Perhaps that's because it is a vile corruption of a sacred religious principle.

Why not join pro-actively in the fight to remove it?

Why not allow the civil magistrate to give religious advice to the people, if no force and violence is involved? Where does it say that God has the absolute and exclusive right to use reason and persuasion in matters of religion? The civil magistrate can be just as competent in matters of religion, as God is. Right?

If the civil government is competent to give us advice regarding trust in God and submitting to God's authority, why is it not competent in all other matters of religion?

I pray thee, give us a more precise idea of what an acceptable collective religious expression is, and isn't. Are there any rules or principles that would enable us to distinguish acceptable collective religious expression from unacceptable religious advice?

I see. What exactly are you referring to by the phrase "separation of church and state?" Are you saying that the Constitution doesn’t exclude religion from the cognizance of the federal government?

What do you think I was referring to by "the tried and true common law rules of interpretation set down by Blackstone, Rutherford, Coke and Middleton?"

Are there Rules of Interpretation for the Constitution? If so, what are they?

Religious truth is not decided by numbers. Truth is truth, regardless of the number of people who accept it. Otherwise, Christianity would be America's truth, and Islam would be Iran's truth. Both religions cannot be true, therefore, despite a large number of adherents, one of them is wrong.

Community based religious expressions can be paid for by either tax dollars or private donations or a combination of the two. That being said, if someone objected to tax dollars paying for it, I would respect that and suggest that it be fully funded privately. Forcing a Muslim, Hindu, atheist, etc. to help pay for such a display is a lot different than merely making them drive by it.

The vitriol I've read and those who've espoused it are all over the Internet. Unfortunately, I don't have a list of names to provide. Most liberal opinion sources have had these kinds of articles. Salon, Slate, DailyKos, etc. However, even mainstream media talking heads such as EJ Dionne and Molly Ivins (R.I.P.) have had articles about this issue.

Please post a few when you have time. I am curious regarding your concept of what constitutes bitter abusiveness.

I read your non-response to mean you have no idea what the Rules of Interpretation for the Constitution are. If you want to know what the rules are, a good place to start is Book III Chapter V of Joseph Story's "Commentaries." The chapter is titled "Rules of Interpretation of the Constitution."

Joseph Story: Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States: Book 3 Chapter 5

Honestly, Fred, I don't have the time to keep this long point-by-point kind of dialog going.

You are correct...I have no idea whatsoever what the Rules of Interpretation of the Constitution are. I'm arguing from my own belief in what those rules should be, not necessarily what they've been determined by precedent to be.

Again, with 3 small kids and a job, time is limited. I apologize if it seems like I'm bailing on this. It was a good conversation; but I just can't keep it going.

No problem, dude. I'm a criminal defense lawyer. I spend a lot of time at the courthouse waiting for hearings, verdicts and such. I occupy my time with my wireless laptop. It was a pleasure.

...the-sacred principle of the separation of Church and State is the strongest bulwark of protection of freedom of conscience and therefore Of perfect freedom of American institutions.

--The Jewish communal register of New York city, 1917-1918; Jewish Community of New York City; Published 1918.

Making of America Books

Even those of the Jewish faith believed in Jesus when it came to separating the things of God from those of Caesar.