Sapper Redux said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

in parts of the country where it's practiced unanimously

---

Please find me a place with zero non-Christians to include agnostics and atheists. We are not a theocracy. We are not a Christian nation. Never have been. The only mention of religion in the entire Constitution is to forbid religious tests and forbid the establishment of a state religion.

---

I have no idea where that would be. I'm saying that's true in principle. I don't advocate for a state religion, but as a matter of fact there were established state religions post-Constitutional convention.

I don't know what you mean by Christian Nation.

Is posting the commandments in TX classrooms enough to establish a state religion?

---

There were. They were already on the way out as largely dead laws that were gone by the 1830s and unconstitutional under the 14th amendment. And yes, posting a creed important to one or two faith traditions by law on state property is the state promoting those faiths over others. Using the numbering and translation of Protestant Bibles further narrows the promotion.

This is the sort of thing that led Catholic parents to sue in the 1850s on over the use of Protestant Bibles and theology in schools. Those lawsuits helped establish the extent of the separation of church and state.

---

Unconstitutional by your interpretation. I can just appeal to a different interpretation of the constitution. The question is why should we not do it? Will you be satisfied if after it works its way through the courts, it's declared constitutional?

kurt vonnegut said:

---

FIDO95 said:

---

First of all, the posting of the 10 commandments in the classroom is going to convert as many people to Christianity as the images of Christmas trees during the "Holyday" season.

Secondly, it astounds me that educated people are under the delusion that we were never a Christian nation founded on Judeo-Christian principles. I'll just leave this here:

---

I think that if we want to put stock in the idea we are a Christian nation on account of state Constitutions, founding principles, or the beliefs of the time, then we are also a white supremist nation. And a sexist nation.

Of course, none of us feel that our country ought to be held hostage by all of the beliefs of our founders. We have no issues in divorcing what our founders believed from what we 'ought' to do today on some topics. Why should religion be any different?

---

One of my truths of life is that only liberals can define sexism and/or racism.
So who is defining sexism and/or racism in your mind?
To me, saying you have a majority of citizens who identify as Christians then you are a majority Christian nation. I am not saying that means you get special rights or preferential treatment. I am just saying it is a fact that we are a majority Christian nation.
Sexism and racism depends on who is defining it.

What makes a law Just do you think? Is a law unjust as long as it forbids something? What about if the law in is a distortion of reality? The law has to give deference to a set of moral precepts. We should stop pretending it doesn't.

Freedom in the way you're talking about it, is just willfulness. Is it better for society if our laws forbid sodomy, or encourage it? What about adultery? What about gay couples renting the womb of young poor girls so they can pretend to be just like a real married couple? This is a product of the canard that Christian politicians should govern as practical atheists.

With respect to the school issue, I think the answer has to be some form of making public money available to parents to educate their children in the kind of school they want to send them to. The compulsory funding of the secular school system, while at the same time (in reality, because private school is prohibitively expensive for a lot of families) denying parents' ability to choose a Christian education for their children is going to result in stuff like what's in the op.

Large scale modern slavery exists in largely Christian nations as well including Russia, Democratic Republic of Congo, the Philippines, and Nigeria (which is about half/half Christian and Islamic). It's also thriving in parts of South America. I certainly agree that modern Christianity is almost universally anti-slavery but that's not the same as saying slavery doesn't exist within the Christian sphere of influence.

FIDO95 said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

I think that if we want to put stock in the idea we are a Christian nation on account of state Constitutions, founding principles, or the beliefs of the time, then we are also a white supremist nation. And a sexist nation.

---

If you are going to use that myopic lens to paint our founding, why not throw in slave nation founded in 1619. Isn't that also part of the progressive trope?

Are Irish white? Italians? Spanish? French? How did those "white" groups fair in this "white supremist nation" you paint? It would be accurate to say "WASP" as predominate descriptor for our founding fathers. And yes, women had limited rights and there were black slaves (as well as black slave owners). The ideas of "sexism" and slavery were not unique to the US. What was unique was that this nation, along with other European nations, moved in a direction that would eventually allow for womans suffrage and the abolition of slavery. That should be celebrated and pointed out but it gets in the way of people that hate this nation. Importantly, the reason these nations moved in that direction is because of Judeo-Christian values. If you separate those Christian ideals, then there is no moral reason to maintain those principles.

William Wilberforce - Wikipedia

Of course, no one taught about Wilberforce because it doesn't fit the narrative.

---

I think this skips past the point that American values have shifted since its foundation. I'm simply saying that I don't think this must be a bad thing and that we need not idolize the specific values of our founders. Great as they were, they were still flawed.

I can see some argument for attributing the move away from slavery to Judeo-Christian values, but I think its gray. After all, who was arguing to keep slavery or to keep women from voting? Was it the secularists? Muslims, Jews, Hindus? Who? The shift away from slavery was a shift within Christianity . . . not a shift from non-Christian to Christian.

And if you separate Christian ideals, there is still moral reason to promote equality in races in gender. You may not agree with those reasons. And no one is saying you have to. But, I would like to point out that people with different values can and do justify abolishing slavery using different moral reasoning.

dermdoc said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

FIDO95 said:

---

First of all, the posting of the 10 commandments in the classroom is going to convert as many people to Christianity as the images of Christmas trees during the "Holyday" season.

Secondly, it astounds me that educated people are under the delusion that we were never a Christian nation founded on Judeo-Christian principles. I'll just leave this here:

---

I think that if we want to put stock in the idea we are a Christian nation on account of state Constitutions, founding principles, or the beliefs of the time, then we are also a white supremist nation. And a sexist nation.

Of course, none of us feel that our country ought to be held hostage by all of the beliefs of our founders. We have no issues in divorcing what our founders believed from what we 'ought' to do today on some topics. Why should religion be any different?

---

One of my truths of life is that only liberals can define sexism and/or racism.
So who is defining sexism and/or racism in your mind?
To me, saying you have a majority of citizens who identify as Christians then you are a majority Christian nation. I am not saying that means you get special rights or preferential treatment. I am just saying it is a fact that we are a majority Christian nation.
Sexism and racism depends on who is defining it.

---

I suppose some of that is fair, although I did not expect your objection to my post to be about whether or not slavery was rooted in racism or that withholding rights to women was based in sexism.

If you believe that racism and sexism did not play a role, then I am open to hearing your definitions of those terms.

---

Yes, we have a majority of Christians in the country. I have no issues saying that from an examination of American demographics, we are a majority Christian nation.

When people say that Iran is a Muslim nation, it has a different meaning than 'majority Muslim nation'. Iran is explicitly a Muslim nation with its laws being directly in support of Islam. Iran might be the best modern day example of a theocracy. An objection from me to America being described as a 'Christian nation' is just an objection to the idea that we are (or should be) a Christian theocracy. I don't think any description by you of America as a Christian nation is an advocation for theocracy.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

FIDO95 said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

I think that if we want to put stock in the idea we are a Christian nation on account of state Constitutions, founding principles, or the beliefs of the time, then we are also a white supremist nation. And a sexist nation.

---

If you are going to use that myopic lens to paint our founding, why not throw in slave nation founded in 1619. Isn't that also part of the progressive trope?

Are Irish white? Italians? Spanish? French? How did those "white" groups fair in this "white supremist nation" you paint? It would be accurate to say "WASP" as predominate descriptor for our founding fathers. And yes, women had limited rights and there were black slaves (as well as black slave owners). The ideas of "sexism" and slavery were not unique to the US. What was unique was that this nation, along with other European nations, moved in a direction that would eventually allow for womans suffrage and the abolition of slavery. That should be celebrated and pointed out but it gets in the way of people that hate this nation. Importantly, the reason these nations moved in that direction is because of Judeo-Christian values. If you separate those Christian ideals, then there is no moral reason to maintain those principles.

William Wilberforce - Wikipedia

Of course, no one taught about Wilberforce because it doesn't fit the narrative.

---

I think this skips past the point that American values have shifted since its foundation. I'm simply saying that I don't think this must be a bad thing and that we need not idolize the specific values of our founders. Great as they were, they were still flawed.

I can see some argument for attributing the move away from slavery to Judeo-Christian values, but I think its gray. After all, who was arguing to keep slavery or to keep women from voting? Was it the secularists? Muslims, Jews, Hindus? Who? The shift away from slavery was a shift within Christianity . . . not a shift from non-Christian to Christian.

And if you separate Christian ideals, there is still moral reason to promote equality in races in gender. You may not agree with those reasons. And no one is saying you have to. But, I would like to point out that people with different values can and do justify abolishing slavery using different moral reasoning.

---

This is belied by the fact the Church has consistently condemned it since before our country's founding, and from before the protestant revolution. It has never endorsed chattel slavery. The practice was ubiquitous worldwide The fact it's no longer practiced is owed entirely to Christianity. Any defense of American slavery using Christianity is a distortion of Christian teaching unless you can point to a shift in the official teaching of the Church away from endorsing it toward condemning it.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

FIDO95 said:

---

First of all, the posting of the 10 commandments in the classroom is going to convert as many people to Christianity as the images of Christmas trees during the "Holyday" season.

Secondly, it astounds me that educated people are under the delusion that we were never a Christian nation founded on Judeo-Christian principles. I'll just leave this here:

---

I think that if we want to put stock in the idea we are a Christian nation on account of state Constitutions, founding principles, or the beliefs of the time, then we are also a white supremist nation. And a sexist nation.

Of course, none of us feel that our country ought to be held hostage by all of the beliefs of our founders. We have no issues in divorcing what our founders believed from what we 'ought' to do today on some topics. Why should religion be any different?

---

One of my truths of life is that only liberals can define sexism and/or racism.
So who is defining sexism and/or racism in your mind?
To me, saying you have a majority of citizens who identify as Christians then you are a majority Christian nation. I am not saying that means you get special rights or preferential treatment. I am just saying it is a fact that we are a majority Christian nation.
Sexism and racism depends on who is defining it.

---

I suppose some of that is fair, although I did not expect your objection to my post to be about whether or not slavery was rooted in racism or that withholding rights to women was based in sexism.

If you believe that racism and sexism did not play a role, then I am open to hearing your definitions of those terms.

---

Yes, we have a majority of Christians in the country. I have no issues saying that from an examination of American demographics, we are a majority Christian nation.

When people say that Iran is a Muslim nation, it has a different meaning than 'majority Muslim nation'. Iran is explicitly a Muslim nation with its laws being directly in support of Islam. Iran might be the best modern day example of a theocracy. An objection from me to America being described as a 'Christian nation' is just an objection to the idea that we are (or should be) a Christian theocracy. I don't think any description by you of America as a Christian nation is an advocation for theocracy.

---

My point is that racism/sexism today are subjective terms. Who defines what they are? Was the US racist/sexist in the past? Yes but that has to be taken in context and consider the times in my opinion.

To me, Christianity is not subjective. You either identify as a Christian or you don't.

So to me, using racism/sexism in the same context as religious identification is apples and oranges.

And I am definitely not advocating a theocracy.

Bob Lee said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

FIDO95 said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

I think that if we want to put stock in the idea we are a Christian nation on account of state Constitutions, founding principles, or the beliefs of the time, then we are also a white supremist nation. And a sexist nation.

---

If you are going to use that myopic lens to paint our founding, why not throw in slave nation founded in 1619. Isn't that also part of the progressive trope?

Are Irish white? Italians? Spanish? French? How did those "white" groups fair in this "white supremist nation" you paint? It would be accurate to say "WASP" as predominate descriptor for our founding fathers. And yes, women had limited rights and there were black slaves (as well as black slave owners). The ideas of "sexism" and slavery were not unique to the US. What was unique was that this nation, along with other European nations, moved in a direction that would eventually allow for womans suffrage and the abolition of slavery. That should be celebrated and pointed out but it gets in the way of people that hate this nation. Importantly, the reason these nations moved in that direction is because of Judeo-Christian values. If you separate those Christian ideals, then there is no moral reason to maintain those principles.

William Wilberforce - Wikipedia

Of course, no one taught about Wilberforce because it doesn't fit the narrative.

---

I think this skips past the point that American values have shifted since its foundation. I'm simply saying that I don't think this must be a bad thing and that we need not idolize the specific values of our founders. Great as they were, they were still flawed.

I can see some argument for attributing the move away from slavery to Judeo-Christian values, but I think its gray. After all, who was arguing to keep slavery or to keep women from voting? Was it the secularists? Muslims, Jews, Hindus? Who? The shift away from slavery was a shift within Christianity . . . not a shift from non-Christian to Christian.

And if you separate Christian ideals, there is still moral reason to promote equality in races in gender. You may not agree with those reasons. And no one is saying you have to. But, I would like to point out that people with different values can and do justify abolishing slavery using different moral reasoning.

---

This is belied by the fact the Church has consistently condemned it since before our country's founding, and from before the protestant revolution. It has never endorsed chattel slavery. The practice was ubiquitous worldwide The fact it's no longer practiced is owed entirely to Christianity. Any defense of American slavery using Christianity is a distortion of Christian teaching unless you can point to a shift in the official teaching of the Church away from endorsing it toward condemning it.

---

I agree that Christianity had a huge effect on ending slavery in the US.

You don't think Constantine favoring Christianity had anything to do with it?

Bob Lee said:

---

You don't think Constantine favoring Christianity had anything to do with it?

---

St. Patrick in Ireland converting the chief…

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

But how can anyone disagree with the moral Commandments?

---

So, lets put up posters that say: "Don't cheat, lie, murder, or steal." The packaging of the morals is important. Those that passed this law have precisely zero interest in those morals and are only concerned with promoting the superiority of their faith.

---

I've only been a Christian for 46 years, written a book about church, been a Bible Study Fellowship leader, read the Bible 5 times, and preached occasionally, so maybe I'm not qualified enough...seriously, this has nothing to to about the superiority of their faith. It has to do with power, and the belief that a devout minority can impose its will on the majority, even if it lacks moral high ground. Watch Shiny, Happy People. It's another step in the Duggarization of America by dim-witted, well-financed, but morally bankrupt people. Paxton fits right in.

94chem said:

---

"If a law like this persuades anyone, it will more likely persuade them that Christianity is just another tool of political power, rather than the radical hope that it actually is."

You made a great post, but you need to understand that this is what they WANT people to believe. They don't want converts. They don't want to experience the power of the Holy Spirit. It would terrify them if some fruit that happened outside the boundaries of their own control were evident. God is their bludgeon, not their source. Their power comes from themselves, wielded by human intellect, human force, human talent, human resolve. These 10 Commandment plaques are there not to point anyone toward the God of the Bible or the life of faith, but to remind us who is running things. It is merely statism repackaged to appease the dull.

---

Great post. I agree.

Stop posting AI slop please.

94chem said:

---

"If a law like this persuades anyone, it will more likely persuade them that Christianity is just another tool of political power, rather than the radical hope that it actually is."

You made a great post, but you need to understand that this is what they WANT people to believe. They don't want converts. They don't want to experience the power of the Holy Spirit. It would terrify them if some fruit that happened outside the boundaries of their own control were evident. God is their bludgeon, not their source. Their power comes from themselves, wielded by human intellect, human force, human talent, human resolve. These 10 Commandment plaques are there not to point anyone toward the God of the Bible or the life of faith, but to remind us who is running things. It is merely statism repackaged to appease the dull.

---

Wasn't it statism that yanked the 10 commandments and the bible out of schools to begin with? They used to be everywhere, by the choice of the people, and those people were forced to remove them. I'm not really taking a side on whether or not this is a good law or bad one, but the government wielding power isn't a one way street. Maybe if the anti-Christians had just let schools decide for themselves all those years ago, we wouldn't be dealing with this today.

The Banned said:

---

94chem said:

---

"If a law like this persuades anyone, it will more likely persuade them that Christianity is just another tool of political power, rather than the radical hope that it actually is."

You made a great post, but you need to understand that this is what they WANT people to believe. They don't want converts. They don't want to experience the power of the Holy Spirit. It would terrify them if some fruit that happened outside the boundaries of their own control were evident. God is their bludgeon, not their source. Their power comes from themselves, wielded by human intellect, human force, human talent, human resolve. These 10 Commandment plaques are there not to point anyone toward the God of the Bible or the life of faith, but to remind us who is running things. It is merely statism repackaged to appease the dull.

---

Wasn't it statism that yanked the 10 commandments and the bible out of schools to begin with? They used to be everywhere, by the choice of the people, and those people were forced to remove them. I'm not really taking a side on whether or not this is a good law or bad one, but the government wielding power isn't a one way street. Maybe if the anti-Christians had just let schools decide for themselves all those years ago, we wouldn't be dealing with this today.

---

Rights aren't up for popular vote. Americans have a right to not have the state force one religion on them.

94chem said:

---

The Banned said:

---

94chem said:

---

"If a law like this persuades anyone, it will more likely persuade them that Christianity is just another tool of political power, rather than the radical hope that it actually is."

You made a great post, but you need to understand that this is what they WANT people to believe. They don't want converts. They don't want to experience the power of the Holy Spirit. It would terrify them if some fruit that happened outside the boundaries of their own control were evident. God is their bludgeon, not their source. Their power comes from themselves, wielded by human intellect, human force, human talent, human resolve. These 10 Commandment plaques are there not to point anyone toward the God of the Bible or the life of faith, but to remind us who is running things. It is merely statism repackaged to appease the dull.

---

Wasn't it statism that yanked the 10 commandments and the bible out of schools to begin with? They used to be everywhere, by the choice of the people, and those people were forced to remove them. I'm not really taking a side on whether or not this is a good law or bad one, but the government wielding power isn't a one way street. Maybe if the anti-Christians had just let schools decide for themselves all those years ago, we wouldn't be dealing with this today.

---

Who cares? If I had a dollar for every time a slump-shouldered, grammar-challenged, 45-year-old-who-looks-70, east Texan told me that it "all went to hell when they took prayer outta schools," I'd have enough money to buy Super Bowl tickets. Meanwhile, my kids have been meeting at the flagpole weekly for years to pray before school, blissfully unaware of the tyrannical "they."

My own mother has told me how much better the schools were before integration, as if that's some kind of argument against integration, and not a shameful consequence of owning human beings for 200 years and shafting them for another 100.

---

Apparently you? If you're so concerned about statism, you should be concerned in both directions. I specifically did not weigh in on whether this law will make a good change, bad change or no change. I merely calling out the double standard you seem to be espousing.

Sapper Redux said:

---

The Banned said:

---

94chem said:

---

"If a law like this persuades anyone, it will more likely persuade them that Christianity is just another tool of political power, rather than the radical hope that it actually is."

You made a great post, but you need to understand that this is what they WANT people to believe. They don't want converts. They don't want to experience the power of the Holy Spirit. It would terrify them if some fruit that happened outside the boundaries of their own control were evident. God is their bludgeon, not their source. Their power comes from themselves, wielded by human intellect, human force, human talent, human resolve. These 10 Commandment plaques are there not to point anyone toward the God of the Bible or the life of faith, but to remind us who is running things. It is merely statism repackaged to appease the dull.

---

Wasn't it statism that yanked the 10 commandments and the bible out of schools to begin with? They used to be everywhere, by the choice of the people, and those people were forced to remove them. I'm not really taking a side on whether or not this is a good law or bad one, but the government wielding power isn't a one way street. Maybe if the anti-Christians had just let schools decide for themselves all those years ago, we wouldn't be dealing with this today.

---

Rights aren't up for popular vote. Americans have a right to not have the state force one religion on them.

---

Not the point. My point is that there is no "neutral" here. The government forcibly removing things like the 10 commandments used the same force as this potential law would use to put them back in. If you're going to advocate to use of government in one direction, it's hypocritical to complain about the use of government in the opposite direction.

Appealing to rights doesn't work, as the schools had the "right" to posts these texts until they didn't. All it took was for a supreme court to interpret something differently than it had previously. It can easily be reinterpreted back the other way, as that's how it was viewed prior. The same 1st amendment, different results. All up to the interpretive whims of the SC.

The Banned said:

---

Not the point. My point is that there is no "neutral" here. The government forcibly removing things like the 10 commandments used the same force as this potential law would use to put them back in. If you're going to advocate to use of government in one direction, it's hypocritical to complain about the use of government in the opposite direction.

---

I think I see your point, but I think you've also just tried to describe a government action to preserve freedom of religion and a government action to show preferential treatment to one religion as being morally, functionally, and/or constitutionally equivalent.

Lets try a stupid example. You own a company with two employees who bring lunch to work. Employee A likes tacos. And B likes pasta. As the boss, you can require that employees only eat tacos at lunch. Or, as the boss, you can permit employees to bring either tacos or pasta or anything else. As the boss, establishing a rule, you are exerting force either way. However, the rule that you must only have tacos is clearly more restrictive and could be considered oppressive toward employee B. The rule that employees can bring whatever they want is only restrictive or oppressive if employee A's taco values are such that they do not feel that employee B should be permitted freedom to choose their own lunch.

On one hand, if you choose to allow the employees to bring whatever they want, you have forced a rule and forced the value of freedom of lunch choice on your employees.

On the other hand, you've chosen to use your power and authority to permit maximum freedom of lunch choice - up to the point where an employees actions are restrictive of their freedom of lunch choice. I get this is a stupid example, but in this example, describing the boss who allows employees to choose their own lunch as morally and functionally just as oppressive as the boss who mandates tacos is ridiculous.

Your post seems to suggest that you think any government granted freedom is itself its own tyranny. Government neutrality is not tyranny - its the mechanism by which tyranny is prevented.

You're ignoring that secularism is a wholesale rejection of Christianity. It's not neutral. Should men who dress and act like a caricature of a woman be allowed to teach children? According to secularism it's fine. According to Christianity it's not. Secularism is just practical atheism because it operates as though God doesn't exist. In your analogy it would be more like, "everyone can bring whatever lunch you want, but you have to store it in a locked refrigerator. You can take it with you when you leave at the end of the day. We're going to feed you bologna sandwiches."

Bob Lee said:

---

You're ignoring that secularism is a wholesale rejection of Christianity. It's not neutral. Should men who dress and act like a caricature of a woman be allowed to teach children? According to secularism it's fine. According to Christianity it's not. Secularism is just practical atheism because it operates as though God doesn't exist. In your analogy it would be more like, "everyone can bring whatever lunch you want, but you have to store it in a locked refrigerator. You can take it with you when you leave at the end of the day. We're going to feed you bologna sandwiches."

---

Secular values are simply a different value system. Its no more a wholesale rejection of Christianity than any other value system. You've created this situation whereby anything permitted that is not explicitly and exactly Christian is blatantly and aggressively antagonistic to your faith.

if we are going to put stock in Banned's statements, then you've lost your rights to complain. . . . You wish for it to be permissible for a teacher to be openly Christian and then you condemn any teacher not openly Christian as being anti-Christian.

And that is a complete and total mis-comprehension of my analogy.

Yes. Every values system that rejects the claims of Christianity is a rejection of Christianity. That's true of all values systems in relation to any other values system.

if the government doesn't favor a system of values over others, than everything is permitted, which is a system of values in itself.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Not the point. My point is that there is no "neutral" here. The government forcibly removing things like the 10 commandments used the same force as this potential law would use to put them back in. If you're going to advocate to use of government in one direction, it's hypocritical to complain about the use of government in the opposite direction.

---

I think I see your point, but I think you've also just tried to describe a government action to preserve freedom of religion and a government action to show preferential treatment to one religion as being morally, functionally, and/or constitutionally equivalent.

Lets try a stupid example. You own a company with two employees who bring lunch to work. Employee A likes tacos. And B likes pasta. As the boss, you can require that employees only eat tacos at lunch. Or, as the boss, you can permit employees to bring either tacos or pasta or anything else. As the boss, establishing a rule, you are exerting force either way. However, the rule that you must only have tacos is clearly more restrictive and could be considered oppressive toward employee B. The rule that employees can bring whatever they want is only restrictive or oppressive if employee A's taco values are such that they do not feel that employee B should be permitted freedom to choose their own lunch.

On one hand, if you choose to allow the employees to bring whatever they want, you have forced a rule and forced the value of freedom of lunch choice on your employees.

On the other hand, you've chosen to use your power and authority to permit maximum freedom of lunch choice - up to the point where an employees actions are restrictive of their freedom of lunch choice. I get this is a stupid example, but in this example, describing the boss who allows employees to choose their own lunch as morally and functionally just as oppressive as the boss who mandates tacos is ridiculous.

Your post seems to suggest that you think any government granted freedom is itself its own tyranny. Government neutrality is not tyranny - its the mechanism by which tyranny is prevented.

---

I really appreciate you giving a thought out response, and I do see where you're coming from. Hopefully my pushback comes across as friendly.

To the bolded, as you said at the top of the page, having Christianity in the public square was not "preferential treatment" until a particular SC group decided that the 14th amendment (not a part of the original framework of the country) meant that states had actually lost a right they previously had.

So, with your analogy, it's more like the school meal plan was tacos everyday. Everyone was cool with it. Obviously some liked it more than others, but no one had any major complaints. But quite rapidly, tacos were removed from the menu. We didn't move to taco Tuesdays and create a rotation the other 4 days of the week. Tacos were banned. To borrow from Bob Lee above, we were all forced to eat bologna sandwiches 5 days a week. No one is allowed to bring their own lunch. Even if you wanted to bring your own tacos, you have to eat them before or after school. They simply aren't allowed in a public school anymore.

Removing Christianity did not put all religions on even playing field. It removed them from the field altogether. This is "fair" inasmuch as one religion isn't elevated above another. But we have to consider the other group: atheists and agnostics. Now this group has their worldview elevated above the religious. Unintentionally to be sure, but they benefitted nonetheless. You may not see this law as benefiting the atheist or agnostic, but if you can recognized that a pre-existing right was removed and this particular group is the primary winner, maybe that would help.

To your last point of course government granted freedom is a tyranny of some degree. No matter what rule they make, some group is a loser and however many other groups are the winners. How many people are upset that they can't own tanks and rocket launchers and fighter jets, etc. I'm not saying civilians should or shouldn't have them, but it's clear people take differing stances on this. Someone's freedoms are infringed for the benefit of others. There is no neutral. We are making moral/value based judgements in all that we do and we are forcing that upon people who believe differently. It's just the way of things. I'm fine with acknowledging that all laws are imposing a moral value, but by definition it can't be "neutral". The best we can shoot for is trying to make it as fair as possible, but that is an ever moving target if it's not tied to some sort of truth constant.