Some things are best left unsaid.

I'll say them anyhow!

Jeana Morris

Jeana Morris
Location
Pennsylvania,
Birthday
November 14
Bio
Full time RN, educator, parttime writer. Former competitive athlete now just an athlete, wannabe astrophysicist, wannabe color commentator for the Philadelphia Flyers, Thankfully a mom, wife & daughter. Adventurer -relocating across country this year -2014

MY RECENT POSTS

Jeana Morris's Links

New list
No links in this category.
NOVEMBER 23, 2012 11:20AM

An American Bully - The Atheist

Rate: 3 Flag

Tis the season to be jolly and who else is right there to ruin it but the biggest, baddest bully of them all, the atheist.  Talk about a hater with a lot of time on their hands.  Any time any religious display is discovered, there the atheists are, being oh so offended.

 Like Johnny on the spot, the atheists arrive to protest that their civil liberties are being violated.  So of course it's only a matter of time before the ACLU joins in the reindeer games.  

Atheists are all about protecting their Constitutional right of freedom from religion.  BUT my copy of the Constitution , and yes I carry it with me - iphone app, merely states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Hold on! Before you start typing at Mach 4, I realize that the atheists' gripe is the public display of religious scenes, etc.  Well, I hate violent movies but do I protest in front of the movie theatres?  No.  I just don't go to see them.  Simple, eh? 

The latest victim of the atheists is the city of Santa Monica, California, whose nativity display has been a tradition for 60 years.  The city even offered to let all denominations and non-believers have their own displays.  The atheists used their opportunity to trash all believers.  Good thing the atheists have not yet realized that Santa is Spanish for saint or the town will have to alter its name.   

Freedom From Religion Founation co-president Lauri Gaynor states, "Religion is innately divisive and just doesn't belong in public parks."  Apparently Ms Gaynor did not consult a dictionary prior to employing the term divisive.  It is an adjective that means creating dissention or discord. It's unlikely that she's heard the phrase "peace on Earth, good will towards men."  But then these are words from a religious Christmas song.  The nativity scenes and crosses her group protests so vehemently do not create dissention.  None of these tributes are put up with any intention of stirring the atheist pot.

Gaynor's concern also address the tax-exempt status of "churches on every corner".  Is that the real problem here?  To the bully who steals lunch money, that must really stick in the craw.  

By the way, Ms Gaynor, I live in a town with a main street that is approximately 3 miles long.  It has more than one street corner, but there's only one corner with a church.

What the atheists are doing is chipping away at the first amendment, bit by bit.  Every victory for them is a loss for the American people.  It is a loss of freedom, a loss of expression.  "Government shall not interfer with the right to free expression of religion" yet the U. S. government continues to allow itself to be bullied by the very vocal atheists.  Before we know it the First Amendment will be gone - then what?  Will they start on the Second Amendment?  Join the crowd.  How long before we have to quarter soldiers?

Perhaps the atheists' fear is that Christians are trying to convert them.  First of all, Nativity scenes are not conversion tools.  But atheists' remember all too well how one of their own was converted after protesting a Nativity scene.  Patrick Greene, a long time atheist activist converted to Christianity after suing a local church that had the audacity to display a creche.  Green had to drop his suit after doctors diagnosed him with cataracts.  Green's vision was failing rapidly.  A cabdriver for many years, he had to give up his job for obvious reasons.  

One of the members of the church being sued suggested  that the parishioners donate money to Greene.  They did, Green was shocked.  The action caused him to rethink his beliefs and the rest is history.  As of the April 4, 2012 Huffington post article, Greene had not only announced his intention of converting but also of becoming a pastor.  A November 20, 2012 Christian Post article confirms that Greene is still on course.

I am not trying to convert any atheists.  That is not my intention.  Nor is name calling, but if it walks like a duck...  All I want is for atheists to stop bullying.  Live and let live.  If they want to have a public display at any time of the year, I am there for them.  I might not go to view it but I will defend their right to that display.  I will dissuade any and all who protest, just as vocally and loudly as the atheists protest religious displays.

In the meantime, if something offends you, look away.  If someone picks their nose in public, do you watch?  No way!  You turn your head and move away fast.  Stop acting holier than thou, well maybe that's an unfortunate choice of words, but nonetheless.  No one is stopping you from your disbelief, so let us pay tribute to our God in peace. 

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
Well, I am not an atheist, but if I were, I'd have to tell you to get lost. Who the hell are you...or any theist...to suggest you have the right to do what you will, but others do not have the right to do what they will?

You have a right to want religious scenes and religious theme activities...and you have them. But if you think you have a right to include them in the public sphere...other people have the right to want them not to be there.

The people being "holier than thou" seems to be people like you.
with great regret, what he said.
If you had hoped that, by carrying a copy of the Constitution, you would understand it by osmosis, let me assure you that system of understanding has failed.
Government may not promote or disparage an establishment of religion, and a nativity scene on public property is a promotion. A church may, if it wishes, erect one on its property.

In the case you cite, your complaint should be that it has taken so long to enforce the Est. Clause, provided you understand it. However, there are ample resources on the internet where one may learn the intent of the clause, and how it has been interpreted, so there's an app for that.
When you have a sitting president who once declared that atheists should not be allowed to run for public office, it is not the atheists who are the 'bullies'.

Every atheist in the US has had religionists smear him, cheat him, revile him, ostracize him or otherwise make his life uncomfortable.

Yeah. I know. It's been in vogue in religious circles for the past few years to take a page from political propaganda masters - always accuse them "other guys" of doing what you are yourself doing. What next? Perhaps when atheists resist religious bullies they will be charged with terrorism? I mean, if you're going to follow political propaganda methods, that's what comes next...

.
Another delusional OS troll.
The First Amendment’s meaning is clear: it prohibits Congress from making any law about the establishment of religion—it can’t establish a national church, and it can’t disestablish a state church (Yes, there were state supported/established religions at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the First Amendment).

In fact, Madison also proposed in the 1st Congress an amendment that prohibited state involvement with religion. He called it the most important of his proposals. But this provision was rejected. This rejection is not remarkable since (1) the whole motivation of the Bill of Rights was to limit the powers of the federal government, not the the powers of the states, and (2) several states had taxpayer/state supported churches.

In other words, the First Amendment has nothing to do with Santa Monica’s nativity scene; it is perfectly permissible according to the text and intention of the First Amendment.

The Fourteenth Amendment, likewise, enforces no such prohibition on Santa Monica, as this amendment had nothing to do with religion. In fact, the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment rejected the Blaine Amendment just a few years later (The Blaine Amendment stated, "No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . .). The records show that they were clearly aware that the Fourteenth Amendment that they had just drafted and adopted had nothing to do with state government involvement in religion.

So, in other words, with the failure of both Madison’s and Blaine’s amendments, the people, through their elected representatives, twice formally rejected the idea of placing in the U.S. Constitution a prohibition on the states regarding public displays/support of religion.

Corpus Christi need not change its name; Santa Monica can have nativity scenes; Lutheranism can be the official religion of Minnesota; and prayers can be said at high school graduations. None of these things have anything to do with anything in the U.S. Constitution. Only twisted interpretations try to make them so.

People like PJO love to act like they know about the “intent” of the First Amendment. But, to borrow from a quote commonly attributed to Mark Twain, the problem isn’t what PJO does not know, the problem is what PJO thinks he knows that just ain’t so.
Larry,
Perhaps the source of your habitual misunderstanding of the Establishment Clause comes from that enemy of the Constitution -- Libertarianism.
What you don't understand in this case, as in most regarding the Constitution, is the scope of the clause itself, which reflects the intent. Madison's original Est. Clause submission was this:

“The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.”

It was not rejected, as you foolishly say, but went through an alteration by the House, then reading:

“Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience.”

The Senate then took up the issue, resulting in this:

“Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith, or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion,..."

Madison chaired the joint conference committee of House and Senate, the result being the clause as it exists:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."

If what you claim were true -- that this is simply about forbidding establishing a national religion, or disestablishing a state church -- then they sure went through some needless linguistic acrobatics. But the fact is you are wrong, or rather those who tell you what to think are wrong. It would have been easy to write the clause to reflect your/their claim. If that was the intent of it, it would have read along the lines of what you wrote, removing any ambiguity as to accomplishing that end. Your Illiterate Founders Theory fails here, as elsewhere.

Instead, it uses language that describes a wider scope. To make no law "respecting" -- showing deference to...an establishment of religion -- an organized and recognized church, it accomplishes much more than a mere restriction of a national church, and encompasses the issue of freedom of conscience that, as a matter of consequence of a national religion would be denied-- and that describes freedom of and from religion.

In the Liberal Philosophy of the Constitution -- that your discount bin ideology rejects -- laws are to be drawn from secular reason alone. This is a matter of civil order, as The People can find agreement in law, but not religion. It is also a matter of freedom of conscience, as laws drawn from particular religious beliefs necessarily coerce those of alternate beliefs, and those of no belief.

It is acknowledged, in the Liberal Philosophy from which American liberty is derived, and that you are entirely unfamiliar with, that it is both wrong and impossible to coerce belief, as one either accepts belief or not, and no amount of forcing expressions of fealty to a church can change that.

The failure of the Blaine Amendment has nothing to do with the pursuant incorporation, in time, of the 1st amendment to the people in their state sovereignty. To suggest it is controlling in any way is a whopping non sequitur. However, we know you're not familiar with the aspects of logic, so it's not surprising you think it has any effect.

To make your wrong story short, in Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Court was unanimous in agreement with this part of the decision:

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State."

This doesn't mean Corpus Christi has to change its name, nor does St. Augustine, Los Cruces, San Fransisco or Santa Monica. What it does mean is Santa Monica can't use public property to promote religion by erecting a nativity scene.

You're a low wattage hack, Larry, with no real knowledge of the issue at hand. However, it is fun watching you try to make garbled and inadequate arguments in spite of your deep deficit of comprehension.

Now go back to arguing the Constitution was ratified under false pretense and leave the analysis of the Establishment Clause to the Court that disagrees with your claims.
Justice Black was obviously wrong on the First Amendment. How can “Congress shall make no law” be read the way he reads it without adhering to the dreaded “Illiterate Founders Theory.” Nobody in the 1st Congress read it that way. Nobody pointed to Massachusetts’ state religion, lasting until 1833, as violating the First Amendment’s provision of “Congress shall make no law.” The reason is because the First Amendment has nothing to do with this. But being wrong obviously does not stop a federal judge, however.

(Interestingly, as Columbia law professor Philip Hamburger pointed out in his excellent book _Separation of Church and State_, Justice Black was a Klansman. As a young lawyer in Alabama, he once flashed Klan hand signals to Klan jury members to win an acquittal for his client, who had murdered a Catholic priest for marrying the client’s daughter to a Hispanic Catholic. Now, the link between the Everson decision and the Klan’s anti-Catholic, pro-separation of church and state advocacy might be tenuous, but it’s interesting. Black, as a Klan leader, initiated new members with an oath about the “separation of church and state” and, of course, “white supremacy.” How such a person was appointed to the bench is a mystery.)

This is how Madison explained the prototype Establishment Clause, intended to be placed in Article I, Section 9, among the limits on Congress: the meaning of it was that “congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience.” He pointed out that the state ratification conventions had feared that “Congress” might try to “infringe the rights of conscience and establish a national religion,” and that his amendment should alleviate these fears.

Yet Benjamin Huntington of Connecticut (Connecticut had an established church, and still had one almost thirty years later) inquired whether this prototype clause might be twisted to interfere with his state’s policy on religion. He was basically told it would not, and the “Congress shall make no law” was inserted to clarify the amendment’s intent. So yes, the text was changed slightly along the way, but its chief intent was as clear as its final text—it’s a limitation on Congress, not the states. Religion was to be left exclusively with the states.

Maybe you should read books instead of just wikipedia, PJO, because apparently you are unaware that with the Bill of Rights Madison also proposed the following: “No state shall infringe the equal rights of conscience, nor freedom of speech, or of the press, nor of the right of trial by jury in criminal cases.”

Madison described this as “the most valuable amendment on the whole list.” This is what was rejected, PJO, the only proposal that applied to the states. And the rejection is not surprising, since Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Connecticut all had state religions. And, as I mentioned, the whole motivation and purpose of adding a Bill of Rights was not to limit state authority. North Carolina and Rhode Island weren’t exactly delaying ratification until a federal power to veto state laws on religion, speech, press, etc., was added. No. As the court correctly said in Barron v. Baltimore (1833), the motivation for the Bill of Rights was to limit federal power. The Bill’s preamble says as much as well.

PJO is still caught up in the silly “if that’s what they meant, why didn’t they just write it that way” line of thinking. (Even though his own arguments fail this silly test from time to time.) But even the text is pretty clear in this case: Congress can’t make any laws “respecting,” that is, “about” or “with regard to,” establishments of religion. Here the text conforms with its intention—keeping religion a state matter. I’m not sure why you want to belabor this point on the text, considering that the text has absolutely no potential operation on Santa Monica’s nativity scene anyway, unless “Congress” = “Santa Monica.” Which brings us to the failed Blaine Amendment.

The “Blaine Amendment” is totally relevant because of the way the court strikes down state and local laws on this subject. It is technically done through the Fourteenth Amendment, not the First. It is the court’s interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s “due process” clause that is theoretically at issue. If Chief Justice Marshall had been presented the Santa Monica nativity case, he would have ruled just like he did in Barron v. Baltimore. The only way to argue that the nativity scene violates the U.S. Constitution is to point to (a phony interpretation of) the Fourteenth Amendment. But as the records show, the Fourteenth Amendment was not intended or understood to prohibit the states from establishing a religion, let alone prohibiting Santa Monica’s nativity scene. James Blaine, and other Fourteenth Amendment framers, knew this well.

It’s safe to say that Thomas Jefferson, the chief draftsman of those “liberal” documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, would agree with me on the First Amendment, and not you, PJO. The First Amendment’s text and intention does not even apply in this case. The First doesn’t have anything to do with state or local policies on religion. Which leaves only the Fourteenth Amendment, and, as we’ve seen, you don’t have a case there either. Your only case is to twist the meaning of law into something never formally assented to by the sovereign people. Twice the people formally defeated your and Hugo Black’s version of the Constitution via their elected representatives.
Larry,
That's an interesting analysis, if the subject being discussed is how to want for a certain conclusion and then ignore every element of reason and reality to qualify it.

Yes, an airheaded ideologue would not be able to see that a state religion, by a logically valid consequence, violates freedom of conscience. Nor would such an airhead realize that, in the language used in the Establishment Clause, that by making no law respecting an establishment of religion, it goes beyond the simple description of a state religion to encompass the larger point of conscience.

Your logically fallacious attempt to describe a rejection of matters apart from the establishment clause as a rejection of the clause, and somehow relevant to the point, is as poor an application of sophistry as can be had. As I showed, Madison's intent survived, the language succinct and encompassing of a wider intent than a national religion.

You can cite irrelevant facts, suppositions, quotes, analyses or cover your ears and scream nanananana. But the facts, the history, the philosophy and the Court are solidly against your stacking of BS and rejection of relevance and obvious conclusions.

You are a logical hazard area, Larry, but that is never apparent to the the residents of Ideologyland, because of the Catch 22 of diminished capacity precludes a self-diagnosis of diminished capacity. In this, as in all other related topics, you begin with a conclusion and then work your way back through a disjointed construction of irrelevance no different than those who try selling the idea the Earth is but 6k years old.

If not for the insulting of intelligence in general, ideologues such as yourself should be ignored. You're not a thinker. You're a jukebox of absurd theories, all designed to accomplish the impossible task of imitating intelligence.

I hope you don't consider this too personal, but would you describe, in terms short of sickening, what Tom Woods' poops taste like?

That big red clown nose your wear to these events is denying you sufficient oxygen. Your argument is crap, Larry. Gibberish. Reality has repeatedly beat your delusions into poo-paste. I'm just assisting in the task of turning your poo points into poo Poi.

Aloha.
I'll leave the legal argument to PJO. He's doing an excellent job. But on your thesis of atheists being bullies to the religious, there are a couple of things that I would like to point out.

First, any religion which purports to hold the keys to your personal salvation, and your only alternative is eternal damnation, well, that is a much greater type of intimidation or bullying than what this posts describes. What process, which seeks to change free thought, could be anything but intimidation?

The only way that this would not be seen as intimidation would be to believe their purpose is to change the non religious to something that is actually valid and beneficial. It is ironic that you used a document which is designed to protect freedoms to support this process. It is not in the interest, or promoting freedom to reaffirm what one already believes. The heaven or hell paradigm is inherently a bully tactic. It is a metaphysical gun to the head of the soul.

Second, history is full of states with established religious practices which sought to control the activities of its citizens and subjects. Controlling a person's cosmology is a powerful lever on their actions. I know of no state which mandated free thought, and can not imagine how free thought would allow the concentrated power of a state to manipulate its citizens or subjects. It lacks the leverage that religion provides. Bullying is a type of leverage. Free thought is not.

Finally, and most interesting, you use the following words as you worked toward your own conclusion.

"In the meantime, if something offends you, look away. If someone picks their nose in public, do you watch? No way! You turn your head and move away fast."

This one is a disturbing misunderstanding of how and why intimidation works. First of all, this is what the bully wants, an unchallenged process. Freedom and the public square are for the location and the process of challenging concentrated power. Freedom is about not turning away. Freedom requires confrontation.

What is more significant was Jesus' actions himself. When people brought a woman to him who had been accused of adultery, which was punishable by stoning to death, they were challenging Jesus to condemn her by Mosaic law. Jesus' response was not to turn away. That would, in fact, deny the value and purpose of moral courage, which is essential in confronting a bully. Jesus responded by saying, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." When the crowd dispersed, he asked the woman who her accusers were. The woman replied that there were no accusers.

Now, this portion of the event demonstrates that this joint action in the public square, for the purpose of community action against an alleged suspect, against a religious law, would have been an injustice. The crowd used this bullying tactic to actually place Jesus himself in a bind, while using the woman as a means to that end. This is how bullying works. Jesus' moral courage defeated the tactic by confronting it, not by turning away.They eached turned away individually, on the individual conditions which resulted from their individual thoughts about their individual souls. Free thought. The joint action of the group representing the religion was the bullying tactic. Justice was found in free thought and individuality.
Let's summarize. I point out the irrefutable fact that (1) the First Amendment was about ensuring that religion was left exclusively with the states, and (2) the Fourteenth Amendment did not alter this situation. Your response?

Name calling, trashy insults, non sequiturs, and irrelevant, rambling bluster. These aren't arguments, PJO. They are the typical response of an unread person who had no argument, zero class, and a trashy, boorish disposition.

Larry3000, signing off
Larry,
You offer an absurd set of justifications for an opinion that is contradictory to the results obtained by reality. If I address them point-by-point, then I'm endorsing absurdity and wasting my time on a ultra-fringe argument of no consequence.

Yes, the contradiction of having freedom from religion at a federal level but not state did exist in the courts for some time. As time passes, logically unsustainable situations tend to adjust, and did. That's a succinct summary, and representative of other issues of transformation, not only slavery.

You can bring your fringe arguments in all day long, and complain when, after first deconstruction, nobody wants to play Entertain the Wingnut by slogging through additional displays of errant thinking and post hoc postulations. You are arguing, as usual, that wiser minds than yours have erred, and the reality of result is illegitimate due to (insert frozen moment in time or fringe opinion of [ insert whomever supplied "your" opinion] ).

Who wants to argue with an ideologue more than once per engagement? I have no respect for your opinion. Nothing personal, as I feel the same about any low-wattage sucker seeking an identity outside of himself. For whatever set of reasons, you decided you were...whatever they call an apostle of Woods etal. Then you learn the tenets of the religion and, very, very much absent a sufficient knowledge outside of the religion, declare the tenets as Gospel. So, you're nothing more than a evangelical trying to push a fringe secular theology. A Jehovah's Witness knocking on reality's door and wondering why nobody wants to answer and learn of your Great Truth that has Evaded Mankind.

Ideologues are airheads. Some higher-functioning than others, but from Brownshit to Bolshevik to Libertarian and Secessionist, that added function is just more gilding on the nutty core of simplistic ideological belief and fanaticism.

If you're young, learn more. If you're old, get used to the eyerolls and poke-funnery and Better Insults Than Yours, even as you cry foul after first launching your own little pebbles of insult-lette attempts. Better yet, seek (and I'm sure you do) the comfortable company of the similarly afflicted ideologues and have True Believer make-out sessions.

Bye Larry. Come back soon.
I only managed to pick this out of your tiresome ramblings:

“Yes, the contradiction of having freedom of religion at a federal level but not state did exist in the courts for some time. As time passes, logically unsustainable situations tend to adjust, and did. That’s a succinct summary.”

You also claim that the rejection of the amendment that would have applied to the states is irrelevant on the meaning of the Establishment clause and "Madison's intent."

So what do the words “Congress shall make no law” mean to you?

When you read these words, do you see “Santa Monica shall make no law”? How about “All governments in the United States shall make no law”? What are you seeing that makes you think that state or local involvement in religion after the First Amendment was somehow a constitutionally dubious fluke of the system, a quirk “in the courts” that somehow managed to slip by for a while?

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

The text is clear: it means Congress, not the states, shall make no law. Madison explained it this way during the debates and throughout this lifetime. The totally separate amendment that would have applied to the states was rejected! People wanted religion left with the states. The records have a mountain of evidence showing that the Bill of Rights was not adopted to apply to the states. Everybody knew this. It’s a historical fact. Even uber-nationalists John Marshall and Joseph Story had to admit this inescapable, undeniable, irrefutable, clear and obvious fact. Story said “the whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the state governments.”

What you want to label as a “fringe argument” is actually a description of reality and truth. What you think is a “logically unsustainable” situation is what was adopted by the people in the Constitution and could only be changed through Article V.

Nothing in the text, either in the actual words and lettering, or in the text’s intention, applies to Santa Monica. It’s a fact. It’s not debatable. There’s no question. It’s clear. Yes, a state religion “violates the freedom of conscience” in a moral sense, and possibly violates the respective state’s constitution, but it does not violate the First Amendment. Say what you want about what you think “Madison’s intent” was, but the text and the intent was a limitation on Congress alone.

So because the First does not apply to the states, your only alternative is the Fourteenth Amendment, and that option has smashed as well. The Fourteenth does not enforce any “freedom of conscience” or any thing having to do with religion against the states. James Blaine and the boys knew this.

Man, you really, truly have no argument. You act like you are some intellectual colossus, yet you are seemingly incapable of presenting anything resembling an argument, let alone a convincing one. I, and the readers, can only interpret all the space you waste with bluster and ramblings as a sign that you have no substantive reply to the debate at hand, that you are unable to meet the evidence and arguments I present, and that you are implicitly conceding that I’m right. You say that you don’t want to waste your time, but yet you waste your time with juvenile ramblings. Just admit that you and the Klansman are wrong and that Larry3000 is right on the First Amendment. It would be more classy than your usual modus operandi.

Larry3000, out
Larry,
The Establishment Clause has been incorporated to the people in their states.
Your crackpot 14th amendment theory is not operative, obviously.

Your frozen moment remains frozen as law and society moved on, leaving you to hold a melting memory. I suppose you'd insist a full grown St Bernard is a puppy because it was once a puppy, so must still be a puppy.

You are an ideologue seeking somebody to, in my case, once again demolish the theories to which you attach yourself. The Blaine Amendment has nothing to do with this. Your insistence it does is mere post hoc garbage.

You may feel I think I'm an intellectual colossus, but my point is you're the exact opposite of that. Everything you wrote in support of your borrowed theory is pure crap with no standing in the reality of result and current jurisprudence. In addition to the fact you don't really have an argument, I guess we can say you HAD an argument, provided you're at least 200 years old. Sorry, Gramps, but that St Bernard puppy won't hunt.

Now take your fringe argument with all it's goofball belches and whines and find somebody willing to entertain it. Or, perhaps you may give up on your particular ideology and choose another. This is typical of ideological fanatics attracted to fringe theories.

If you choose to do that, I will grant you an audience where you can attempt to convince me of the efficacy of the Revolution of the Proletariat or the Glory of the 4th Reich.

You're an ideologue, Larry, not a thinker. Your theories are illogical train wrecks, but you don't have the quality of mind to know that.
In the meantime, if something offends you, look away. If someone picks their nose in public, do you watch? No way! You turn your head and move away fast. Stop acting holier than thou, well maybe that's an unfortunate choice of words, but nonetheless. No one is stopping you from your disbelief, so let us pay tribute to our God in peace.
I'm uncertain if you actually mean this, or if you are simply writing silly things on the internet in order to get attention. People do that, and maybe this is that for you. But, I know someone reading these words DOES agree with it so I just wanted to point out the obvious to them, and maybe to you: We can't look away from the public sphere. To ask that is to, figuratively, look away from our government. To hide our eyes from what our government stands for. If you, the literal YOU (the person) wants to pay tribute to your god, then do so in a legal manner. Put up your little trinkets at work. Plaster your car with Jesus Died for You stickers. Indoctrinate your children. Those are your options. But no, you're not allowed to use taxpayer money to advance your religion. You're not allowed to say "The United States government taxes its people and uses that money to support Christianity." That's what these so-called "bullies" have a problem with. They, and me too, will fight to end all government-sponsorship of religion. That starts off with mangers on public land but that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Next up should be ending Christmas as a federal holiday. Let it be replaced by a secular "End of Year" holiday. Eventually, we may even get churches to pay for their land - they're already mixing politics into sermons, might as well make them pay property taxes.

Point is, you're going to keep feeling "bullied" until you actually understand your "enemy" and what we're fighting for. It has nothing to do with Christianity, per se, and everything to do with a government that is neutral on the topic of religion. Only in that kind of nation can an atheist feel free. And, ironically, a secular nation is exactly what this country is supposed to be. Have your personal religion - just don't tax people to promote it, or use government favors to shelter it.
Larry's getting served on ace after another here; now Modern has finally returned on Jeana. J- explain to a Hawaiian how religion has no bullying element, like, say, planting thorned trees on Island beaches to force the wearing of shoes in a warm climate, or choose another from the near infinite list. It is suggested you take a good and long look at 1st Century herstory, and the ubiquity of the re-born myth, based entirely on the Sun's transit ... It's Sunday, n'est–ce pas? Aloha Nui Loa
Larry's getting served one ace after another here; now Modern has finally returned on Jeana. J- explain to a Hawaiian how religion has no bullying element, like, say, planting thorned trees on Island beaches to force the wearing of shoes in a warm climate, or choose another from the near infinite list. It is suggested you take a good and long look at 1st Century herstory, and the ubiquity of the re-born myth, based entirely on the Sun's transit ... It's Sunday, n'est–ce pas? Aloha Nui Loa
Merry Christmas to any of the above commenters who missed the point. Peace and good will to you all.