohibited from doing it as a matter of law.

But they are prohibited by law.   The punishment is loss of tax exemption.   It's not well enforced.   There is always much screaming and gnashing of teeth when a preacher and his congregation are threatened with loss of tax exemption so the IRS treads very softly.

You refused to give us your interpretations, but you try to pick mine apart???  What a low life dispicable childish Obamalike move.  SOP for you guys, though.