Uh ? Did he mean priest-ridden as in people being metaphorically ridden like horses; or people who got rid of their priests ?
The former. Look up “hag-ridden.”
You really believe nobody understands the ACA? I’ll admit it’s a long document written in legal terminology but it’s not in some secret language. Any competent lawyer could explain its meaning.
The people who are saying it can’t be understood just don’t want to understand it.
Freedom of religion is just to protect you from being persecuted for your beliefs,Prison,executed,etc. Atheism can be consider a religious belief if you were to attend a church and teach lessons on how to practice atheism. Not that I tend to encourage it. I think every one believes in a greater power. The real problem is no one can seem to agree on what it is to be called.
As for separation of church from state. Thats just a lie. Sorry government wants education of religion out of school systems yet they still profits off of divorces and marriage license. That sends message they only want separation of the two when it doesn’t profit them. But to me to have science you need religion because of the ethic’s it brings to a culture. Science for the sake of science is a dangerous thing with no ethic’s
I feel it incumbent upon me to point out that the two words I emphasized appear to be your own additions to the most parsimonious analysis of the Establishment Clause.
That said, as one who has not read the Federalist Papers, I would be interested in learning, perhaps from someone who has, just how deep the reasoning went wrt why the clause was included in the First Amendment.
I’d love some evidence suggesting that the FF agreed that matters of metaphysical import should simply be left up to the conscience and intellect of the individual.
P.S. Welcome to the SDMB, ernest! I do hope you enjoy your stay. 
Just as a friendly heads-up, an apostrophe is NOT a piece of punctuation that means Here comes an “s!” The word “ethics” does not require one.
I don’t necessarily agree that ‘science for the sake of science’ is the ethical hazard you present it as, culturally, but if you hold this view, do you then regard the other side of that coin as equally dangerous? Religion for the sake of religion is effectively superstition, isn’t it? As stated, you seem to suggest religion must be counterweight to science, and I’m asking if you feel the pendulum must then swing the other way.
Addressing the broader thread now, and not just your post, where, in the US, is the government forcing religion from schools? There can be no mandated prayer in school, but there is most certainly prayer in school without the mandate. “You can’t make them pray” does not equal “you can’t let them pray”, not by a long shot. Anecdote to follow, about four months ago I sat through my daughter’s overly long high-school graduation because of the many, many prayers and invocations attached to it, both by invited speakers (commencement and such), and the prayers and religiously themed poetry that three of the five valedictorians felt would add to the proceedings. Which was achieved, since as I said, it was overly long.
Yes, five valedictorians. I believe the ‘everyone gets a trophy!’ component of modern child-rearing practices has run amok, but that’s a topic for another thread.
Also anecdotal, my son played high-school football. He claims, now and then, to be atheist (but when I press the issue, it seems apparent he should be claiming agnosticism) and was always uncomfortable in these situations. But, as has been implied earlier in this thread, you go along to get along.
In short, the ACLU isn’t showing up to put a hasty end to these things. The threat to the exercise of religion isn’t there that I’ve ever seen. Freedom of religion should include freedom from religion, but we’re not there yet. And Justice Scalia is a pretty good example of why that is.
I have lived in america my whole Life. ancestors even go back to the native American Indians. There is no such thing as free. Some one has either paid for it in blood or will pay for it in blood. Not freedom of religion,freedom of press or freedom of speech. At any time with the new anti terrorist laws and home land security acts. they can pick you up off a street throw you in a cell turn off the lights and leave you there. You only have rights when you have the money and power behind you to enforce them.
Ha, thanks. Didn’t know that idiom. Ignorance soundly thrashed !
they are being forced out threw ability of freedom of speech or practice of prayers in the schools systems. You practice science biology algebra or any thing else consider science nothing is said. You talk about science nothing is said. Heaven help you if you wish to pray or read a bible or talk about jesus versus allah. I think a course should be taught in schools as a elective concerning all types of religions in our country. Key words All and Elective. As for religion for the sake of religion No I do not agree with it either. MY god as I would like to call him because he the person whom I answer to would have me do good things in the world. Some one else god may have them blow crap up. So I tend to agree with a person religious freedoms until they intentionally harm others.
To me if science allows me to do good things in the world it actually works with my religious beliefs, But when I look at the stars at night and a scientist tells me god don’t exist I tend to think the scientist is being small minded and can’t see a bigger picture.
A scientist wouldn’t tell you that. A scientist would tell you that there is no evidence that God exists (Scientists are cautious about what they accept as factual). That doesn’t mean they go around telling other people what to believe. They’re a pretty open-minded lot: I suspect that if compelling evidence were presented, most scientists would take it on board and revise their worldview to accommodate it. Right now, though, most of the positive evidence for any god is “because I said so” or “because someone I respect said so.” That’s not enough for a scientist. If it’s enough for you, though, great.
orange thank you for the welcome. If it matter I treat science and religion in my own life on a balance platform to a degree. Be like if I could make something science wise if benefit wise it is in the best interest of the whole of society. My religion causes me to ask questions concerning the long term effects around me. be like a front porch swing with 10 family members in person versus every one on cell phones. Or being on a laptop versus watching squirrels playing. Science applications can have long term affects which from a religious view do more harm than good. So I try to look at both sides of things without fence jumping.
As for evidence of god. One can have personal evidence and not be able to show it to the whole. Sorta be like seeing and proven. You can see a lot of things in your life. But doesn’t mean your going to walk away with proof. Pascal wagers I think fit this topic a lot live 90 days as if there was a god and 90 days as if there wasn’t a god. When your done figure out which way you would rather live. Some times its more in the believing than the proven
You won’t find that kind of discussion in the Federalist Papers, because they came before the 1st Amendment. They were written in support of the Constitution as originally drafted in Philadelphia, without the Bill of Rights. In fact, at one point the Federalist Papers make the argument that since the Constitution only grants the federal government limited powers, there was no need for a Bill of Rights. That argument was in response to people like Mason of Virginia, who challenged the ratification of the Constitution because it lacked a Bill of Rights.
To find drafters’ comments on the First Amendment, you would have to go to the Congressional Record for the 1st Congress, to see what was said about the First Amendment (actually the third proposed amendment in the original 12 amendments proposed by the 1st Congress).
You would also have to review the debates in the state houses to determine what the elected reps who ratified the Amendment said about it.
Physicist Steven Hawking Claims ‘There Is No God,’
I can’t imagine anyone claiming that Stephen Hawking is not a scientist. 
You’re wrong. Many people do not believe in a greater power. Why would anyone go to church to worship something they don’t believe exists?
Remember that for much of our history the 1st amendment was an injunction against the Federal government only. The states were free to Establish religions, and some did. Look at this section of the original Massachusetts Sate Constitution (and remember that many of the most important Founders were from that state) to see that separation of Church and State was a federal, not a state issue:
*Article II. It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly and at stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience, or for his religious profession or sentiments, provided he doth not disturb the public peace or obstruct others in their religious worship.
Article III. As the happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion, and morality, and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community but by the institution of the public worship of God and of the public instructions in piety, religion, and morality: Therefore, To promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies-politic or religious societies to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.
And the people of this commonwealth have also a right to, and do, invest their legislature with authority to enjoin upon all the subject an attendance upon the instructions of the public teachers aforesaid, at stated times and seasons, if there be any on whose instructions they can conscientiously and conveniently attend.
<snip>
And every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law; and no subordination of any sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.*
If you looked at the hubble scope pictures of different solar systems. How a sun can swallow a planet with its gravity pull. How moons seem to rotate around planets in circle patterns. How a atom is all most built the same way. There is a greater design to the universe. I think the problem is a dust mites perspective to that of a humans. The bigger we find out things are the more limited our view becomes when it comes to the existent of god or if there is something or some one powerful enough to design and create something that big. Plus I do believe Einstein was once known for saying when science reached the top of the mountain they would see god looking down on them. But just for the record they disclaim he said that. Much like they disclaimed samuel l adams/ mark twain accused his best friend in public of giving his wife herpes.
I am sorry that you cannot imagine that I can’t look at the stars and say that there is a “higher power”, but it is true.