[coffeebreak]

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.

[CobaltBlue]

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.

You mean, like wearing an article of clothing with religious significance to school?

[E Rocc]

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.

False. George Bush can go to church and even speak to an interviewer about his Christian faith, and there is no legal sanction. Roy Moore could have put his slab in his yard or even his office. The Establishment clause means that government and its agents, the latter in the official role, cannot take actions which promote or inhibit religion.

-Eric