Replies

If you actually know of a case where a student was thrown out of school for wearing a crucifix, there are a number of options for finding representation. I can put you in touch with the Rutherford Society, the Federalist Society, the ACLU, and can help run interference with the Justice Department, or if it's a Virginia I can help you myself - I am a Virginia lawyer with an interest in religious freedom cases.

What you need to be clear on in your mind is that there is a significant legal difference between cases where the state is attempting to establish religion, and cases where the state is attempting to interfere with religious freedom.

These cases involve different clauses in the First Amendment, and have completely different case law and completely different outcomes.

In religious freedom cases, like the right to wear a crucifix or hijab, it's the rights of the individual that are being interfered with by the state, and those are pretty much "slam dunk" winners for the individual against the state.

In establishment cases, like Ten Commandment cases, it's the state that is promoting religion, and those are pretty much
In those cases, again, they are pretty much "slam dunk" winners against the state, but for different reasons.

Governments are not supposed to be in the business of promoting religion NOR suppressing it. That's it in a nutshell.

In establishment cases, like Ten Commandment cases, it's the state that is promoting religion, and those are pretty much
In those cases, again, they are pretty much "slam dunk" winners against the state, but for different reasons.

Placing the Ten Commandments in a court house is not establishing a religion. If the Founding Fathers meant what some people think they meant today, the Ten Commandments would have been out of the court house two hundred years ago. Our money would not say "In God We Trust" on it. The Nativity Scene would have NEVER appeared in the town square and we probably wouldn't be celebrating Christmas. For some strange reason the establishment clause has gotten twisted to mean that no one in government can even acknowledge the existence of God or say or do anything that is remotely religious in public. Roy Moore stood up against this; hopefully there will be others so this nonsense will end.

Governments are not supposed to be in the business of promoting religion NOR suppressing it.

I have never understood why the word "established" has come to mean "promoted" in legalese. I think that the definitions of those two words are worlds apart. Do you have any insight into this?