Ami - - <<Does government have the power to prevent a demonstration of faith by citizens just because it's on public land? After all, aren't those same citizens taxpayers as well? Seems like you're prohibiting "free expression" of religion to me.>>
If it has the power to prevent a Baptist preacher from leading the entire town council in a Baptist prayer at the commencement of every sitting, it has the power to prevent a group of Christians from setting up a creche on City Hall property. Both are demonstrations of faith by citizens on public property and both violate the anti-establishment clause.
Of course the citizens are tax-payers as well, but they aren't the exclusive source of tax revenues and they don't have a right to treat the public's property as if they were. (And even if they were the only tax-payers, the right of the citizen, tax-paying or not, is the primary right we have to concern ourselves with - - as long as there is one citizen represented by the government who is not on-board with the creche project, you will have a problem.)
There is no religion in the real world which believes in religious celebration on public property as an element of either religious practice or belief, so there is no prohibition of the free expression of any religion involved. If there were such a religion, the anti-establishment clause would be in such obvious conflict with the free-expression clause that the entire provision would be totally ineffective. It must have been clear to the framers of the Constitution that no such conflict could ever arise (because no such religion existed) - - otherwise they would have been writing a nullity, or worse, a "right" which would only have been enforceable only by any religion which claimed the right to publicly-sanctioned worship as an essential element of its theory and/or practice.
sirs - - <<The problem H & Tee have in this whole debate is the flawed notion that tax $$ = establishment. It doesn't. We have tax dollars going to all kinds of things I don't agree with, and we have prayers taking place before legislative sessions in congress. NEITHER equate to establishing anything. Nothing of the above mandates that anyone has to follow any specific or even general reliigion. THAT is the foundation of the 1st amendment>>
It may well be that tax money is spent on many things you don't agree with, but which of those things is actually the establishment of a religion? The issue isn't whether every citizen has to consent to where the tax revenues are being spent, but whether they can be spent to "establish" a religion. BTW, the pre-session prayers ARE a violation of the anti-establishment clause, and a pretty blatant one at that, however it's so petty and low-cost that nobody bothers with it. It shouldn't happen, though, and when I get through driving the U.S. forces out of Iraq, I will then see what I can do about abolishing those Congressional prayers.
It seems to me that over the years, the judicial interpretation of "establishment" - - as in the establishment of a religion - - has been broad enough to encompass such things as the creche on the City Hall stairs. That's not to say there is only one way of interpreting the word. Looks like the tide is running your way for the time being, but I don't think that's the way it's going to go over the long run.
