Quote:
While I agree with you fully that it should, I'm against the modern trend of finding stuff in the Constitution that people think "should" be in there that is in fact not in there.
I dunno. It seems to me that by congress making no law to establish a religion, athiesim would deserve the same rights as any other choice about faith. Or to say it differently, people should be treated the same under the law no matter what they do or do not believe.

I don't think that means that athiests can expect to be insulated from people of faith, nor vice versa. But certainly athiests should not have any less rights than people of faith, nor should people of faith have any less rights than athiests.

Unfortunately, most of what I've seen regarded as "protecting people's right to faith/nonfaith" seems to be either the idea of insulating them against exposure to other perspective or denying the influence people's personal faith might have on public law. But neither of these concepts is what I read in the first ammendment. Rather I see the idea that the government cannot tell people what to believe.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.