I find it unbelievable that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that Congress will "make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]", and yet some people still can justify the whole "no prayers in schools" argument. How is that sentence not clear? Furthermore, it only guarantees that Congress cannot "mak[e] [any] law respecting an establishment of religion" - there is no guarantee here about the antithesis of religion (atheism - which, ironically, actually *is* a religion with it's own factions [strong atheists, weak atheists] and the dogmatic claims that it's people believe that there is no God). If you think that Atheism is a religion, then there can be no laws that will establish this religion above any other in schools, let's say. If you think that Atheism is not a religion, then it is granted no rights by the first amendment. Either way, atheism loses. No ones rights are trampled if there is a prayer at a football game, a commencement ceremony, or an assembly. A Christian teacher should still be able to use the Bible as a classroom text despite the atheist's doctrinal agenda being constantly preached by the disbelievers. If Darwin's evolution theory can be taught, then the Bible's creation story can be taught. If the atheist can preach at school, then so can everyone else. Fair is fair.

Going back to Bill Gates, KBE, I find nothing in the Constitution forbidding him from calling himself Sir William Gates (as far as U.S. law in concerned - but British law still prohibits it). The only two references to titles of nobility are contained in Article I:

"No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state."

"No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility."

The first merely says that the U.S. cannot knight someone, and no public officer or elected official can be royalty. The second one says that Billy can't be made Emperor of Redmond, either. Clearly, neither one applies in this case. Also, since he's an American citizen, and thus not under jurisdiction of British law, they really can't tell him not to run around calling himself Sir Billy. What's their legal recourse if he does? Of course, there may be some fine print in the Knighthood EULA, so when he gets the knighthood installed he's bound by their terms whether he actually agrees to them or not (I wonder if Sir William actually reads the EULAs on other companies' software when installing...?).   =)