That's crap. When I was younger there were many conservatives and (believe it or not) republicans who believed in protecting our civil liberties.
If that stand is now considered "liberal" then this country is even more plarized than I thought.

__________________
The most important political office is that of private citizen.
Louis D. Brandeis - First Jewish Supreme Court Justice

That is very much what is considered liberal in the classic definition of the term and still so everywhere except in the U.S. for some reason.

__________________
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

This is a first.

Usually Louisiana officials give the taxpayer monies to themselves and their spouses.

__________________

I guess there's always a silver lining right?

__________________
The most important political office is that of private citizen.
Louis D. Brandeis - First Jewish Supreme Court Justice

Really? Then why was it done by the founders? Were the founders, many of whom risked their lives and fortunes for the sake of our new nation less aware of the meaning of the Constitution THEY WROTE then wise people like you and the ACLU hundreds of years later?

First of all, the words "separation of church and state" are NOWHERE to be found in the Constitution. And even the person who wrote those words, Thomas Jefferson, clearly did not give them the meaning modern day anti-religious bigots do.

Jefferson, as President of the United States specifically requested the Congress to provide FEDERAL FUNDS be provided for the BUILDING OF A CATHOLIC CHURCH and the payment of its priest's salary to perform the his duties (as a priest) and to teach indians.

Can you really argue that it is a reasonable interpretation of Jefferson's words when his own actions contradict any such interpretation?

Including apparently the man who wrote it, Thomas Jefferson (see above regaring Jefferson requesting funding to build a Catholic church).

Guess Jefferson was a fool who had no idea what he was saying? Thank god we have people like you to explain to us what he REALLY meant.

And again, what "separation of church and state" actually meant...IT IS NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION!!!!!!!

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

If handing taxpayer money to a christian church with no accountability or condition is not "establishment" of a state religion then nothing is.

The funds for the catholic church were part of an indian treaty. It was one of over 40 indian treaties jefferson signed and the only one which mentions religion. Jefferson did not actually write any of the treaties himself and this one included the money for the church not because anyone in the federal government wanted it that way but because the tribe members were deeply religious and negotiated it in. Claiming he "specifically requested the Congress" to provide the money may be technically true if you consider every provision of every treaty to be "specifically requested the Congress" but is obviously phrased to mislead. Since the funds were given to a sovereign nation as part of a treaty it has no constitutional relevance in this country.

__________________
The most important political office is that of private citizen.
Louis D. Brandeis - First Jewish Supreme Court Justice

The establishment clause meant nothing more and nothing less than prohibiting Congress from declaring an official state religion (such as was the case with the Church of England).

Really? Treaties do not need to comply with the Constitution? I was unaware of the Deeply Religious Indian Tribe Treaty exclusion to the establishment clause. Thanks for clarifying.

IF the establishment clause prohibits any and all financial support to any religion, than Jefferon and the Congress violated it.

FAR more rational an explanation is that they and Jefferson had a much better understanding of what the Establishment Clause actually meant than you do.

If nothing else, how do you explain the existence of the Congressional Chaplain?

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

And giving taxpayer money to a christian church qualifies as establishing an official state religion.
Yes really. Treaties do not need to "comply" if by "comply" you mean apply the same limits to foreign governments that apply to our own. Don't sweat the indian thing - I learn new things here all the time.

The establishment clause applies only to the US government. I don't know how much more simply I can say it. And the chaplains just show we have not yet perfectly applied the constitutional concept. Just like all the other religious expression which courts have allowed lately, I'm sure that when the congressional chaplains are tested in court, the court will find the practice is "historical" and not "religious" in nature. And I hope all the right wing christians are pleased that they have degraded those expressions to mere historical tradition in their heedless pursuit of state sanctioned religion..

__________________
The most important political office is that of private citizen.
Louis D. Brandeis - First Jewish Supreme Court Justice

I'm confused about the role of religion in the US, and perhaps someone can explain it to me. It's not ok to give public funds to a religious institution, but it is ok to develop government policy to support religious ideology? Do I have that right? Kind of seems like whilst one hand is taking something away, the other hand is giving it.

"Religious ideology" is a pretty broad term. Many people's morals are in formed by "religious ideology" of one kind or another. Including voters and elected officials who write the laws (if they have any morals). And many laws are based on those moral principles. So yes it is reasonable to spend public money on policies that "support" religious ideology.

On the other hand state support for a specific religious institution is a danger to the free exercise of all religions.

__________________
The most important political office is that of private citizen.
Louis D. Brandeis - First Jewish Supreme Court Justice

Clearly not, since they did it

So, if we entered into a treat with the Government of Mexico to give them $20 billion a year to build catholic churches in the United States, that would not be a problem?

No, what the chaplain shows is that your reading of the meaning of the Establishment clause was not only not shared by the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution, but was specifically REJECTED by their actions.

When will people like you learn the difference between what YOU think the constitution SHOULD have meant, and what it ACTUALLY was understood to say.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

Please pay attention. The money was for a church on indian land. A sovereign state. Not in the US.

Clearly my interpretation is correct since the government sponsored religious expressions which are successfully brought to trial are either removed or declared to be historical and traditional in nature and not expressions of religion as in the recent courthouse grounds and graduation "moment of silence that used to be prayer" cases. I hope you are proud of that. Your ilk is cheapening expressions that used to have religious meaning.

__________________
The most important political office is that of private citizen.
Louis D. Brandeis - First Jewish Supreme Court Justice

Where is the foreign land exclusion to the establishment clause? If the establishment clause prohibits any and government support to religion, where in the constitution is the exception for outside of our borders?

OR, the courts, recognizing how uttelry baseless their interpretation (shared by you) has been, they've had to make up even more baseless nonesense to avoid consistently applying it to such an extent it would result in the appropriate corrective action finally be taken against them for their blatent abuse of power.

When the issue is the indefensibility of a particular interpretation, it is begging the question to site the court, which while it confers LEGAL precedential status on lower courts does not in any way shapre or form itself stand as proof of the intellectual defensibility of your position.

That is the fundamental flaw with EVERY baseless precedent the leftist judges have created. They are forced to either create increasingly strained exception after exception, often contradicting their own reasoning in other cases in order to avoid overreaching so much that the backlash finally takes them down.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

This is the last time I will explain it because this concept is grade school civics.
The constitution defines the limits of US federal government power in the United States. It does NOT define the limits of sovereign government powers in areas outside the US. The constitution does not protect the free exercise of religion for anyone except people in the united states. What in the world would give the writers of the constitution the right to describe the limits of somebody elses government? That makes no sense at all.


After almost 30 years of republican judicial appointments, the liberal judges spend all day thinnking of ways to outsmart people like you while ignoring the constitution. I will probably never live long enough to hear the end of the "liberal judges did it" whine from people who don't even understand the most basic facts about their own constitution.

__________________
The most important political office is that of private citizen.
Louis D. Brandeis - First Jewish Supreme Court Justice

The Constitution doesn't "guarantee" free exercise of religion, it PRESUMES it and by way of protecting it, the First Amendment is an affirmative limitation on the power of Congress. It does not say "the Congress of the United States shall makes laws protecting the free exercise of religion" it say merely that congress shall pass NO law.

If the expenditure of public funds on churches and priests is "establishment" then under NO circumstances may congress appropriate funds for such a purpose. Not here, not anywhere, and it may not do an end-run around it merely by having it done through a third party if the appropriation is nonetheless for that specific objective.

IF HOWEVER, the expenditure of public funds on such things was NOT understood to be "establishment" of religion, than all these silly distinctions, and exceptions, and other things with NO basis in the text or history and traditions of our society simply vanish.

Hey, some Republicans (including three who would by today's standards by LIBERALS) have made some REALLY, REALLY bad appointments to the courts. Those include Stevens and Souter. That doesn't change the fact that they are liberals and have taken it upon themselves to substitute their judgement for the clearly expressed will of the people on many, MANY occasions, evidenced by the increasinly convoluted and complicated exceptions and distinctions and sometimes flat out contradictory reasoning in their cases.

How about this for a most basic fact. The death penalty is ABSOLUTELY 100% constitutional. Only an someone supremely ignorant or dishonest could conclude that a document that clearly provides for the existence of capital crimes prohibits them from existing. Yet several liberal justices have indicated a willingness to IGNORE this fact, and obliterate the right of the people to impose this penalty, absent any legitimate basis (at least not one they have not subsequently contradicted in other cases where that rational cuts against them).

And by the way, thanks to Bush's two appointments, we are no FINALLY starting to get back on more defenisible and legitimate rule of law on the bench....tried to get a partial birth abortion lately? UPHEALD!!!!!

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane