Ya know you're right, as far as endorsement. Except this isn't declared to be any "official" school prayer.
Look back at the pictures. It very clearly labels it "School Prayer" it was hung up by the schools authorities.
Official 3 a : authoritative, authorized <official statement>
b : prescribed or recognized as authorized <an official language>
Authoritative 1 a : having or proceeding from authority : official <authoritative church doctrines>
Sorry, this is still bigotry you're expressing. No naivete on my part,...
Bigotry 1 : the state of mind of a bigot
Bigot : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
Should you show me evidence that what I mentioned was a complete fabrication and that the Crusades, Inquisition, and witch-killings which still happen to this day never actually happened I will be glad to retract my statement.
If I say that the Nazi's killed millions of people, am I a bigot against Germans? If I say that the British Empire subjugated India among other nations, am I a bigot against British people? If I say the colonists nearly succeeded in committing complete genocide against the native Indians, am I being a bigot against Europeans? I am merely stating a fact. Christians carried out/are carrying out those things I mentioned.
No element of "Christian dogma" teaches to kill people.
.
Depends on where you look. Exodus 22 18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. That's the problem with a book that contradicts itself. Different people will choose different parts to follow.
This is called a slant, not establishment of a specific religion. The only thing that's trying to be established is universally beneficial and agreeable values. And really, that wall hanging no doubt did little to nothing to accomplish that goal ...
And yet in one of the other threads related to this it was pointed out that the school was given the option to keep the banner, so long as they removed the religious elements. They flat out refused. Something they would
not have done if it was merely to establish beneficial and agreeable values. They wish to promote and endorse their religion.
Not allowing it in a public space suppresses religious speech.
The government does not have freedom of speech. These people can proclaim whatever beliefs they wish, and post whatever banners they want on their own time when they are not representing the US government. Why is this so hard to understand?
"government can, in a discrete category of cases, acknowledge or refer to the divine without offending the Constitution." O'Connor, concurring opinion regarding the National Motto.
Emphasis added. Guess what, establishing an official Christian school prayer is not one of those "discrete category of cases".
Okay, let's go for the opposite. The absence of religious information is itself an instruction in an educational environment. It indicates that religiousness is not an educational corpus of knowledge.
There are plenty of religion classes, especially when you get to college level. There is a HUGE difference between teaching about different religions, and officially endorsing a particular religion.
Institutionalized atheism has killed millions more people than any Christian body ever did. Just ask any victim of Stalin's purges or Mao's "Great Leap Forward".
Where's the atheist holy book which says to do this? Where's the atheist holy men that call for the slaughter of theists? There is nothing in "Does not believe in a god" that would lead to anyone killing anyone else. That's slightly different than a religion whose holy book calls for the death of witches(or sorcerers depending on translation). Whether or not it's contradicted by other passages doesn't matter. When you have a holy book that is supposed to be followed by the faithful that contradicts itself, you will always have some people that choose one of them and others that choose the other one.
Also read up on
Cult of personality. It resembles religion far greater than it resembles atheism.
"Often these cults are a form of political religion."
Was Stalin an atheist? Yes. Did he do what he did
because of his atheism? No. Were/are the people that committed the Crusades, Inquisitions, and witch killings Christian? Yes. Did they do that because they were Christian? Yes. Would they have done similar atrocities if they were not Christian? Maybe, maybe not. "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. " - Steven Weinberg
Also, it's the percentages that matter, not the flat out number. I'd highly recommend you watch this 20 minute TED video:
Steven Pinker on the myth of violence | Video on TED.com
Suffice to say, if the biblical Israelites or the Crusaders had our technology we'd most likely be extinct.
They don't like to hear that, though. That's what we, as Christians, always hear, however, when we object to offensive material on TV: "Nobody says you have to watch it! Just turn it off!"
You do not have a constitutional right to not be offended; meanwhile, it is unconstitutional for the government to officially endorse a religion.