response 101 of 432:

Feb 6 19:44 UTC 2006

Re #91: I know that -- but its detractors (who I'm at least playing
devil's-advocate for) claim that it's blowing up the Establishment Clause up
into something to take our freedoms away.

The first few quotes to come up on Google, just to give you a feel for what
they're trying to say (no weight at the moment):

"The founders simply meant that the government could not set up a national
church or compel its citizens to attend one church over another or to even
compel them to attend church at all. It has nothing to do with a judge wearing
a cross or any other religious symbol on their lapel. It has nothing to do with
the Ten Commandments on a stone monument in front of a courthouse. But the ACLU
has twisted the establishment clause to try to make it say what it clearly does
not."

"In modern U.S. society, we've twisted the establishment clause of the
constitution to mean 'separation of church from state', or, more appropriately,
'elimination of any religious expression from any public venue'" (That was from
a blog that, based on this one taste, I'll leave a URL to:
http://photoninthedarkness.blogspot.com/2005/11/mea-culpa.html)

"They have also twisted the Establishment Clause, which was intended to prevent
Congress from establishing an official state Church, as barring public nativity
scenes, or prayers before a a highschool football game."

"Liberal judges and lawyers have twisted the Establishment Clause to mean
freedom from religion. The Founders had in mind to guarantee freedom of
religion."

"It has twisted the Establishment Clause into a disestablishment clause, wholly
subverting original intent."