[This_person]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

And no one is stating the people couldnt discuss religion, hell we're doing it here. But thats not the argument, its the definition of that Establishment.

• 2 Students talking about (some) aspect of Religion (whatever doesnt matter) - Thats ok because the Government is not involved (just 2 citizens).
• A Student talking to teacher about (some) aspect of Religion (whatever doesnt matter) - Thats probably ok, as long as coercion (sp?) doesnt occur, but its a gray area, why tempt it? Even if the teacher attempts to coerce, is that government establishing a religion, or a teacher trying to coerce a student?
• A (public school) Teacher leading a prayer - Not ok, this is Government establishment of religion (doesnt matter if its non-denominational, its still establishment of religion) I am much closer at agreeing with this IF and ONLY IF following the prayer is a required part of a course - NOT if it's just a voluntary thing done in a club, or for demonstration as a learning tool within a class, etc.
• A (public school) Teacher leading a class discussion about why XXXXX faith are wrong for not being XXXXXX faith - Equally Not Ok, this is Government establishment of religion Could be; however, if they're discussing why XXX says YYY is wrong, and what YYY says about that, and what YYY says is wrong about XXX etc., that would be a course on religions. Establishing, to me, means something akin to requiring - so discussing even the teacher's opinions would not be an establishment, IMO
• Courtroom display of Historical documents that have led to the creation of rules within our society (as in the Supreme Court) - Could be construed as Establishment, kinda grey areay. it doesnt focus on relion, it focus on all aspects that have led Society and what has influenced the laws and rules that govern society. Here, I pretty much disagree. A decoration is a decoration. What should be judged is if the court followed applicable law, not what the court believes in religion, or how the room is decorated. If the judge said "I know the law says this, but the commandments require I go against the law...." that would be a government official establishing his/her religion above the law.
• Courtroom display of One Religions Laws (Judge Roy Moore) - Not ok this is Government establishment of Religion

Again, see the previous comment

I realize no one is saying it can't be discussed by itself in context. My point is that there is no science behind human evolution from any source but humans. Any other discussion is conjecture with no more science behind it than any other religious concept, and should either be taught as such, or other ideas with similar basis should not be singled out for exclusion.