When I said that it was in response to "Because "trust" falls short of "worship"?" right? When I said "talks about god" that was meant to mean that the law actually talks about god which we cannot do according to the 1st amendment. If our law talks about god and says there is not one then it would be against the "make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise. " because it would be making a law respecting an establishment of religion and possibly prohibiting it? Conversely if it says there is one then it does the same thing. Right? Or do you think a law putting "there is no god" on our money would not be against the 1st amendment? If there is a law that "talks about god" then it either is affirming or negating god. Period. And both are against the 1st amendment. I did reply to you "no", but if you read the rest of it it says "No", I said to the original poster "It doesn't say anything about trust," Because that was the subject of our conversation. Not say anything about god. You can say I misunderstood your question or you could say you misunderstood the point of the debate. As I have shown above, any law talking about god is violating the 1st amendment. I mean really what could you say? The most benign thing you could do is say, "God is both real and not real" and that still would violate the 1st. Why dont you give us a statement that you think wouldnt violate the 1st and I'll give the opposite and we will see if you agree.
Eko
= new reply since forum marked as read