Pyrian on 23/1/2007 at 00:57

---

Yes, it does. The problem, of course, being that you're not thinking about what it actually means.

SlyFoxx on 23/1/2007 at 01:06

---

I don't think you can call reporting facts about a man running for president of the US "shit-flinging." You want to sit in the big chair then you better be prepared for the anal exam of your life. Maybe it sucks and maybe it doesn't but that's the way it goes.

demagogue on 23/1/2007 at 01:24

---

FFS, who here is reading it like an ESL student and who like a lawyer? (Not directed at you Fingernail.)

The establishment clause (the important part, not the free-exercise clause), whatever it meant 250 years ago, today as the caselaw has interpreted it means that generally that the government should not sponsor or spend resources in a way that could be construed as establishing one federally favored religion over others. The government is still allowed to support religious based organisations as long as they avoid that.

So that means you still get:

- civic religious language on money and public buildings
- To the extent the gov't does support substantive religious statements, e.g., Christmas decorations, it needs to do so on an equal opportunity basis. They need to put up a menorah as well. But all this means is that there is still a kind of sponsorship of a set of favored religions; e.g., nobody ever needs to put up a quanza lamp.
- The government can give public money to schools (through some initiative like giving every school money for books, through scholarships, etc), some of which will go to private religious schools in some form, which in effect means to religious instruction, as long as the money is given in a way that doesn't look like support the religion per se (equal opportunity funding or non-compelled use of scholarship). But in practice it may be hard to differentiate: tax dollars are buying bibles to teach religion).
- As is well known, Bush offered federal money to support "faith-based" charity work; again he needed to be equal-opportunity and blind to the religious doctrine. But it was more or less constitutional. But again, in the end you get tax dollars allowing them to produce religious literature for religious use.
- And you get a ton of unofficial stuff going on behind the scenes. One of the most popular unofficial caucasus in Congress is a prayer group. I know the congressman I worked for would often pray and get religious guidance for very many of his political decisions, and he wasn't unique.

The point is, non-establishment is still not even secularist as an absence of religious ideology from gov't work and complete non-favoritism (and still further from gov't atheism, which by the way would technically be an established ideology and unconstitutional). But it is still something. Fingernail has a decent answer, but it begs the question a little because "secular" is still a context-dependent term (unlike atheism), and people will disagree when the gov't is really being equal-opportunity and non-favortist versus when it is showing favoritism in practice, behind the scenes. But at least it weeds out the really egregious stuff pretty well.

Fingernail on 23/1/2007 at 01:35

---

well clearly this is what I meant, duh. :rolleyes:

Rug Burn Junky on 23/1/2007 at 02:51

---

Almost universally, when someone says they actually mean