[prmwsinfo]

No, it specifically denies establishment.

Absolutely incorrect ... and a neophyte's mistake.

Read the First Amendement's religion clause again -- this time with correct application of the rules of English grammar, syntax and vocabulary -- and you should easily see, I hope, that the word "establishment" is a noun, not a verb.

Thus this clause isn't about the act of "establishing" -- creating or designating -- a religion at all. This clause is simply not about taking "action".

"Establishment" is used here as in a business is an "establishment".

Thus the focus isn't on the act of establishing, but on the establishment -- the entity itself -- that is the religion or religious organization.

Thus, to satisfy both spirit and letter of the law, the fed cannot make religion or a religious organization relevant, whether or not the fed "established" the religion.

The many writers who eventually agreed on the Constitution's wording constituted a community of sheer genius.

Simply follow the rules of English grammar, syntax and vocabulary, and the Constitution reveals itself without any need to ideologically exit the Constitution for "reference" ... and this was just how the writers as a community group intended.

No, religion has a wider definition than the one you permit - philosophically or otherwise. Your inclusion of "rightly" betrays your subjective bias.

The SCOTUS is the highest court in the land ... and so it should reflect the highest level of intelligence in its application of English vocabulary meanings.

An idiot can argue that a cat is a dog ... but how idiotic would that be for the SCOTUS to give that argument consideration on a ruling involving federally mandated collar and leash laws for cats.

We can't have the SCOTUS quibbling over its imagination of what is "common interpretation" ... as such is subject to preconceived ideological filtering.

And if Manny Moron says that having a group conversation with God is a "religious" practice just because he thinks so, that's no reason to override a recent unanimous decision by a recent modern council of duly authorized representatives of every religion in the world, a unanimous decision that reference to God is not indicative of a philosophy being a religion.

The SCOTUS, as does the Constitution, must allow for changing times and stay current in referential vocabulary translations, and not merely appeal to archaic errors of perception that are, thus, no longer applicable when revealed or that appeal to the lowest common denominator.

Thus the modern globally accepted encyclopedic of what constitutes a religion is what the SCOTUS must use in interpreting the meaning of "religion" in the Constitution, to keep the timeless document of the Constitution, written as it specifically was to be timeless, just that: timeless.

As for that bias you mentioned ... it looks like it's mirror time for you again.

No that is technically true, but only one specific religion prays in this specific way to these specific conceptions (Christianity) and thus, for the State or organise or mandate a 'prayer session' through the Public School system, it is organising and mandating a specific and identifiable religion, and this is a violation of the principle of separation.

Christianity does not own the word "prayer", and it never did.

Likewise, no religion owns prayer, and it never has.

And prayer looks like it does everywhere because of the way 'men are made and God is, whether the prayer is being performed within a religious ceremony or not, so a "prayer session", by descriptive nature, can only be "religious" if performed in association with religious articles.

Keep in mind that prayer is the function of "speaking" to God, just like meditation is the function of "listening" to God.

These functions existed and were executed by 'man long before religion was created and began to comment about these functions.

Religion did not create prayer and meditation, nor did it pop up at the same time -- religion showed up eons later.

That's why God and non-religious relationships with God -- such as prayer and meditation -- are conducted by so many outside of any religious influence and without reference to religious articles (religious articles like Jesus, Mohammed, Mary, Moses, etc.). That's because God transcends religion and any other ideological conceptualization, just like 'man transcends both. Both 'man and God existed long before religion and they will likely survive and remain in constant communication when religion disappears, as both 'man and God really have nothing to definitively do with religion.

And again, as that recent wise council reiterated, the existence of God does not imply a soul or before/after life for 'man, soul and before/after life being the two tenets a philsophy requires to qualify as a religion in the modern here-and-now encyclopedic definition of religion.

Thus there is no conflict of interest violation of the First Amendment with regard to prayer and meditation in federally funded schools providing there is no religious article reference in the process, as prayer and meditation is not "owned" by religion and can and does most definitely exist apart from it.

Not quite. It can be on the coinage because coinage originates and technically operates as a private enterprise in the USA. Thus there is no violation here on the strict legal terms that coinage is not explicitly a creation of the State.

Your libertarian bias is obvious here in your implied blind worship of private enterprise that causes you to miss the clear text of the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to coin money.

Whether the fed farms out the process to a private company is absolutely irrelevant.

That private company does not have the right to "coin" money, nor does it have any say in what is inscribed on our money.

The Constitution authorizes the federal government to create statutes that describe what is to be on the face of each piece of money.

Thus the fed itself authorizes what is to be printed on the money, not some private company, and so the fed alone is responsible for our money's depiction.

So the appearance of God on our money is not because some private company made that decision, a private company being "separate" from the federal government -- that's simply preposterous .

God appears on our money because the federal government decreed the word would be there ... and it is Constitutionally acceptable for the fed to do that because God is not owned by religion in any way and is not part and parcel of religion, and thus there is no violation of the First Amendment's religion clause by placing God on the money.

It's really just that simple.

No doubt.

Was there ever any.