OK, honestly, I really wasn't going to reply to this anymore, but since I'm already knee-deep in it, might as well!

I know this is difficult, folks, but we have to focus on the issue - focus focus focus!!!

Originally posted by Jasper:
Ok, so this child has a right to not be exposed to religion. Doesn't my child have a right to be exposed to it. In other words, when you say that one person has a right not to do something that means you are inherently taking away someone elses right to do it. You are forever trapped in a catch 22.
This is NOT a serious flaw. You're not understanding the issue. Let's see if I can break this down: The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals never said that that child had a "right" to NOT be exposed to religion, ever. Heck, she's going to be exposed to a LOT of things in her life that her father probably isn't going to like. That point is completely irrelevant. The courts in this country do not and have not ever made rulings on the general practice of religion in this country, outside of government. The only time a court will hear a case and make a decision on a religious matter is if there's a government entity or a government-sponsored entity (in this case, the public, tax-payer-supported SCHOOL!) allegedly involving or sponsoring religion. A court is not going to rule that you cannot pray on the street, in your home, in church, in the shower, in your car, etc. A court is not going to rule that you (or your child) cannot pray in school even. They step in (when someone brings a case) on issues where the government might be considered to be sponsoring or endorsing some kind of religion. As an American citizen, you have the right to expose your child to any religion you so choose (well, assuming you don't break any other laws in there anywhere)! NO ONE is taking that away from you! But no, as long as he/she goes to a PUBLIC school, he/she will not get it (religion) in school. See the difference?

Please, someone show me one instance where a court made a ruling that somehow prohibited an American's right to worship as they please that did not involve any government entity or government-supported entity - this includes govt buildings, schools, etc. Every time we hear of issues like this, the government is involved. These cases are all about the First Amendment. They are NOT about taking away your right to practice your religion!! With the exception of a case where maybe the worship or religious practice harmed another human being or violated that person's right to life, liberty or property, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a single case where an American's right to worship was violated, outside the conditions I just gave.

What we are discussing is religion in government!! Let's stop acting like the courts in this country are on a crusade to take religion away from everyone. It's simply untrue.

Am I the only one that can see this distinction?