Stopping just short of abandoning a historic barrier to religion in government activity, a deeply divided Supreme Court ruled on Monday that local governments may open their meetings with prayers that are explicitly religious and may turn out to be largely confined to expressing the beliefs of one faith.
I disagree that coercion is the proper line. A government can establish a religion without compulsion.
I do not agree, however, with the "freedom from religion" notion.
What does constitute establishment? It is more than simply committing to writing that the state formally says that a given religion or religions is/are the official religion(s) of that state (governmental entity regardless of size). Clearly, a state can have established a religion as official simply by the non-written actions of that state where that state treats the given religion as if it has been expressed by the state that it is, in fact, the, or an, official religion of that state.
Did the actions of the Town of Greece cross the line and establish Christianity as an official religion of the Town of Greece? I believe it did.
I say that as a Christian who does not encourage anyone to agree with the first amendment over Christianity.
The US Constitution is not a sacred document. It is a secular document. I would rather that the whole human race be Christian. They aren't, and the US Constitution is designed to strike balances to avoid sectarian wars and such. It is understandable but falls far short of where humanity should, and someday will, be.
I believe religious coercion is wrong. It is the problem with sharia for instance. It was a problem in many denominations calling themselves Christian. Some still calling themselves Christian believe that Christianity should be forced upon others. To me, that's actually impossible. It is anti-Christ.