Separation of State and Church?

Covering up the religious symbols violates the US Constitution, religious freedom. Covering up those symbols offends Christians because it violates their rights as American citizens.

That's their choice, but right now this involves a public school. Public schools are secular.

Your strawman is meaningless in this context.

Rap

Yes, government schools are secular. Wow. Amazing deduction. I bet you went to government school. Other than that, you need to make a point regarding the topic.

If the government was trying to force a religion to do this always then yes, I would agree with you. But they are renting a space out to a secular group that has different rules. This isn't a religious issue because they are conducting a business transaction.

Really? How so? I'll bet you can't answer that question.

If it's not a religious issue, then how can you tell the people who own the building to cover up religious symbols? Confused much?

I see..
So if a place that conducted nude dancing and simulated sex acts rented out it's space for a child's birthday party then it would be OK if nude dancing continued while the 6 year olds had their party? After all, such behavior is protected by the first amendment.

Which would mean the government has no power to prevent sex acts in public, correct?

Now you've just left the topic. That means you've run out of talking points and have resorted to la la land. You lose.

The church isn't the defendant. The Neptune public schools are. No one is saying the church, carrying out its churchly duties, has to cover the cross or the signs.
The contention is the neptune schools, as part of local government cannot promote a particular religion, and that holding its graduation ceremonies in a church structure with a huge cross and religious signs does in fact promote a particular religion. The church cannot be compelled to cover the cross, but if it doesn't want to, then the suit contends the school's use of the venue is in violation of the second amendment, I think rightly.

And, damn, any school or school board which originally had planned to sing "Onward, Christian Soldiers" at the graduation until the brouhaha happened, has some 'splainin to do about the line between religious and civil culture.

Onward, Christian soldiers,
Marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus,
Going on before.
Christ, the royal master
Leads against the foe.
Forward into battle,
See his banners go....

Who exactly were they planning to lead the students into war against? And why?

Other than identifying the first amendment as the second amendment ("the right to bear arms"), that's an excellent and succinct statement of the case.

oopsie. I blame it on too many disagreements with OmSigDavid.

That boy is ob-sessed . . .

To be offended means injury, and no one suffers offense without injury... I say we do have the right to not be offended, and the churches have often used the cover of their legal protections to injure this whole country, and groups, and individuals... We all accept and defend their privilages, but they are misplaced in them... We all lose freedom for their freedom... We all lose right for their privilages... They are all a bunch of goddamned t yrants, and the worst sort, totally immune to reason... We are offended, and they should be put out of business...

And you have been falliciously claiming that secular public intitutions do not have to comply with the 1st amendment as the constitution.

Rap

Tell us what they have failed to comply with according to the first amendment. Thanks.

Who is they, bubby? The school or the church?

My public school English composition teacher would have bled all over an opening sentence using a pronoun as the subject.

'Ah' the foibles of your limited public education, right bubby?

Rap

"They", the students and the church. Tell us who is guilty here of violating the US Constitution and why. Thanks.

Don't bother, raprap. Wandel, I, and I think Setanta have all answered the question of precisely who violated precisely what part of the US constitution. Telling him a third or fourth time will only waste the internet's precious photons and electrons.

No one has violated the Constitution. The violation is someone takes the Constitution literally without all the mental gymnastics required in la la land. The left has corrupted a great document. What do you think the rise of the Tea Party is all about?

I know what the tea party is all about... It is a collection of nuts... Their minds are immitation, but their anger is real... They simply blame the wrong people for their troubles, like yourself... Here is a clue: While people held to the ideal of representative government, the constitution could hardly hurt them even while it did not much help them... People in government realized almost immediately that there was a loophole to exploit in the way representation was established, of not more than one rep for every thirty thousand... Now we have a great many less representatives for every thirty thousand, and those districts are deliberately divided to empower a certain party... The whole idea of representative government was trashed, but for that, the people were divided, and so neatly so that one side or the other cannot get complete power... The parties share power between them, but the people are powerless... And that powerlessness, that want of democracy is what made possible the looting of this country, the commonwealth, and all individuals; but the weak of mind do not blame their tormenters, but they blame those who suffer alike their torments...
So there is your answer: No one so much as those in control of government have held the constitution in such contempt... It is what it has always been: Something to be gotten around; and impediment... And not much of one since it gave the edge to those with the desire to limit and to trash democracy...

Celebrating incompetence.