Teacher punishes student for saying "bless you"

[slowfiveoh]

Those that believe that the country was founded to be a christian nation will not be dissuaded by facts to the contrary.

"Oh that coin says "In God we trust". Naturally that must mean *my* religions God! Poof and tuh-duh, Christian nation!"

Amirite? lol

 

[Tawnos]

A. The Founders repeatedly invoked God in the Declaration of Independence and most of their 50,000+ documents, whether personal letters to one another, friends, and family, or official letters of note, including Congressional Record of early proceedings of Congress. Daily invocations of prayer continue to this day in Congress, as does the Congressional chaplain and chaplains throughout all military branches of service and

This, right here, should be the key that lets you understand their intended separation. As you say, a supreme being was invoked in every other document at the time, it was part of every national mandate, part of national documents, etc. The government that proceeded our constitutional republic claimed a god in its preamble. The founders knowingly, deliberately, and with full intent left out any god from the foundation of THIS country. They deliberately excluded the works of religion from the works of state, and set up an entity that is entirely secular in nature. The only mention they make of religion, in fact, is to prohibit it as a test of office, and to prevent the government from having anything to do with it.

Why would they exclude it from the constitution, the founding document of their new society, if not deliberately to establish the state as separate from the church? As you said, they invoked (what I believe Jefferson called "nature's") god in many areas of their personal lives and previous documents, why not the constitution?

 

[georg jetson]

SNIP

C'est la vie

You have made some pretty "durp" assessments, and my comment was spot on.

Ok... finally a post I can respond to simply...

The black letter law is clear. Any attempt to legislate from the bench is unconstitutional. We all know the SCOTUS makes mistakes and they are most obviously wrong on this issue. So are you... You are wrong BECAUSE the law says what it says and you're simply using mistakes by SCOTUS to prop up your unconstitutional position.

Take your own advice and remove YOUR religious blinders.

 

[slowfiveoh]

Ok... finally a post I can respond to simply...

The black letter law is clear. Any attempt to legislate from the bench is unconstitutional. We all know the SCOTUS makes mistakes and they are most obviously wrong on this issue. So are you... You are wrong BECAUSE the law says what it says and you're simply using mistakes by SCOTUS to prop up your unconstitutional position.

Take your own advice and remove YOUR religious blinders.

A simple review of the founders commentary proves, without question, your position to be uninformed.

People like you are hilarious because you murk whatever you can when it suits your religious opinion.


I have provided citation upon citation to substantiate all of my claims.

Guess what bud?


The "God" on all those little coins isn't your precious God, but the cumulative beliefs of any and all that people hold sacred in their individual capacities.


You have studying to do, and I have provided mountains of evidence for you to get some sort of formal education from.


Its all fine and dandy to use the founders perspective to substantiate the 2nd when discussing its applicability, as it well should be, but you lack the humility and intestinal fortitude to admit that the founders did not ever want any single religion to be shown preferentially, via the mountains and mountains of raw citation provided on the subject of separation of church and state.

I do not, and would not want any Atheistic signs to be displayed in front of any court of law in this country, because I am intelligent enough to know that that would construe visual preferentialism towards my beliefs (or LACK of belief, but you aren't capable of comprehending the difference lol), this, in a society formed around the concept of free men, exercising their beliefs as they see fit.

Your "God" does not belong in the court room, or even on the front lawn. I also am not interested, nor required, to view religious artifacts on the lawn of my non-preferential, neutral government.

The separate establishment of Church and State has been elaborated ad nauseum, and the reality is that you are ignorant to reality, and not willing to learn.


Separation of Church and State pal. Learn it. Live it. Respect it.

Or don't. Not my problem if you look like an ass with your lack of historical understanding.

 

[georg jetson]

Those that believe that the country was founded to be a christian nation will not be dissuaded by facts to the contrary.

That may be the case... Few are willing to spend the time to do an exhaustive self-education on the matter.

Most certainly the country was not founded to be an atheistic nation. The several constitutions were written to keep government away from promoting any "belief system". It does nothing more than acknowledge a common creator from which rights are derived. It has no say so on matters further.

 

[georg jetson]

A simple review of the founders commentary proves, without question, your position to be uninformed.

People like you are hilarious because you murk whatever you can when it suits your religious opinion.


I have provided citation upon citation to substantiate all of my claims.

Guess what bud?


The "God" on all those little coins isn't your precious God, but the cumulative beliefs of any and all that people hold sacred in their individual capacities.


You have studying to do, and I have provided mountains of evidence for you to get some sort of formal education from.


Its all fine and dandy to use the founders perspective to substantiate the 2nd when discussing its applicability, as it well should be, but you lack the humility and intestinal fortitude to admit that the founders did not ever want any single religion to be shown preferentially, via the mountains and mountains of raw citation provided on the subject of separation of church and state.

I do not, and would not want any Atheistic signs to be displayed in front of any court of law in this country, because I am intelligent enough to know that that would construe visual preferentialism towards my beliefs (or LACK of belief, but you aren't capable of comprehending the difference lol), this, in a society formed around the concept of free men, exercising their beliefs as they see fit.

Your "God" does not belong in the court room, or even on the front lawn. I also am not interested, nor required, to view religious artifacts on the lawn of my non-preferential, neutral government.

The separate establishment of Church and State has been elaborated ad nauseum, and the reality is that you are ignorant to reality, and not willing to learn.


Separation of Church and State pal. Learn it. Live it. Respect it.

Or don't. Not my problem if you look like an ass with your lack of historical understanding.

You're going in circles... Go back and re-read my last post.

The only reason historical reference is applied to the 2A is because of successful attempts of the government to ignore it. The language is PLAIN even today. The language is plain in the 1st as well. The federal government has no authority to tell any state or local court ANYTHING with respect to religion. Remove the blinders...

You argue for government control. You argue against separation of powers. Nothing you have posted supports either of these...

 

[Tawnos]

That may be the case... Few are willing to spend the time to do an exhaustive self-education on the matter.

Most certainly the country was not founded to be an atheistic nation.

Nobody claimed that. It was founded to be a secular nation.

The several constitutions were written to keep government away from promoting any "belief system". It does nothing more than acknowledge a common creator from which rights are derived. It has no say so on matters further.

Could you point out where a common creator from which rights are derived is in the constitution? Here's a link to the text of the constitution for you.

 

[georg jetson]

Nobody claimed that. It was founded to be a secular nation.

I almost agree... An attempt was made to remove 'belief systems" from law. The idea was to remove the human's propensity to control others via religion.

Could you point out where a common creator from which rights are derived is in the constitution? Here's a link to the text of the constitution for you.

It is a legal chain of authority...

Of course what I refer to is the Declaration of Independence. From this came the Confederation and finally the US Constitution via a constitutional convention.

 

[Tawnos]

You're going in circles... Go back and re-read my last post.

The only reason historical reference is applied to the 2A is because of successful attempts of the government to ignore it. The language is PLAIN even today. The language is plain in the 1st as well. The federal government has no authority to tell any state or local court ANYTHING with respect to religion. Remove the blinders...

You argue for government control. You argue against separation of powers. Nothing you have posted supports either of these...

Does the 14th amendment not exist in your world?

 

[slowfiveoh]

You argue for government control. You argue against separation of powers. Nothing you have posted supports either of these...

Wrong. I argue that the government lets religion be, and stays out of any and all religious affairs to include any such activity that may be construed to be preferential in nature. Such as the displaying of the Ten Commandments.

I don't even think you know which specific group, and it is specific, that I belong to structurally speaking (Hint: There are two) in regards to the enduring debate about the separation of church and state.

Another Hint: YOURS is the one that explicitly allows government to get away with preferential displays and state laws forcing compulsory prayer in classrooms. Mine wants nothing to do with these things.

 

[Tawnos]

I almost agree... An attempt was made to remove 'belief systems" from law. The idea was to remove the human's propensity to control others via religion.



It is a legal chain of authority...

Of course what I refer to is the Declaration of Independence. From this came the Confederation and finally the US Constitution via a constitutional convention.

Are you really trying to go there? You said "The several constitutions " and "It does nothing more than acknowledge a common creator from which rights are derived." Now you're trying to claim that it's a legal chain of authority? What? Newsflash: the constitutional republic and its federated system of government are breaking the legal chain of authority which came before it, much as the declaration of independence was something that broke the chain of authority before it. The only thing which survived were those rights which were considered to be fundamental and inherent to man, acknowledged as such in contemporary British law.


And, again, the action of founding a country without trying to invoke some divine favor not only speaks loudly, it shouts the intentions of the Constitution's authors.

 

[georg jetson]

Wrong. I argue that the government lets religion be, and stays out of any and all religious affairs to include any such activity that may be construed to be preferential in nature. Such as the displaying of the Ten Commandments.

Ok. I agree that is what you're arguing. I'm arguing the same thing EXCEPT that from a LEGAL stand point, that is NOT what the LAW says. The courts have erred. Simple right? I won't accept court rulings in support of your position because that's NOT the way our republic is set up. If the law is clear, and I think we BOTH agree that it is, then the courts are legislating from the bench. In order to remove anything "religious" from a local court, the constitution MUST be amended.

I don't even think you know which specific group, and it is specific, that I belong to structurally speaking (Hint: There are two) in regards to the enduring debate about the separation of church and state.

I sense you're just aching to tell me. Well... I don't give a rats a$$.

Another Hint: YOURS is the one that explicitly allows government to get away with preferential displays and state laws forcing compulsory prayer in classrooms. Mine wants nothing to do with these things.

I think the most difficult part of wading through your lengthy posts is getting past all of the irrelevant "information" and presumption. STICK to the point dude...

 

[georg jetson]

Are you really trying to go there? You said "The several constitutions " and "It does nothing more than acknowledge a common creator from which rights are derived." Now you're trying to claim that it's a legal chain of authority? What? Newsflash: the constitutional republic and its federated system of government are breaking the legal chain of authority which came before it, much as the declaration of independence was something that broke the chain of authority before it. The only thing which survived were those rights which were considered to be fundamental and inherent to man, acknowledged as such in contemporary British law.

WRONG...

The D of I broke the chain of rule from Britain. It STARTED our chain of authority. The Continental Congress derived its authority from the sovereignty of the states etc...

Just go read a basic explanation here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation

And, again, the action of founding a country without trying to invoke some divine favor not only speaks loudly, it shouts the intentions of the Constitution's authors.

NO. Their intention was to remove "belief systems" from law.

 

[Tawnos]

WRONG...

The D of I broke the chain of rule from Britain. It STARTED our chain of authority. The Continental Congress derived its authority from the sovereignty of the states etc...

Just go read a basic explanation here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation

The articles were found not to be good enough for our perpetual union. In order to form a more perfect union, the constitution broke the authority of the Articles of Confederation. If it had not done so, if those laws were still in place binding us, we wouldn't be bound by constitutional law. I'm not claiming that country fell apart and came back together again, but that the authority of law of the various respective governments (articles of association, of confederation, then the constitution) each uniquely broke from the previous governance and established the new rule of law. If you can't see how the changes made broke the previous chain (e.g. via formation of a federal entity), then you can't see anything at all.

 

[georg jetson]

The articles were found not to be good enough for our perpetual union. In order to form a more perfect union, the constitution broke the authority of the Articles of Confederation. If it had not done so, if those laws were still in place binding us, we wouldn't be bound by constitutional law. I'm not claiming that country fell apart and came back together again, but that the authority of law of the various respective governments (articles of association, of confederation, then the constitution) each uniquely broke from the previous governance and established the new rule of law. If you can't see how the changes made broke the previous chain (e.g. via formation of a federal entity), then you can't see anything at all.

The only chain that was BROKEN was the tie to British law. After that we have a well established chain with NOTHING broken. The Articles of Confederation were legally set aside by the AUTHORITY of the Continental Congress which derives its authority from the several states blah blah... there's no break in the chain after the D of I.

Besides... how ridiculous is it to insinuate that our rights come from... nothing?? Then there is no such thing as "rights".

 

[slowfiveoh]

The only chain that was BROKEN was the tie to British law. After that we have a well established chain with NOTHING broken. The Articles of Confederation were legally set aside by the AUTHORITY of the Continental Congress which derives its authority from the several states blah blah... there's no break in the chain after the D of I.

Besides... how ridiculous is it to insinuate that our rights come from... nothing?? Then there is no such thing as "rights".

Honestly, and truthfully, the real crux of the matter is that you do not want to delve into English comprehension and structure, and furthermore, to simply understand that the government may act in the best interest of society when restricting itself from displaying religious preference.


We are not discussing governmental limitation when referring to the 1st Amendment. We are discussing the enumeration and realization that government has no such rights, and legislation denying government religious freedom is most important, and indeed, necessary to maintaining an unpolluted government.

A judge, acting in his official capacity as a government official, on or about his official governmental grounds, does not have the right to display religious preference in his official capacity. The 1st does not apply to him as an individual in this case.

All of your referencing that it does is due to your own misapplication and misunderstanding of the law.


Furthermore, the judicial system we have is a hierarchy. Any activity by government deemed to be religious in nature may be challenged all the way up to the Supreme Court. This is certainly within their purview. Then SCOTUS can and will make a determination as to the legality of the activity from historical perspective. In fact, when asked the question, the Supreme Court did exactly as I infer and looked to the historical framework laid down by the founders.

The question is not "Does the local court have the 'right' to display religious texts on its property as part of its architecture, decoration, or landscaping via the First Amendment?"

The questions is "Does the local court have the 'right' to display religious texts on its property as part of its architecture, decoration, or landscaping?", period.

When the question was asked, the courts had to refer back to the Establishment Clause and its INTENT. This is different than the application of the 1st as applied to individuals, which is the incorrect argument you have been portraying here.

The court had to literally ask "What is the role of the Government, and what were the intended restrictions upon itself in regards to association with religion?"

The answer was found upon examining the Establishment Clause.


Keep focusing on the 1st Amendment bud and insisting it applies here, but it does not, unless, you are trying to figure out what the limitations on GOVERNMENT are regarding all things religion. This is why specifically, the Establishment Clause and its origination was studied.



As to your comment that I am straying from the point, you are absolutely incorrect. You don't even understand the topic, which is your failing, not mine.

 

[Tawnos]

The only chain that was BROKEN was the tie to British law. After that we have a well established chain with NOTHING broken. The Articles of Confederation were legally set aside by the AUTHORITY of the Continental Congress which derives its authority from the several states blah blah... there's no break in the chain after the D of I.

So if we haven't broken the authority of the articles of confederation, may a person living in one of those states use the wording of the articles in their legal defense for a practice or to overturn a law? Do the states named therein still only get 1 senator and no more than 7 representatives? Or was the authority of the articles of confederation broken when the new law, the constitution, was established? Hint: the answer is "yes".

Additionally, do you still not see how the founders had these other documents which did invoke a higher power, and willfully, intentionally chose not to? Why is that?

Besides... how ridiculous is it to insinuate that our rights come from... nothing?? Then there is no such thing as "rights".

Could you articulate where I claimed this? Or is it going to be similar to when you claimed the constitution secured rights from a common creator then backpedaled?

 

[georg jetson]

So if we haven't broken the authority of the articles of confederation, may a person living in one of those states use the wording of the articles in their legal defense for a practice or to overturn a law? Do the states named therein still only get 1 senator and no more than 7 representatives? Or was the authority of the articles of confederation broken when the new law, the constitution, was established? Hint: the answer is "yes".

Hint - The A of C were specifically replaced... the D of I was NOT.

Additionally, do you still not see how the founders had these other documents which did invoke a higher power, and willfully, intentionally chose not to? Why is that?

There was no need. The authority was established in the D of I.

Could you articulate where I claimed this? Or is it going to be similar to when you claimed the constitution secured rights from a common creator then backpedaled?

I didn't say you claimed anything.

BTW - The "It" I was referring to in my original post was the government and NOT the several constitutions.

 

[georg jetson]

Honestly, and truthfully, the real crux of the matter is that you do not want to delve into English comprehension and structure, and furthermore, to simply understand that the government may act in the best interest of society when restricting itself from displaying religious preference.
.

Honestly and truthfully you just can't stick to the point.

On thing is for dang sure... this is BS "the government may act in the best interest of society when restricting itself from displaying religious preference." That is NOT WHAT THE LAW SAYS!!! Get it. Do you really have to get into "English comprehension and structure" to understand that??

We are not discussing governmental limitation when referring to the 1st Amendment. We are discussing the enumeration and realization that government has no such rights, and legislation denying government religious freedom is most important, and indeed, necessary to maintaining an unpolluted government.

We are discussing EXACTLY "governmental limitation when referring to the 1st Amendment." That is why it is there. In this particular case, the LEGISLATURE has been RESTRAINED.

A judge, acting in his official capacity as a government official, on or about his official governmental grounds, does not have the right to display religious preference in his official capacity. The 1st does not apply to him as an individual in this case.

That's NOT the point. The law CANNOT specify this EITHER WAY. A judge has the authority given to him in the several constitutions. He has NOTHING to do with the legislative branch. IN the 1st the restriction is on Congress. Wheels on the bus...

All of your referencing that it does is due to your own misapplication and misunderstanding of the law.

Really??? How am I miss applying/understanding? Just like people ask rhetorically "what part of INFRINGE don't you understand"... so it goes "what part of SHALL MAKE NO LAW don't you understand.

Furthermore, the judicial system we have is a hierarchy. Any activity by government deemed to be religious in nature may be challenged all the way up to the Supreme Court. This is certainly within their purview. Then SCOTUS can and will make a determination as to the legality of the activity from historical perspective. In fact, when asked the question, the Supreme Court did exactly as I infer and looked to the historical framework laid down by the founders.

You're correct about the appeal process. The SCOTUS screwed up.

The question is not "Does the local court have the 'right' to display religious texts on its property as part of its architecture, decoration, or landscaping via the First Amendment?"

The questions is "Does the local court have the 'right' to display religious texts on its property as part of its architecture, decoration, or landscaping?", period.

NO. The question "is" does the court have jurisdiction to interpret law when there is NO DANG LAW!!

When the question was asked, the courts had to refer back to the Establishment Clause and its INTENT. This is different than the application of the 1st as applied to individuals, which is the incorrect argument you have been portraying here.

The court had to literally ask "What is the role of the Government, and what were the intended restrictions upon itself in regards to association with religion?"

The answer was found upon examining the Establishment Clause.

...which was the wrong question to ask. The court should have not taken the case. It has no jurisdiction to interpret law that doesn't exist.

Keep focusing on the 1st Amendment bud and insisting it applies here, but it does not, unless, you are trying to figure out what the limitations on GOVERNMENT are regarding all things religion. This is why specifically, the Establishment Clause and its origination was studied.

Why would I insist on reading the law?? Such a waste of time...

As to your comment that I am straying from the point, you are absolutely incorrect. You don't even understand the topic, which is your failing, not mine.

Oh... ok...

 

[slowfiveoh]

Honestly and truthfully you just can't stick to the point.

Honestly and truthfully, and being perfectly blunt, *** *** ** ****** you don't even know what the point is.

On thing is for dang sure... this is BS "the government may act in the best interest of society when restricting itself from displaying religious preference." That is NOT WHAT THE LAW SAYS!!! Get it. Do you really have to get into "English comprehension and structure" to understand that??

Yes kid, let's do that.

The 1st Amendment has been created, *poof*.

In it it reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Now why did our founding fathers feel the need to expressly place "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." as a specific enumeration for individual freedom?

If you are incapable of understanding this answer (and yes georg jetson, you most certainly are wholly incapable), then you must look at historical perspective. The historical perspective is that the framers were extremely familiar with the subversive, corrupt, and outright commanding presence of religious preferentialism in government.

The 1st Amendment is not a total limitation on all government power when it comes to religion.

An individual may walk around in a robe covered with WWJD patches, with an enormous Flava-Flav sized cross hanging from his neck, and the Ten Commandments tattooed all over his body, and the court may NOT instruct him to remove said adornments, NOR may it make a case against him utilizing his religion either in a preferential manner, whether that preference be good or bad. It may not require that he stop praying.


Now lets demonstrate why you're a ******** *****.

A judge may not walk into the courtroom as a government agent, ready to oversee cases with a robe on covered in WWJD? patches. He may not cover himself in Christian jewelery or adornments. He may not by commanding presence, engage in prayer in the courtroom. What he does in the comfort of his chambers is his own business, as there is an expectation of privacy, creating a personal area for him to, if he desires, engage in his religious activity.

Do you understand why this is? Do you need me to speak slowly or draw out my typing?

Here is why that is true, and why you are stupid for pushing the issue on the basis of individual 1st Amendment protection.

Would not every individual being tried or litigating in said court appeal on the basis of unconstitutional ruling via the 1st Amendment were they of ANY other religion, specifically, claiming that religious preference deprived them of due process with

Yes guy, yes they would. An attorney would recommend immediately that the "Muslim" in this case file an appeal regardless the validity of the case outcome on the merits, on the presence of religious preference on display by the judge alone as denying religious equality, and/or violating his 4th Amendment rights to due process without violating "liberty".

The case then has the propensity to go all the way up to the Supreme Court to be ruled on, and, the court may indeed rule on how to avoid catastrophes like this when directing itself how to conduct itself in limiting itself (NOT THE INDIVIDUAL) on how to avoid these catastrophes in the future!

The Federal, Local and State governments do not have First Amendment rights! This is what you are so braindead you cannot grasp!

The 1st Amendment LIMITS action by the Federal Government when acting against the individual, not when regulating itself for equality purposes.


The following things are clearly understood:

#1. The Framers (SEVERAL OF THEM) stated, verbatim, that there is a separation of Church and State. The two are meaningfully divided to keep both pure.

#2. The government, at all levels, in interest of keeping liberty and religious equality alive in this country, may not act or display religious preferentialism.


Well, they are understood by anybody with half a brain.

We are discussing EXACTLY "governmental limitation when referring to the 1st Amendment." That is why it is there. In this particular case, the LEGISLATURE has been RESTRAINED.

No kid. No we are not.

We are discussing governments limitations when it comes to religious preference. The 1st Amendment only applies to the individual, and in the capacity that the government may not in any way restrict the individual from practicing or exercising ones religious beliefs.

That's NOT the point. The law CANNOT specify this EITHER WAY. A judge has the authority given to him in the several constitutions. He has NOTHING to do with the legislative branch. IN the 1st the restriction is on Congress. Wheels on the bus...

Oh so you believe government agents have 1st Amendment rights when engaging in the discourse of their official duties? Officers can hand me "Awake!" pamphlets, or wear their religious jewelry visible outside of their uniform? Man that will go over well with the arresteds attorney when he realizes the cop displayed Christian religious preferentialism

Hey kid,.....pssttt....over here. Let me tell you a secret!

THE 1ST AMENDMENT PREVENTS FEDERAL OVERSIGHT OF INDIVIDUAL RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE AND EXERCISE. THIS PROTECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO ITSELF!

It is a violation of the Establishment Clause for the government to engage in preferential religious display BECAUSE it will affect law, and specifically, the judicial process.

Come on man you seriously can't be this "durp".

Ok maybe you can and have...

Really??? How am I miss applying/understanding? Just like people ask rhetorically "what part of INFRINGE don't you understand"... so it goes "what part of SHALL MAKE NO LAW don't you understand.

Read the above.

Learn it, or don't bother even engaging in this conversation.

You're correct about the appeal process. The SCOTUS screwed up.

So whose INDIVIDUAL rights did they regulate?

Hrmm?

Come on bud, make up an answer quick!



If you can't answer with a SINGLE NAME, of a SINGLE INDIVIDUAL, then you realize the idiocy of your comment.

NO. The question "is" does the court have jurisdiction to interpret law when there is NO DANG LAW!!

Sure there is! The Establishment Clause and its founding is the basis for government separation from all things religious. When determining exactly who, what, when, why, how, or where a government entity may display religious preferentialism, the court determined that Roy Moores use as a leaseholder of government property to place a Judeo-Christian monument on the lawn of government property was explicitly preferential in nature.

Also, is this gem by Roy Moore himself:

"As Chief Justice of the State of Alabama, it is my duty to administer the justice system of our state, not to destroy it. I have no intention of removing the monument of the Ten Commandments and the moral foundation of our law. To do so would, in effect, result in the [be a] disestablishment of our system of Justice in this State. This I cannot and will not do!"

The Judge literally believed that the Ten Commandments were the "moral foundation" of our law. Unfortunately for him, they are not, regardless how he feels that his Christian faith instructs him to proselytize from the bench.

...which was the wrong question to ask. The court should have not taken the case. It has no jurisdiction to interpret law that doesn't exist.

Uh no, it can and will create policy and judicial ruling applying to ITSELF limitations towards religious preferentialism. It is regulating against no individual in this case, and, creating an environment where cases, when tried, cannot be appealed on the basis of religious inequality by display or exercise of or in any particular religion.

The case is clean on its merits, and clean when applied to the Constitution. It prevents likely lawsuits founded on possible inequality and due process based on religious preferentialism.

The cleaner the application of the law, the better.

Why would I insist on reading the law?? Such a waste of time...

This gem is made better only by the fact that you actually typed this, and I didn't alter or change any of its content.

Oh... ok...

Please go to school or spend 5 minutes studying what we are actually discussing.

Thanks.

--Personal insults deleted by Moderator--
Please post w/o them in the future - use some restraint.