Historically, the Supreme Court disagrees, from :

Yes, Jefferson was trying to assuage the fears of Baptists, Presbyterians, and Methodist among others. And many of the "Founding Father's" were Deist's. And they all knew that giving government religious authority (and, conversely, giving religion authority over government) was a Really Bad Idea (TM). So they very much intended a secular government that did not favor any religion. In other words, they wanted a separation of church and state.

The Jefferson letter, the Treaty of Tripoli, and many other writings of the time are important because the Bill of Rights is not a computer program that can simply be executed. It is a human text that needs context to have usable meaning. The Supreme Court always has to interpret the Constitution. When people agree with their interpretation, then they think the Court is doing a good job. When they disagree, the think the Court is being "activist."

OMG. Are you taking the "Obama is a secret muslim" bait? You realize it's April 3rd, right? You should take a breath and argue history and policy rather than regurgitate the stupidity of talk radio ideologues that exists solely to sucker you in with mindless anger while they laugh all the way to the bank.

Nope, that's not how it works for the EELV rockets. Boeing and Lockheed Martin owned the IP to the rockets and was free to do what ever they wanted as long as they conformed to ITAR (SpaceX also has to conform to ITAR.) They were free to provide commercial launches with their rockets but they lost the market to Europe and Russia and they made no effort to be competitive in those markets. Most US aerospace companies just gave up entirely and Boeing and Lockheed Martin formed the United Launch Alliance and convinced the US government to give them a billion dollars a year to ensure "US access to space." Not to do research, just to exist and maintain their facilities and production capability. That billion does not include providing any launch vehicles and services, that costs extra. A lot extra.

So I know it's popular to blame the government for everything, but US aerospace choose not to compete because they had a nice big cash cow.

Not true. The "New Space" companies self-fund long term research and experimentation with an eye toward making space flight less expensive. Even if Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, McDonald Douglas, et al, were "forced" to jump through government hoops, they were also exceedingly well payed to jump through those hoops. They could have used that money to fund their own research to stay competitive in the commercial market but they did not. They pocketed the money and completely gave up the commercial market to Russia and Europe.

McDonnell Douglas was working on a VTVL rocket (the DC-X) in 1991. As soon as the DoD and NASA stopped funding that research, they dropped it. SpaceX uses their profits to continue developing reusability, there is no reason that McDonnell Douglas could not have done that. The government did not prevent any of the "Old Space" companies could from developing reusable rockets. Nor did the government prevent them from investing their own money in improving production techniques to lower production costs. They choose not to do that work in any long term sustainable way unless the government directly payed for it.

Can you give specifics of how a law that is not on the books yet is to blame for the current mess in the US?

Thankfully, freedom of religion is far from absolute. Ritual sacrifice, stoning, beheading, and betrothed 12 years olds are all sincerely held religious beliefs. You can argue where to draw the line, but there is a line. Pretending that any of the constitutional "rights" are absolute, or even that they should be absolute makes no sense.

And how is baking a cake "participating" in a wedding? Is selling paper plates participating in a wedding too? How about renting a limo, or providing a taxi ride?

No, you misunderstand. People from all over the world travel to conventions. If a state passes laws that allow businesses to shun LBGT (and/or other) people, then they may choose to avoid traveling to that state. The conventioneers can't make money on people that are not welcome in the state hosting the convention. Therefore, it is in conventioneers interest to host conventions in states welcoming to everyone.

Got it?

I don't give a shit if he's a stand up guy, he deserves due process and the US does not hold up it's end of the bargain anymore (assuming it ever did.) We live in a time when it's illegal to discuss the fact that you've received a national security letter, much less the content. We live in a time when labelling someone a "terrorist" means they have no civil rights. People are held without being charged. People are flown to other countries to be tortured. US citizens have been targeted for assassination in other countries. But you think Snowden, knowingly throwing his life away, to expose the depths of the US government's intrusion into our lives is a coward? Because that's what he did, and knew that he was doing it. What sacrifice have you made to hold the government accountable?

The fact that Putin's Russia is also a bully does not absolve the US of it's hypocrisy and misdeeds.

I am sorry for your predicament and we do live in a world that can seem hyper-focussed on greed. That said, companies are made of people and a lot of people that work at companies do actually try to make the world a better place. Furthermore, regardless of the motivation, getting people help before they actually attempt suicide is a net positive. I think you are "throwing out the baby with the baby with the bathwater."

As other's have noted, suicide is a permanent solution to what is frequently a temporary problem. When someone is depressed, it can feel like they were always depressed. It can become nearly impossible to believe that life will ever "be worth living." That is the lie of depression.

Anyway, who said anything about it being the responsibility of a stranger? These people voluntarily helped someone in a time of need. Facebook and Twitter were not forced to help people in a time of need, they are doing it voluntarily. Does that bother you? Is there something wrong with helping other human beings?

Everything is a remix. It will be a better world when we admit it. Though this is more likely a case of using name recognition as marketing than creating something new from something old. I'll wait for the reviews to decide whether to give them any money for their efforts.