I know you're trolling me, yet still I find myself enraged
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I don't care if the supreme court said that, it's not supported by the constitution.
The Court responded that, though the establishment clause prohibits government from sponsoring, funding or actively involving itself in religious activities, it is allowed to operate with “a benevolent neutrality which will permit religious exercise to exist without sponsorship and without interference.” The question that must be asked when the possibility of “establishment of religion” arises, the Court said, is “whether particular acts in question are intended to establish or interfere with religious beliefs and practices or to have the effect of doing so.”
The theme park case was a bit freaky to say the least don't you agree? I don't see the benefit in allowing them to build something like that