[CaptainHaplo]

Steve - the link is in regards to the constitution. The fact is that a seperation of church and state does in fact exist - and I have not said that it is not a proper thing. Specifically - it should exist to keep government from mandating ANY religion. I have said as much repeatedly - there is a difference to it "not being in the constitution" and it "not being"....

The seperation of church and state is founded on a letter to the Danbury Baptists - a PRIVATE letter - that was used to justify a legal ruling. Now you can lump anything in with "those evangelicals" or "those gays" or "those (insert your target here)" all you want - but your painting a with a broad brush that is intentionally generalizing.

I disagree with Ms. Dunbar on a number of points. But while their AGENDA may be one thing, their statement on "under god" is in fact correct. See the 2 declarations I mentioned earlier for proof. The fact that the DoI was the document that founded us - and specifically put our independance before the "Supreme Judge" is rather clear, regardless of whether people like it or not. I will say it again - has she said "under the Christian god" then I would be right there with you saying she was wrong. But there is a difference. The terms used - as has been pointed out - were very deist - which in fact most of the "Founding Fathers" were.

As for the issue of Buddhas in the courtroom - I personally wouldn't care. If I did have an issue with it - there are options. First - make sure the judge isn't re-elected - and also appeal IF and only IF the law was not followed. What statue is in the room matters not one bit to the legal ruling - and if it does - then the ruling isn't going to stand. Simple enough.
Also - an elected official has an office - but taxpayer money pays for it, taxpayer business is done in it - and taxpayers often see officials in their office. So what is the difference between that and a courtroom? Both are accessible to, serve and are paid for by the taxpayer. Careful with your answer though - because if you say ok remove every religious icon in government buildings - then your also saying a religious person could not bring a token of faith to their work - and that infringes on their right to worship as they see fit.

You see - its a 2 edged sword..... Lets say you did have a judge that wanted to have a statue of Buddha on his wall. Ok - then his clerk wants to bring in a small Cross mounted on a stand. Maybe the court recorder wants to have something else on her little desk. Where do you stop - or do you? Does it matter what each of them does as long as they do the work of the people as they are duty bound to by law and terms of employment?

People want to talk about how Xtians want to take over and remake government - and a few loonies do. And I will stand with you to stop them when I see the idiocy- but the lunacy has to stop when it comes to the rabid FEAR of any religion having any impact on governance... If it were not for religion - this country would not exist - because most of the settling of this country was an attempt to find religious freedom. Meaning you practice your thing - I'll practice mine, and we live and let live. But instead you have people who want to make sure no one can practice anything on "public" grounds. Well public means yours and mine and the other guys too - and last I checked you weren't to tell me what to do any more than I am to tell you. What is good for the goose is good for the gander....