You might get a lauguh out of this. The atheists are promoting the usage of the term "brights" to refer to themselves.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…"

You can dismiss the Creator part if you wish, but you are dismissing the rationale behind "all men are created equal" along with it.

And if Rational Thought 2.0 means that we are to entirely dismiss the idea that creation implies a Creator, opting instead for the pseudo-scientific conjecture that life sprang meaninglessly from some unknown, non-reproducable, and random mixture of mud and water (with maybe some lightning thrown in a la Frankenstein's monster for dramatic sci-fi effect), well, I think I wait for a later release, when your program is debugged.

The thing atheists always forget when they are trumpeting their so-called superiority over the knuckle dragging religious folk is that the athesists have no idea whatsoever if they are right or wrong. That means there is zero basis for their claim. It's just pulled straight out of their ass.

How could "all men be created equal" in 1789 while slavery was legal? That contradiction doesn't mean all men aren't equal. They are. Think about that in relation to the establishment clause. We ain't perfect but we're slowly headed in the right direction. Too bad Roberts and Alito will slow down America's progress a bit, but it's inevitable.

Consider religion as outdated brain technology. We are in the midst of converting to Rational Thought 2.0.

The Constitution is the goal, the ideal. Eventually religion will no longer be "established" by the government as it is now with the Department of Faith Based Initiatives which has gone through a billion dollars of tax dollars. Private, religious schools should not be subsidized with tax dollars, at all. That's establishing religion. There are lots of other examples.

"The Constitution prohibits placing religious symbols on public property. It really couldn't be any clearer".

There is only one problem with your statement - the people who WROTE the Constitution would NOT agree with you. They would think it was perfectly fine to place the Ten Commandments in the courtroom, or to place 'In God We Trust' on a coin. You have changed the 'freedom of religion' concept to a 'freedom from religion' concept. You are advocating censorship. A symbol is not a law. A symbol doesn't prevent anyone from practicing their religion of choice.

"Yes it most certaintly does. This is because Christmas, and Christianity in general, has been under unrelenting assault from militant secularists & atheist who have, with their glib tongues, distorted American history and the clear meaning America’s founding documents to try and exclude religion from the public square."

What exactly is the "public square"? Isn't that "square" owned by the taxpayers? All the taxpayers? Isn't that why it's called "public"?

So if the public square is owned by the taxpayers, then the document that ultimately governs the public square would be the Constitution. The Bill of Rights to that Constitution states that the government cannot make a law or rule that establishes religion.

It doen't say "establish a religion" or establish one religion". It says "establish religion". A rule or law that establishes religion is clearly prohibited.

Therefore, any government action that establishes Christianity, like placing Christian symbols on public property, is a violation of the Constitution.

No one prohibits churches from placing whatever they desire on their own private property. So Christians are not being militantly victimized here. The Constitution prohibits placing religious symbols on public property.

It really couldn't be any clearer.

However, that is also the reason Congress should leave their hands off of the subject. They shouldn't be forming resolutions picking out this religion or that religion for praise. If they formally praise Christianity or Islam, then what about Judaism, Buddhism, Hindu, etc ? I think we can handle Christmas just fine without Congress, and when the secularists try to remove Christ from Christmas, the people will object (and have).

King, you are right on about this one. If religion is to be left alone by the legislative bodies what is all this about. I see political posturing for nothing, only.