Well, if you respect other views, then you politely give them equal time. Simple as that. So yeah, contra what you say, our ideals do require that.

And the simplest solution, is then not to endorse any religion - as Spinoza points out, that is a different thing than “squashing vestiges” - an idea which no one endorses.

It is possible (at least I hope it is) to have neutral and respectful public institutions and policies.

SteveG never said anything about “squashing vestiges.” He said the government cannot “endorse specific religions.” That idea goes all the way back. What’s “evolved” in the last half-century is the meaning of the word “endorse” (in SteveG’s parlance) or “make no law. “State-sponsored institutions like public school are now viewed within the range of entities that cannot be seen as “endorsing” a particular religion.

This is a good thing.

Excepting yourself, of course!

No, that is a new interpretation in the last 50 years. The original intent was that there would be no government sponsored religion like Europe and Canada had. It does not mean squash every last vestige of religious thought in the public square. That’s why we need people on the Supreme Court who know their history and can read English.

… laws that should not exist because they violate the Amendment, but do because boneheaded lawmakers pass them anyway.

Yup! We’re on the same page here (maybe). If by bonehead you mean people who value original intent, then I guess we still disagree.

I believe you say this because you’re envisioning the religion involved as Christianity. I seriously doubt you’d be content to leave it at that if you thought a Muslim or atheist or Hindu teacher were influencing your child.

No. Read #11. I am for truth wherever it may be found and I am opposed to indoctrination in any form, except perhaps the military (maybe).

I’ve raised my kids with the specific intent in mind that they would be able to sift through facts and not be pushed around by the indoctrinators. I may have done this too well, because they’ve had me verbally cornered a few times. All I could say was “Touche’, well done! Now do what I said anyway!”

This isn’t specifically spelled out in the Bill of Rights because it developed over time following the ratification of the First Amendment, but neither is it something that the ACLU made up.

Since the 1st Amendment begins with “Congress shall make no law…”, therefore there should be no laws for the courts to decide about religion. How can one decide the Constitutionality of laws that according to the Constitution should not exist?

The religion clause of the 1st Amendment ends with “… respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Those are the laws the courts decide on … laws that should not exist because they violate the Amendment, but do because boneheaded lawmakers pass them anyway.

That “Congress shall make no law … ” phrase also applies to the other rights enumerated in the 1st Amendment … free speech, freedom of the press, right to peaceably assemble, right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Would you argue that the mention Congress means the state of Iowa could, at the state level, pass laws to censor free speech and the press, prohibit people from getting together into groups larger than three and take away the ability to petition the government?

If a purely religious case comes up, the courts should immediately reject it. The gag rule belongs on Congress and the Courts, not on the citizens.

Well once again, I believe you say this because you’re envisioning the religion involved as Christianity. I seriously doubt you’d be content to leave it at that if you thought a Muslim or atheist or Hindu teacher were influencing your child.

But their greatest error is that they misinterpret the 1st Amendment. Couple this with activist judges and we get really oppressive “legislation from the bench”.

Since the 1st Amendment begins with “Congress shall make no law…”, therefore there should be no laws for the courts to decide about religion. How can one decide the Constitutionality of laws that according to the Constitution should not exist?

If a purely religious case comes up, the courts should immediately reject it. The gag rule belongs on Congress and the Courts, not on the citizens.

That means that science teachers should be honest about what they know and what they don’t know. This also means being able to have beliefs about the truth and express those beliefs without reprisals.

For example, schools can teach evolution, but should not teach that it is true. People should recognize that anything beyond the lab is cosmology and not science, bordering on religion itself. Kids should be allowed to express their opinions and not be under a gag rule.

Kids should be allowed to put scripture in their yearbooks and express their faith as long as it does not disrupt the school. Religious beliefs that do disrupt the school should be handled locally by the local school board, not by Washington or the courts.

There should be no Federal mandate for equal time. This means that in certain districts where the majority of the population is of a particular religion, the local school could decide to accommodate that religion over others. For example, a school in Brooklyn that is 90% Jewish should be allowed to express Jewish holidays and teach Hebrew, etc.

Get government and the courts out of the classroom and give it back to the parents and teachers.

I know they’re a favorite boogeyman for simpleminded conservative critique, but really, they do have a pretty consistent track record of taking sides based on civil liberties, not the religious affiliations of the people involved in a case.

Also, Jonathon Seidl, the case of the Ohio teacher has been discussed in another thread here and it turns out he was accused of doing quite a bit more than keeping a Bible on his desk. See this thread for more.