There is tremendously more hope (gigantic to infinitesimal) for immortality through mankind than any god. For the record, I too would like pleasurable immortality. If you are near sighted try prayer or an optometrist to improve your vision. See which works better.

I have great hope (and some FAITH, but not overly optimistic) that mankind will advance to where we can travel back in time and save people, bringing them forward to what is the then present.

Should we acquire this ability our lives may very well be reviewed to see if we are worthy. THE EVIL AND THOSE WHO PROMOTED SUPERSTITIOUS LIES THAT GO AGAINST ALL LOGIC AND EVIDENCE, MAY NOT BE DEEMED SO.

The safer, smarter, better choice is through reality – not specious lies.

Good luck and happiness to all, -Fizzmick PaChee

There is tremendously more hope (gigantic to infinitesimal) for immortality through mankind than any god. For the record, I too would like pleasurable immortality. If you are near sighted try prayer or an optometrist to improve your vision. See which works better.

I have great hope (and some FAITH, but not overly optimistic) that mankind will advance to where we can travel back in time and save people, bringing them forward to what is the then present.

Should we acquire this ability our lives may very well be reviewed to see if we are worthy. THE EVIL AND THOSE WHO PROMOTED SUPERSTITIOUS LIES THAT GO AGAINST ALL LOGIC AND EVIDENCE, MAY NOT BE DEEMED SO.

The safer, smarter, better choice is through reality – not specious lies.

Good luck and happiness to all, -Fizzmick PaChee

There is tremendously more hope (gigantic to infinitesimal) for immortality through mankind than any god. For the record, I too would like pleasurable immortality. If you are near sighted try prayer or an optometrist to improve your vision. See which works better.

I have great hope (and some FAITH, but not overly optimistic) that mankind will advance to where we can travel back in time and save people, bringing them forward to what is the then present.

Should we acquire this ability our lives may very well be reviewed to see if we are worthy. THE EVIL AND THOSE WHO PROMOTED SUPERSTITIOUS LIES THAT GO AGAINST ALL LOGIC AND EVIDENCE, MAY NOT BE DEEMED SO.

The safer, smarter, better choice is through reality – not specious lies.

Good luck and happiness to all, -Fizzmick PaChee

This, again, is the work of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) that was established in a country founded on the principle of freedom of religious expression.

You say this as though it were some sort of contradiction. It's not. Freedom of religion requires freedom from the imposition of someone else's religion. I'm not a big fan of FFRF but this is just a silly statement.

Allowing or encouraging prayer on government property does not violate the Constitution. Yet, groups such as the FFRF do not seem to know the difference between the Constitution’s Establishment Clause and what Thomas Jefferson wrote about in a letter about the “separation of church and state.”

You've oversimplified the truth here. Allowing or encouraging prayer on government property can violate the constitution but it doesn't necessarily do so. If Mayor Fouts is correct and the city has a policy allowing non-profit groups to lease such space free of charge then there likely is no violation here (because they would have established a limited public forum wherein all groups must be treated the same regardless of their viewpoint). If they do not have such a policy and the city decided specifically to allow this religious group to do so, that would likely be a violation (because the city government would have chosen specifically to endorse the religious message). That's why FFRF has requested copies of the city's official policies and a copy of the lease, because such details really do matter.

Who understood the Constitution better: the FFRF or Thomas Jefferson who, deist or not, attended Christian church services in the Capitol Building?

There are numerous fallacies in this single sentence. First, let me say that I've seen no evidence that FFRF understands the first amendment particularly well. They have often filed frivolous lawsuits they have no chance of winning on such issues. But that doesn't make the other claims here any more valid. Jefferson was not a deist, he was a theistic rationalist. And those “Christian church services” he attended on rare occasions at the capitol building were not really church services at all, they were large social gatherings for the Washington elite. They featured lectures, which were sometimes given by ministers and sometimes were entirely secular. But mostly they were just big parties, as they were described by those who attended them.

Lastly, the premise of this argument is false. As stated above, the law does not say that church services can never be held in government buildings. Churches all around the country lease government property to hold events, including Sunday services, and that is perfectly consistent with the establishment clause. But it's only consistent if the churches are allowed to rent such facilities on an equal basis with other non-governmental groups, not if the government specifically chooses to allow only a church to hold such services. That's when it crosses the line and becomes a government endorsement of religion.

This is yet another publicity stunt by the FFRF who lives for this sort of controversy/attention.

This post makes it pretty clear:
http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/01/dan-b…