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.

I just happened to see this quote (which, by the way, happens to be the 1st ammendment) while doing some surfing tonight, and it hit a small chord withing me when I read it. I also drudged this up, our fourteenth amendment

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Pay special attention to Section 1. OK, so back to the first amendment… the word “respect” here seems ambiguous, but I think that the meaning most befitting the tone of the overal amendment is “Relation; reference.” Meaning that it should not only make no laws specifically favorable to one or more religions but (and this is the part that seems to be lost lately) it should make no laws specifically disfavorable to one or more religions.

What I dont get is why everything is a fight *for* christian icons in the courts, or *against christian icons in the courts. It seems pretty clear to me that the courts are not the place to discuss whether or not something or someone should show a christian, hindu, chineese, islamic, jewish, druidic, egyptian, or otherwise religious symbol.

As for architecture on government property… All governments go through various phases… because the population which upholds the government goes through different phases. It seems to be an ignorant position, to me, that we should eradicate evidence of our past because the philosophies of the current are driving us now. This goes for all of our mistakes AND our successes.

We should not erase the slave trade from our history books. It happened, and we partook, we were wrong, and we’ve moved on. Even if it’s embarrassing and saddening we SHOULD know, and SHOULD remember…

It’s as important to understand that as it is to understand the religious background and beliefes to which the people who founded this nation paid homage. Whether or not the government today holds the same moral and religious structures and codes as the gasoline which drives their engine is something which will show next century in the artwork and architecture whic comprises the buildings associated with out government.

The internet is here, shall we burn down the libraries because of it?

Seeking to destroy evidence of those who came before is the halmark of an ignorant midset. Just look at the dark ages which followed the loss of the library of alexandria. The sun still shown (for it was not dark), but the light of the importance of the progress, however backward, of those who had come before had been extinguished, and it was not until the light of the industrial revolution did we once again look upon the lost secrets which died centuries ago with the elders to whome we had turned our backs. And yet still we seek to learn from the ashes of the midset of destruction of past ideas and are balked by the brute of the ignorant.