"It's a matter for a court to decide whether the boundary line gets crossed or not, Strick. I think your batting at a straw man here."

No Amos, I'm addressing the plain words of the proposal Guest put forward: ban religion from participation in the public square. Then Guest says: "I believe, just as a current example, that the proposed constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage, would be an instance of Congress making a law respecting estalishment of religion." Clearly this is the kind of thing Guest wants to ban, even prevent society from considering (even ignoring the fact that his example would be a Constitutional amendment, not a law, would have to be ratified by the states and as such not solely an act of Contress, and would not be subject to restiction by other clauses of the Constitution even if the 1st Amendment said what Guest wishes it did).

What if there's a diffence of opinion on why someone supports a given issue? I say I'm not suporting an issue for religious reasons, and Guest, who knows my mind better than I do, disagrees? The courts decide what's religious and what isn't and what I can support and what I can't? Anyone who doesn't like an issue can try to have it declared religous? How far would that be allowed to go?

For example, if I'm for making it illegal for bars to serve alcohol after 2 AM, am I just responding to the problems we've seen in my community or am I a Methodist who is against drinking and, not being able to prohibit drinking all the time, just looking to cut the number of hours people are allowed to? If religious arguments are prohibited from the public square as Guest says and we use your approach to deciding what is and isn't religious, all it takes is one judge to prevent the issue from even coming to a vote.

I realize that's not what Guest thought he was saying, but when you paint with a broadbrush, don't be offended when someone notices the problems with the fine lines.

BTW, you can take the Masonic trappings off the money anytime you want.