I am a well-read individual. I have read debates on the existence of God between Russell and various theists (e.g. Copleston and others). Russell could not defend his position very well in my opinion. You are right - people who don't believe in God don't hate God because they don't beleive God exists - they hate the IDEA of God! I also read of Russell's trip to China where he inexplicably called the rulers "immoral" - which begs the question as to just how immorality can exist without God - there's a question for Russell! Even De Sade understood that without God, there can be no morals ("what is is right").
So, now you admit that the framers did something wrong for purposes of expedience, and had to change it later. There goes the bottom level of the house of cards.
You completely misread me. I never said the framers were infallible, but even though we know they were fallible, that is no excuse for redefining the 1st Amendment. All men are fallible and make mistakes - that's precisely why we have the bill of rights - to prevent a tyrannous govt from oppressing the people; and that's why we have an electoral college - to prevent a tyrannous majority from oppressing the minorities. The founders fully understood the corrupt nature of mankind - apparently, you don't. The structure of the Constituttion was intended to secure our rights and ensure, as far as possible, a system of checks and balances. Unfortunately, only a MORAL people and MORAL leaders will honor that system, and many of our leaders and judges are no longer MORAL. I, for one, will not sit by while my rights are eroded by imperious elitists.
I have no reason to avoid your questions. I'm a lifelong student of history - I know full well what was intended by the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, and that is what we were discussing. You still haven't explained why the separation of church and state "idea" was not forced down our throats earlier than 1947 if it is a valid reading of the 1st amendment. You can't do it because you know full well that it is a perversion of the 1st Amendment. Only ignorant gullible people (which sadly includes most Americans) are not aware of that, and since we have government schools indoctrinating children with this lie, it's no wonder that it has taken hold.
So, my argument and comments are not so much with this ruling, but with the movement in general.
You called Judge Ed Carnes, Chief Judge J.L. Edmundson, and Judge Richard Story "godless amoral morons" who support killing babies, and you don't know the first thing about them, nor have you even read the opinion you are attacking. No one here needs to read my characterization to recognize the lack of class and character in those statements. And I'll say that wherever you want, as is my right.
I did not intend to specifically call them anything. Actually, my words were intended for any justice who supports abortion or the perversion ("separation" doctrine) of my 1st amendment rights. I know what I meant.
All of that being said, I no longer want to have a discussion with you. You say I have no class, then you proceed to call me all sorts of names (does the word "hypocrisy" mean anything to you?). Try applying your standards to yourself. I would gladly tell liberal judges to their face what I think of them if I had the chance. This isn't Cuba. That's what's beautiful about America - we have freedom of FREE SPEECH - oops! - not when it comes to saying the name of Christ in a high school speech or at a football game! But, one thing is certain, YOU can't shut me up.