Is modern separation of church and state based on circular logic?
The responsers who are respectful enough to refrain from personal attacks will only recite Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists or the First Amendment itself, neither of which explicitly say anything about abolishing religious symbols from public buildings or public land.
But they say OBVIOUSLY this is implied by the statement that the government must not interfere with any person's religious expression.
Hello - if religious symbols are banished from public buildings, isn't this interfering????
There is nothing "OBVIOUS" about this interpretation. In fact, this interpretation is the exact opposite of the actual written words.
But people seem to be so brainwashed that they don't realize they're just employing circular logic.
They say it says that just because everybody thinks it says that.
Even though it doesn't.
and seeing how many Marxists got killed by other Marxists during the violent beginning of Stalinism, that would not be good.
How does giving space in a public building amount to "establishment?"
Does permitting a church announcement on a bulletin board establish a state church?
Isn't that a little paranoid?