Hoppy's actually right in this equation, again this is what the 1st amendment actually says:
"Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Humm how exactly was any law passed here? That Congressman's every bit entitled to his relilgious beliefs, and has every right (as you and I), to express those beliefs.
The ONLY question here was there any attempt to pass a law here? Sorry that's how the Constitution actually works.
Sure it doesn't make this Congressman a "swell guy" but there was no violation of the constitution here.
See above post.
If you want to get into legal semantics you'll also have to go over about 200 years or so of legal precedents that actually do
support separation of church and state.
The man went on public radio, not as a private citizen, but as a representative and chose to call out a 16 year old girl for actually forcing them to obey that law set by centuries of legal precedent.
However, this topic to me is more about being responsible for one's behavior. He may not have intended it, but he is sanctioning the horrific behavior that is now being handed out to this girl. This so called 'christian' man has taken it upon himself to draw the line of who he will and will not represent. His statement "she has been coerced by evil people" basically calls all atheists or secularists evil.
Surely, you do not mean to argue that the framers of the constitution condoned and legally gave authority to this type of behavior just because a person doesn't have faith in god?