Echos, please explain your first specific "right".
Bush didn't establish a national religion by "faith-based" initiative. It's not the church of the United States ruling. Don't forget the constitution's context, England was ruled by the head of the church of England, the king. The church of England was the official state church (religion). It was like Sharia law. You'll have to compare US law to Sharia law if you believe you have an accurate point.
It's wrong to support variety of religions that expedite the helping of the poor? How is that establishing a religion? It's more like a myth by those that have a Jesus phobia.
I'll get to the rest if this discussion continues. However, you should post this as a reply on the NOWHINE board.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
