And again, its not the first time the courts have been wrong and it won't be the last. Even you agree that "technically" what I have stated is true. And when it comes to the law that is what counts...what is "technically true".
Incorrect, sir. The courts generally look at laws in the context of how a reasonable person would behave.
What people personally believe of how a law should be applied should have no bearing on how a law is actually applied.
That doesn't make any sense. How else could you possibly apply the law? It is you who is arguing that the courts are mistaken in their longstanding interpretation of the 1st amendment...so it seems to me that this is PRECISELY what you "personally believe of how a law should be applied," which by your own logic should have no bearing on the law. Or were you just referring to what OTHER people personally believe, because YOUR personal beliefs on how the law should be applied are somehow special?
I mean, if you want to argue that the courts have decided church-and-state cases incorrectly for the past several decades, I'm willing to hear that argument...but don't tell me that your opinions are the only valid ones (ESPECIALLY when your interpretation is not the judicial consensus), as I'll just roll my eyes.
Yes I know. I've known that for a long time now. There's no need to repeat it in every single post. I've not once disputed it.
Well, you were the one that asked me to show you where it said no government entity could promote a religion. If you already know the answer and you're just going to get annoyed hearing it again, maybe you shouldn't ask the question in the first place.
No, passing a law is not a "nebulous concept". A law is passed or it is not...in which case it is not a law. And yes I agree that the schools are an extension of the government.
Then we agree that the limitations on state power found in the Bill of Rights and 14th amendment also apply to schools.
And when a school passes a rule or the government passes a law which state that students must follow a certain religion then you would have a point. However that has not been done here. No one was required to attend that ceremony. Which would put it in the realm of "captive audiance". And from the little information that was provided no one tried to force those churches beliefs onto anyone. Just because it was a church means nothing.
Then what was the purpose of holding the graduation ceremony in a church? Like I said in my original post in this thread, I'm OK with it if it served some legitimate purpose (such as a lack of available secular venues)...but otherwise it serves as a completely unnecessary way of putting public school students (and their families) in an environment in which they may not be comfortable. And you are wrong about a "captive audience"; it doesn't necessarily mean that they are literally unable to leave or that they are required to attend. It can apply to any situation where opting out is impractical or undesirable.
Tell me...what is the difference between what happened with these schools and this...
View attachment 67131757
Those crosses are on individual people's graves and are meant to honor them personally. If you have a loved one buried in Arlington, you can use a religious symbol on their grave if you want, or no symbol at all. If Arlington Cemetery was regularly advertising or cheerleading for a specific religion, that would be a problem.