David B. said:
Really? I don’t remember reading that part, must have missed it. I had something kinda like that happen to me once, it really stinks.
The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation.
– Henry David Thoreau
“First, he wasn’t just prevented from re-entering the graduation, but also from attending a later dance (the rule did not apply to going to something later – he was barred because they were afraid he’d raise a stink about what had happened earlier).”
And let’s not forget that he paid for that event in advance. And he didn’t get his money back…
Lynn the Packrat
december:
The principle of separation of church and state comes from a combination of the constitution itself and the founder’s explanations of their reasoning behind it. If separation only means the government can’t establish a religion, then the government could adopt a state religion legally, as long as it already existed, and separation would have little meaning.
The founders said that their intent was to create a “wall of separation between church and state”, and while the courts are somewhat loathe to let investigations of intent overrule a constitutional principle, they do look to intent to clarify constitutional principles.
For example, Jefferson got a law passed forbidding priests from entering public schools at all, and the founders generally tried to resist this kind of religious influence.
Today the House approved the State’s right to allow the 10 Commandments on classroom walls. This appears to be a “we’ve got to do something right now!” reaction to the Columbine High incident and others. This, of course, directly promotes Judeo-Christianity, and thus violates Separation. No one seems to consider it important to show evidence that it will actually help prevent violence (although such studies certainly could have been done) because the real reason is obviously that the religious right wants to undo Separation and now has an excuse and enough influence in Congress. I say it will pass in the Senate, but the Supreme Court will eventually bail us out yet again.
To put it another way, december, Iran, Iraq, and Libya did not establish Islam, so by your definition they meet the principle of separation of church & state. If by “establish” you mean “establish as the state religion”, then those nations would still be in compliance as long as they don’t officially do so, and in theory allow all religions to exist there.
That’s not enough, folks. We must not allow the government to push any kind of religious thinking, because it excludes those who don’t agree. It’s just not fair. Besides which, Freedom and Democracy depend on the reasoned debate of issues, not on assertions of faith.
Someone asked about the original thread. It’s still there, it just may not show up on the list anymore:
FYI, I started a thread in Great Debates (“Will Congress Never Learn?”) on the 10 Commandments thing. That area is where we should really be having this discussion anyway.
See ya there!
“The struggle to be freed from the tyranny of superstition and ignorance resulted in nothing less than the greatest accomplishments of our species.”
– Dr. Dean Edell, Eat, Drink & Be Merry
Hmmm. David’s been picking my pockets again. 
Here’s the url for his thread. You kids go play outside!