John Hardly,
One of my pet peeves is people who quote from earlier in the thread to make some sort of point, and do it incompletely and inaccurately. You said earlier:
On the other side stand folks who, like many on this site, would like to enhance their ability to revise history to reflect a Christianity that they believe to be the reality -- a barbaric, ignorant, sheep-fucking, redneck Christianity incapable of the genius that founded our constitution. The thought that Christianity would actually be instrumental in the founding of our nation and its constitution (with, ironically, its "no establishment" clause) is not the Christianity they wish to paint for them and theirs and future generations.

That's when I said:
I haven't seen anything like this viewpoint put forth anywhere in this discussion.

Juxtaposing this against my statements
Religion is by it's very nature irrational
and
They are very well educated, very articulate, very intelligent people who also appear to be very power mad
is not arguing cleanly. You can disagree with me if you like, but don't take a different comment of mine completely out of context to try to prove that I am in some way inconsistent.

By the way, you seem to be assuming that I think it's a bad thing that religion is irrational and that I don't consider myself irrational in this way. You also seem to think that people who are actively working to force Congress to cut off funding for federal courts when the courts make decisions they don't like aren't power mad. What do you call it?

John Peekstok