Our three branches of government have a lot of checks on each other. Both houses of Congress must pass bills, and then the president must sign them - and although he can veto them, Congress can override it with a 2/3 majority. The judicial branch can then declare this law unconstitutional if they wish. Therefore, laws made in this country hopefully end up representing both the Constitution and the rights of the people. It's imperfect, but obviously it would be impractical to have the entire nation of people vote on every law passed, right? You cannot have a "true" Democracy with as many people as we do. Therefore, we have a "Democratic Republic". :)

Well, we have a lot less people, but we obviously don't run public votes over laws. We do however have 8 parties running the show instead of 2. Makes everything even slower to pass, but at least more political views are considered.

Unfortunately our social democracy is a bit too socialist for my taste, slightly more capitalism would be preferred. Yet not as much as you've got. Its the red and blue side of our system. Making me slightly blue.

I like free medical care and education tho so its not all bad :)

I think Democratic Republic is reaching a bit far, myself. I think our government has far more republican aspects to it than democratic ones. Wikipedia has us pegged as a constitutional republic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_republic

It's a republic with aspects of representative democracy. Seems pretty accurate to me. ::shrug::

Angelina - I do wish we had more parties here. Two is not enough. I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat, and I can't tell whether I lean right or left. I am mostly socially liberal and economically conservative, but it always depends on the particular issue.

It's a republic with aspects of representative democracy. Seems pretty accurate to me. ::shrug::

Angelina - I do wish we had more parties here. Two is not enough. I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat, and I can't tell whether I lean right or left. I am mostly socially liberal and economically conservative, but it always depends on the particular issue.

Only 3 of the parties have any significant size at the moment tho, some of the smaller parties don't have much support, especially not the extremely socialist ones. The Christian party is pretty low too these days.

I did get involved in politics for a while, was on the board of a local branch of one party for a year, but backed out when I was in danger of ending up on the local council :)

I live in Norway.
A prominent politician being racist, sexist or otherwise showing great disrespect for other peoples believes would certainly be out of a job very soon. I'm quite surprised this sort of stuff falls under the freedom of speech over there. So if Bush said the same about black people, would that be ok too?
If this is common opinion, I'm starting to get an idea of what Sam Harris is talking about...

*****************************
Norway ...Schnoreway !.
Say,you folk eat Herring like we consume potato chips... Right.?

*****************************
Norway ...Schnoreway !.
Say,you folk eat Herring like we consume potato chips... Right.?


Not sure what that is :)

You are free to say it, but discrimination is severely frowned upon and would be political suicide.

Ahhh... but political correctness has it's issues also:

http://www.albawaba.com/en/news/181255

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

(Not criticizing... just saying you cannot avoid offending SOMEONE)

Well, the Pilgrims were in search of economic freedom, but they weren't the only colonists - they weren't even the first. And religious pilgrims certainly didn't make up the majority of colonists. It is interesting that history classes have changed so much. Our tendency to whitewash things and make the past look great is definitely waning - just look at lessons about Columbus for evidence of that! I'm glad that students are now being taught the less biased truth. However, I'm still okay with whitewashing for small children. First graders don't need to know that all the Indians who ate with the Pilgrims at the first Thanksgiving were later murdered and/or oppressed and taken advantage of by the same people they helped and welcomed. :p

An argument could be made that the later settlers of the Colony were also murdered by the natives---up to and including infants in their cradles. My own ggggggrandfather was captured by a Massachussetts tribe, had pine-resin-filled wood knots placed under his skin, and then set on fire.

When whitewashing is done, it's usually to one group or the other's detriment.
Let's not hail the Pilgrims as overly godly, nor, conversely, hail the natives as sweet, innocent, and defenseless. Neither is true.

Rather than whitewashing, I'd like to see a fair and balanced take on our beginnings taught in our nation's schools.

An argument could be made that the later settlers of the Colony were also murdered by the natives---up to and including infants in their cradles. My own ggggggrandfather was captured by a Massachussetts tribe, had pine-resin-filled wood knots placed under his skin, and then set on fire.

When whitewashing is done, it's usually to one group or the other's detriment.
Let's not hail the Pilgrims as overly godly, nor, conversely, hail the natives as sweet, innocent, and defenseless. Neither is true.

Rather than whitewashing, I'd like to see a fair and balanced take on our beginnings taught in our nation's schools.

Ren, I've decided to start a new thread on this subject. I think it's fascinating and would like to hear other's thoughts.

:)
SMW

If those (ridiculous sized, bit I digress) crosses are erected on private property, with 100% private money...........then no problem.

If however they are on Public land and if one cent of tax money was spent to erect or maintain them, then it is a despicable and wrongful misuse of the taxpayer's money and it is contrary to the spirit of the amendment prohibiting the establishment of religion in government. They should be torn down immediately.

The atheists --if the crosses are on Public land -- are completely in the right in this matter and justified in demanding they be removed.

If those (ridiculous sized, bit I digress) crosses are erected on private property, with 100% private money...........then no problem.

If however they are on Public land and if one cent of tax money was spent to erect or maintain them, then it is a despicable and wrongful misuse of the taxpayer's money and it is contrary to the spirit of the amendment prohibiting the establishment of religion in government. They should be torn down immediately.

The atheists --if the crosses are on Public land -- are completely in the right in this matter and justified in demanding they be removed.
I'll proceed immediately to the military cemetary this weekend and pull all those crosses from the graves sites. We wouldn't want ANY religious symbols on public land!

Wait, I just read the mentioned amendment... don't think that is the correct interpretation of the law.... I doubt a cross (or mehnorrah, etc) would violate that.

Whew! Glad I looked that up. Saves me a lot of work.

:woohoo:

We wouldn't want ANY religious symbols on public land!


I certainly do not.

I certainly do not.

You need to look a war vet in the face and say that, or search out the poor families of the troopers themselves and tell them exactly what you've said here.

But, I know what you'll say to that and it's sad.

You need to look a war vet in the face and say that, or search out the poor families of the troopers themselves and tell them exactly what you've said here.

Why?

Because you claim I "need to"....??

?!?

I am for the separation of religion and State.

You and they are not.

Don't worry though. Things will be forever arranged to your and the other superstitionist's liking, just as it has been done in the U.S. for hundreds of years.

You'll get to keep erecting your innumerable superstitious/religious symbols and icons on State property and forcing those who do not happen to share a belief in the same myths as you to --in a decidedly unfair and unConstitutional manner-- share in paying the costs.

Why?

Because you claim I "need to"....??

?!?

I am for the separation of religion and State.

You and they are not.

Don't worry though. Things will be forever arranged to your and the other superstitionist's liking, just as it has been done in the U.S. for hundreds of years.

You'll get to keep erecting your innumerable superstitious/religious symbols and icons on State property and forcing those who do not happen to share a belief in the same myths as you to --in a decidedly unfair and unConstitutional manner-- share in paying the costs.

I told you it was going to be sad.

What about the monument that the government has paid for for the 911 victims is that OK?

I'm not an American, but as far as I understand from Sam Harris and other atheists in the US, there is freedom of religion, but not yet full freedom from religion. Have seen quotes by Bush and others stating that being an atheist is unpatriotic, and as far as I can gather being unpatriotic is a big nono over there :)

I find statements like that a little disturbing tbh...

Bush is just using religion to get votes. Sadly people like SMW don't see that. It is just a election ploy.

How do you feel about our money, Mesk? If you're still adamant about not having religious significance attached, please send me all of yours and I'll be more than happy to dispose of it for you.

;)


THE UNITED STATES ONE DOLLAR BILL

Take out a one dollar bill, and look at it. The one dollar bill you're
looking at first came off the presses in 1957 in its present design.
This so-called paper money is in fact a cotton and linen blend, with
red and blue minute silk fibers running through it. It is actually
material. We've all washed it without it falling apart. A special
blend of ink is used, the contents we will never know. It is
overprinted with symbols and then it is
starched to make it water resistant and pressed to give it that nice
crisp look.

If you look on the front of the bill, you will see the United States
Treasury Seal. On the top you will see the scales for a balanced
budget. In the center you have a carpenter's square, a tool used for
an even cut. Underneath is the Key to the United States Treasury.
That's all pretty easy to figure out, but what is on the back of that
dollar bill is something we should all know.

If you turn the bill over, you will see two circles. Both circles,
together, comprise the Great Seal of the United States . The First
Continental Congress requested that Benjamin Franklin and a group of
men come up with a Seal. It took them four years to accomplish this
task and another two years to get it approved.

If you look at the left-hand circle, you will see a Pyramid. Notice
the face is lighted, and the western side is dark. This country was
just beginning. We had not begun to explore the West or decided what
we could do for Western Civilization. The Pyramid is uncapped, again
signifying that we were not even close to being finished. Inside the
capstone you have the all-seeing eye, an ancient symbol for divinity.
It was Franklin 's belief that one man couldn't do it alone, but a
group of men, with the help of God, could do anything. "IN GOD WE
TRUST" is on this currency.

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t33/texrose752/dollarbillsidetwo.jpg


The Latin above the pyramid, ANNUIT COEPTIS, means, "God has favored
our undertaking." The Latin below the pyramid, NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM,
means, "a new order has begun." At the base of the pyramid is the
Roman Numeral for 1776. (MDCCLXXVI) If you look at the right-hand
circle, and check it carefully, you will learn that it is on every
National Cemetery in the United States. It is also on the Parade of
Flags Walkway at the Bushnell, Florida National Cemetery, and is the
centerpiece of most hero's monuments. Slightly modified, it is the
seal of the President of the United States, and it is always visible
whenever he speaks, yet very few people know what the symbols mean.

The Bald Eagle was selected as a symbol for victory for two reasons:
First, he is not afraid of a storm; he is strong, and he is smart
enough to soar above it. Secondly, he wears no material crown. We had
just broken from the King of England. Also, notice the shield is
supported. This country can now stand on its own. At the top of that
shield you have a white bar signifying congress, a unifying factor. We
were coming together as one nation. In the Eagle's beak you will read,
" E PLURIBUS UNUM", meaning, "one nation from many people". Above the
Eagle, you have thirteen stars, representing the thirteen original
colonies, and any clouds of misunderstanding rolling away. Again, we
were coming together as one.

Notice what the Eagle holds in his talons. He holds an olive branch
and arrows. This country wants peace, but we will never be afraid to
fight to preserve peace. The Eagle always wants to face the olive
branch, but in time of war, his gaze turns toward the arrows.

"GOD" is a general term! Again, you try to sound smart but always fall short. By using the word GOD, one is not "pushing" a certain religion. God to Christians means Jesus, to Muslims "Allah", etc. etc. So, since our money has the words "God" on it, does not mean its ok to put the 10 commandments in a state funded courthouse.

Finally, I WOULD like to see "GOD" removed from our money! Yes OUR money! I would think true Christians would find it an insult that "GAWD" is written on money! That evil MONEY!

All separation of church and state means is that there shall be no state-SPONSORED religion.

That is ALL it means.

I fail to see how the placing of ANY religious symbol advocates the state SPONSORING any particular religion. Nor does it ESTABLISH any particular religion.

You;d think, if the crosses provide comfort to the families of the dead, there would be none to say it should not be so.

Ah well.

Finally, I WOULD like to see "GOD" removed from our money! Yes OUR money! I would think true Christians would find it an insult that "GAWD" is written on money! That evil MONEY!

To be honest, I really could care less what is printed on currency. If I absolutely detested Benjamin Franklin, I doubt that it would "move" me to throw away all the $100 bills I run across, or to petition congress to remove his likeness.

We are given freedom of religion in our constitution, not freedom from ever seeing a religious symbol, gathering place, or a believer. Do you think that "In God We Trust" on currency, or the cross marking a grave in a federal graveyard, is somehow forcing you to worship a select religion? Do you get nauseated when you pass a church/synagogue/mosque on a public road that has a symbol or sign where you can see it? If so, I really feel for you.

"GOD" is a general term! Again, you try to sound smart but always fall short. By using the word GOD, one is not "pushing" a certain religion. God to Christians means Jesus, to Muslims "Allah", etc. etc. So, since our money has the words "God" on it, does not mean its ok to put the 10 commandments in a state funded courthouse.

Finally, I WOULD like to see "GOD" removed from our money! Yes OUR money! I would think true Christians would find it an insult that "GAWD" is written on money! That evil MONEY!

The word "God"--again, neither sponsors nor establishes the Christian faith, or any faith. And it's rather a generic term anyhoo. It forces NO ONE to "worship" or acknowledge anything but apparently that's how you see it.

You have misquoted the idea about money being inherently evil as well. The actual quote is --For the LOVE of money is the root of all evil.

I find it a little sad that you've been taught this country was NOT founded on Christian principles, DF. Your education is in direct opposition to what I learned in school. I really don't think our forefather's intentions have changed much since 1776... but I definitely see that our educational system has become so liberal that's it's considered pc to alter history in an effort to minimize the importance of religion.

IMO, America stands for FREEDOM of religion... which also means freedom FROM religion. Nobody can force anyone to believe or disbelieve. However, that doesn't mean people who do choose to worship God are to take the backseat while atheists and agnostics sit up front and drive. I don't care what your history teacher said... it wasn't designed to be that way.

:drive:
SMW First of all what christian principles do you say our nation was founded on? Second, why in 1797 did America make a treaty with Tripoli,declaring that "the government of the United States is not,in any sense,founded on the Christian religion." This was written during Washington's presidency, and approved by the Senate under John Adams. ?? If we are a christian nation ,why doesn't our Constitution say so? And I don't know where you get the idea that atheists and agnostics are making people who worship God take a backseat. No one is depriving you of worshipping. Tax-exempt churches,temples and mosques abound. And I could easily say that christians villify athesit/agnostics. That would certainly be more true then saying that people who believe in god have to take a backseat to atheist/agnostics. I mean even George W. said atheist were unpatriotic. How rude and ignorant of him.

To be honest, I really could care less what is printed on currency. If I absolutely detested Benjamin Franklin, I doubt that it would "move" me to throw away all the $100 bills I run across, or to petition congress to remove his likeness.

We are given freedom of religion in our constitution, not freedom from ever seeing a religious symbol, gathering place, or a believer. Do you think that "In God We Trust" on currency, or the cross marking a grave in a federal graveyard, is somehow forcing you to worship a select religion? Do you get nauseated when you pass a church/synagogue/mosque on a public road that has a symbol or sign where you can see it? If so, I really feel for you.
I do believe that seeing "In God We Trust" on our currency really alienates me, as an atheist. It's a rather divisive phrase to have on our currency, to be honest. Is there any good reason for it to be there?

I told you it was going to be sad.

What about the monument that the government has paid for for the 911 victims is that OK?

No.

It is total bullshit. Why do I have to pay for a monument for people who got killed? Nothing could be more unConstitutional.

If a factory in the next state over from you blew up and killed 500 people and the government said -- "Ok, let's give all the families of those people some money, and we'll simply take it out of the tax monies, and thus charge the taxpayers for it" --- would that be fair to you or to the other millions of U.S. taxpayers?!?!...............No, it would not, and it never will be.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

One day in the House of Representatives, a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support, moreso because it afforded the speakers a fine opportunity to preen and pose than from the necessity of convincing anybody, because it seemed that everybody already favored it. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Davy Crockett arose. It was expected, of course, that he was going to make one of his characteristic speeches in support of the bill. He got up and said............

"Mr. Speaker – I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him. This government can owe no debts but for services rendered, and at a stipulated price. If it is a debt, how much is it? Has it been audited, and the amount due ascertained? If it is a debt, this is not the place to present it for payment, or to have its merits examined. If it is a debt, we owe more than we can ever hope to pay, for we owe the widow of every soldier who fought in the War of 1812 precisely the same amount. There is a woman in my neighborhood, the widow of as gallant a man as ever shouldered a musket. He fell in battle. She is as good in every respect as this lady, and is as poor. She is earning her daily bread by her daily labor; but if I were to introduce a bill to appropriate five or ten thousand dollars for her benefit, I should be laughed at, and my bill would not get five votes in this House. There are thousands of widows in the country just such as the one I have spoken of, but we never hear of any of these large debts to them. Sir, this is no debt. The government did not owe it to the deceased when he was alive; it could not contract it after he died. I do not wish to be rude, but I must be plain. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much of our own money as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

..................................Crockett took his seat. Nobody replied.

I do believe that seeing "In God We Trust" on our currency really alienates me, as an atheist. It's a rather divisive phrase to have on our currency, to be honest. Is there any good reason for it to be there?
Not really, other than it's been there for a long period of time. By the same token, should we update the portraits to more "progressive" people? Maybe Steven Hawking or Albert Einstein? I have more important issues to concern myself over. Maybe I should be offended when I see a U.S. flag, since my ancestors fought for the Confederacy? Maybe we should we re-design the national flag to make us southerners not feel inadequate when it comes to 1860's warfare?

It's guess it is kind of a heritage issue. I'd also vote we quit using green and black ink... let's get some color in our currency :p

Actually, since I use cash so very little now... I guess my debit/credit card should state "In VISA We Trust".

. Maybe I should be offended when I see a U.S. flag, since my ancestors fought for the Confederacy?

l

Not to threadjack, OP, (OOOOOPS)
But that's interesting. Do you know much about them?
I have 5 gg grandpas who fought in the War too, Union side. (don't hate me)

No.

It is total bullshit. Why do I have to pay for a monument for people who got killed? Nothing could be more unConstitutional.

If a factory in the next state over from you blew up and killed 500 people and the government said -- "Ok, let's give all the families of those people some money, and we'll simply take it out of the tax monies, and thus charge the taxpayers for it" --- would that be fair to you or to the other millions of U.S. taxpayers?!?!...............No, it would not, and it never will be.


So what you're saying is, we should tear down the monument in Hawaii, take back the money for the 911 building and destroy the wall for the Vietnam vets.
All because they're simply people who died and in no way should be remembered or given gratitude for what they died for?

Not to threadjack, OP, (OOOOOPS)
But that's interesting. Do you know much about them?
I have 5 gg grandpas who fought in the War too, Union side. (don't hate me)
A little on one gg grandfather. He was a "leatherbutt" (captain, I think) in northern Alabama. I have some info at my mom's (medals, etc.) and some research that my Dad did. I'll try to dig it up over the holidays and find out a bit more.

Maybe a civil war "ancestor" thread in history would be a better place to discuss (I'll be happy to join in when I get off my lazy butt and get some info).

BTW - no hate from me on the gg grandpa's affiliation, I have no dog in that hunt... just used the analogy above. (Plus we know the kill ratio in most of the battles ;)).

Maybe a civil war "ancestor" thread in history would be a better place to discuss (I'll be happy to join in when I get off my lazy butt and get some info).



will do--should be interesting. :)

At least half of my family wasn't around for the Civil War (they were in Italy, Sweden, other places in Europe), and the other half.... Some of them I'm sure fought for the Confederacy since they were rich Virginians who probably owned slaves (I could be wrong though). The others were poor very recent Irish immigrants (if they were here at all, it actually may have been later than the 1860s, not sure) in New England so they could just as well not have fought at all.

[quote=DarkFantasy96]I believe the keyword there is primitive, Fool. Jesus' teachings are all good.-------------------------------------------------------- If Jesus' teachings are all good. Let's look a few things he said: "Think not that I come to send peace:I came not to send peace but a sword." (Matt. 10:34) If a man come to me,and hate not his father, and mother,and wife, and children, and brethrens, and sisters,yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.(Luke 14:26) "I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." (Matt. 10:35-36) These are just a few things Jesus said. Of course you can find some verses that cite Jesus in a different light, how does that change the disturbing things he said?

Somewhat out of context, but a good point of discussion (based on the translation).

Look for the parable of the fig tree also... it shows that Jesus did not like those that did not "produce".

Carry on.

There was something I said to Blob when I first got to allforums.

Give me a manual to a Ford Escort and I'll prove it's impossible for it to run.
afinertouch loves to do the same thing to the bible.

Give me a manual to a Ford Escort and I'll prove it's impossible for it to run.
Now if only you could magically make it so.

" I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."
..................................Crockett took his seat. Nobody replied.

Excellent post, Freethinker.

Originally Posted by Freethinker
No.

It is total bullshit. Why do I have to pay for a monument for people who got killed? Nothing could be more unConstitutional.

So what you're saying is, we should tear down the monument in Hawaii, take back the money for the 911 building and destroy the wall for the Vietnam vets.

No, it would only take MORE unwarranted money from the taxpayers to de-construct them now.

But they should have not have been built with funds from the public Treasury that belong to ALL the taxpayers, any more than money should have been appropriated by Congress to give to the widow of one particular naval officer.

All because they're simply people who died and in no way should be remembered or given gratitude for what they died for?

Remember them all you like, Inviolable. Give them all the gratitude that you like. Show your gratitude and remembrance every day if that's your major interest in life. Get together a large group of people who are so grateful and so full of remembrance for that particular segment of humanity that they want to contribute money from their OWN pockets to build some grand, expensive monuments.

But as Mr Crockett pointed out so eloquently, the governing politicians have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money for such projects.

Let all concerned citizens give a week of their own salary, and you would have more than enough money to build whatever memorial you like.

I don't even believe in spending money on funerals, grave space, or headstones. (Am more in favor of cremation and spreading ashes wherever they'll help to fertilize the soil.)

So you can well imagine how little I care for spending money on public memorials.
:smile2:

I don't even believe in spending money on funerals, grave space, or headstones. (Am more in favor of cremation and spreading ashes wherever they'll help to fertilize the soil.)

So you can well imagine how little I care for spending money on public memorials.
:smile2:


Yeah I find it creepy to keep a body 6 feet underground and keep returning to it and talking or placing flowers near it. The body is dead! Cremate it! I believe it is a human weakness in not being able to let go. Cemeteries are a big waste of land!

Now if only you could magically make it so.

The point is, it's not about making it true, it's about taking it out of context.

If I proved to you that the car won't work, how is that beneficial to anyone?

At least in a moral way...

No, it would only take MORE unwarranted money from the taxpayers to de-construct them now.
Let all concerned citizens give a week of their own salary, and you would have more than enough money to build whatever memorial you like.


I believe it's our responsibility to remember people who have died defending our country. So has the vote goes, I'd say you're out voted and still free to say what you want because people have died for that freedom.

We cant let ourselves forget what it cost, even at the expense of your tax dollars. Which are voted into place.

[quote=DarkFantasy96]I believe the keyword there is primitive, Fool. Jesus' teachings are all good.-------------------------------------------------------- If Jesus' teachings are all good. Let's look a few things he said: "Think not that I come to send peace:I came not to send peace but a sword." (Matt. 10:34) If a man come to me,and hate not his father, and mother,and wife, and children, and brethrens, and sisters,yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.(Luke 14:26) "I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." (Matt. 10:35-36) These are just a few things Jesus said. Of course you can find some verses that cite Jesus in a different light, how does that change the disturbing things he said?

***************************

" If Jesus Christ were to come today,people would not even
crucify him.They would ask him to dinner,and hear what he had
to say,and make fun of it. "

-- Thomas Carlyle { 1795-1881 }

That was 150 years or so,ago.

[QUOTE=rendova]All separation of church and state means is that there shall be no state-SPONSORED religion.

That is ALL it means.

I fail to see how the placing of ANY religious symbol advocates the state SPONSORING any particular religion. Nor does it ESTABLISH any particular religion.

But the federal government should not pay for it! Also the separation of church and state was to protect religious institutional corruption in our government. Trying to pass their own agenda. Corruption and tyranny were also their concern not just not wanting an official state religion.