Scipio

I was afraid my thread would open the whole religion can of worms, and it seems to have done quite well.

I'll make a couple of points:

To me, there are two important points that guide my thinking: one, government shouldn't use public money for any religious purpose, except when a failure to do so would violate the free exercise clause (ie, military chaplains in Iraq). Two, the government must give leeway to people who wish to practice religion. Essentially, government must "get out of the way," or yield to people who wish to practice or pray. By this, I mean that simple and minor changes of procedure to accomodate religious practice is not only desireable, but required. A good example would be opening an unused room for required Muslim prayers, or allowing a Christian student group to use an empty classroom at a school.

When it comes to things like Christmas trees, Christmas festivities at schools and such have given way to "winter" festivities. It's equitable, and it allows the same practices to go on, only without explicitly religious messages. I think compromises like that are just fine.

Now, on the pledge, non-christian parents shouldn't have their children led in a recitation of the words "one nation under god" by an authority figure when they're at a young age. This is a clear instance where a public structure advances explicitly religious ideas. The opinions of people way smarter than me are divided on this, so I find it rather unlikely that we can resolve the issue here. I think it might be more practical to some to some kind of mutual understanding, rather than just attack eachothers positions.

__________________
"Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."