Replies

Bravo yourself Tigerseye, on your #19. Perhaps it would help Eric if I gave an example. If there was a federal law that officials had to be of a certain faith, that would be a prohibited federal establishment of religion.

If there was a law that said they had to perform certain religious duties, that would be an establishment. If an official CHOOSES to do these things, that is an expression of religion. It is up to the voters to decide to what degree they want their federal officials preaching at them.

In the Context of the 1st Ammendment you can't have an establishment of religion without a law. Read it again. No religious activity is can be PROHIBITED or DEMANDED by Congress, or by out of control judges usurping the power of same.

In the Context of the 1st Ammendment you can't have an establishment of religion without a law. Read it again. No religious activity is can be PROHIBITED or DEMANDED by Congress, or by out of control judges usurping the power of same.

Jefferson and Madison both used the word "separation" in reference to the Constitutionally defined relationship between religion and government. For over one hundred and fifty years, the Supreme Court has consistently supported their definition. Any preference by a government entity for one faith or group of faiths over others constitutes a prohibited Establishment.

For example, while Moore was Chief Justice, he could go to church all he wanted. He could post the Commandments in his home, on his lawn, or in his private office. All this was done as a private citizen.

I think we can all agree that he would be forbidden from lecturing a defendant about behaving in an "unchristian" manner, or urging them to pray, while sitting on the bench as a judge. Such would be Establishment.....a clear indication that the Law favors one set of religious beliefs over others. Our point has always been that for Moore to post the Commandments (indeed a specific version of them) in the courthouse and refer to them as the "Laws of God" was the same thing: an entity of the government endorsing one particular religious belief. Moore's comments during the debate only made it clearer that that was his intent.

It seems that some deeply religious people feel that recognition of a Supreme Being is not a religious belief in and of itself. It is. Conversely, a failure to mention God under any circumstances is not an implicit endorsement of atheism or even agnosticism.

-Eric

No religious activity is can be PROHIBITED or DEMANDED by Congress, or by out of control judges usurping the power of same.

The question I ask, and is never answered, is; 'since judges only have the power to rule on laws that have been established what law did they rule on in reference to Judge Moore's monument?' Congress, the only body Constitutionally allowed to make law, has made no law prohibiting the display of the Ten Commandments. The 1st Amendment prohibits them from doing so.