"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
. ..
" wrote:

Guy Alcala wrote:

WalterM140 wrote:

Separation of church and state, anyone?

The president doesn't speak for the state in the same way that the
Queen of
England does, for instance.

Lincoln quotes snipped

The framers wanted Americans to have freedom -of- religion, not
freedom -from-
religion.

In order to have freedom -of- religion, one must also have the option
of freedom
-from- religion, or no freedom exists.

Guy (a life-long agnostic)

That's akin to saying that freedom doesn't exist unless everyone
is free to do whatever they wish. I don't think that I'd like to
live in a country where that was the case, would you?.
--

-Gord.

It's saying nothing of the sort, Gord. If I am not free to _not_ profess
a religion,
then I lack freedom of religion. If I am not guaranteed freedom from
religion if I
so choose, then you are implying that the Constitution requires me to
profess one.

The Constitution guarantees the "free expression thereof" and what you are
claiming as a right is the repression of the constitutional rights of
others, Guy.

That being the case, am I to be assigned a religion, since I don't have
religious
beliefs? And who makes the decision which religion is acceptable for me?
The
Government?

No, but you do have to put up with "the free exercise thereof".

No, they can't do that, that would run afoul of the 1st Amendment.

No, you have run afoul of the first Amendment.


Can
I be denied civil rights and be treated as a second class citizen?

It is you that is attacking the civil rights of others, Guy.


Nope, 14th
Amendment. But see my piggy-backed reply on Ed's post, as the author
quoted therein
put the matter far better than I ever could.

Ed is pretty funny.