There was a reason why that phrase, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," was the first phrase in the Bill of Rights -- -- What it says is, there can be no federal law that deals with the subject of religious establishment.
Wrong, Alan.. It deals with legislators making no law about "respecting AN establishment of religion".
'AN' establishment, not 'THE' establishment of religion.
Big difference in meaning.
'An establishment of religion' is any teaching, precept, dogma, or object relating to any specific religion.
That's certainly not how the founding generation interpreted those words.
That's how they WROTE those words, and how they meant them to be read, according to the ratification debates I've read.
The proof is in the facts of the history of the last 200+ years of public life in America. You are still interpreting the First Amendment just like the liberals, and thereby turning that history on its ear.
You offer no proof, just more 'liberal' namecalling.
You have yet to give me a reason why it was okay for the Ten Commandments to hang in all of our courthouses, capitols and schools for two centuries, but is somehow now 'unconstitional'. Good luck.
Moore's monument was an act of political defiance, -- as he admitted, and got fired for; -- the hanging/inscribing of religious/historical principles on public buildings is artwork..
An establishment of religion, as written in the BOR, means simply the establishment of a national state church. And any sixth grader can understand that the binding nature of that prohibition is on the Congress. After all, who else would have the power to establish a state church?
Our original States had that power, until our Constitution/BOR's made it clear that such a power was not compatible with principles of individual freedom, and that such religious favoritism would not be allowed in our new states.
Maybe the judicial tyrants, eh? They seem to be doing a pretty good job establishing secular humanism as the national religion.
Your conspiracy theories about 'secular humanists' establishing ~any~ thing are getting pretty bizarre. Perhaps you should seek help.
I don't need to prove that the Ten Commandments hung in our courtrooms, our classrooms and our legislative bodies throughout our history, sir. It is what is known as a self-evident truth. Everyone knows that it is true, except for you, obviously.
You have to be pretty ignorant to not understand that the Left has been trying to drive Christianity out of the public sphere for the last generation; and thereby establish secular humanism, in its generic meaning, as the national religion.
Willfully ignorant, in my opinion.
TEN COMMANDMENTS MONUMENT ON TEXAS STATE CAPITOL GROUNDS IS CONSTITUTIONAL
Austin, Texas
– The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion holding that a stand-alone Ten Commandments monument on the Texas State Capitol grounds in Austin, Texas, is constitutional. Liberty Counsel, a civil liberties education and legal defense organization with an extensive amount of experience in the constitutionality of the public display of the Ten Commandments, filed an Amicus Brief in support of the state of Texas. The Fifth Circuit covers the states of Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi.The 42 year-old monument was originally donated to the State by the Fraternal Order of Eagles in 1961. The granite monolith is more than six feet high and three feet wide. It is one of 17 monuments and memorials on the grounds of the State Capitol. The donation of the Ten Commandments was part of a youth guidance project to give the youth of the nation a code of conduct by which to govern their actions. The monument sat in a small park-like subsection between the Supreme Court building and the Capitol building.
Thomas Van Orden filed the suit to have the monument removed because he claimed the sight of the Ten Commandments disturbed him. The Court began by noting that "The Ten Commandments have both a religious and secular message." Given that message, the Court held that the State of Texas had a secular purpose for displaying the monument. The Court noted that, "Even those who would see the Decalogue as wise counsel born of man’s experience rather than as divinely inspired religious teaching cannot deny its influence upon the civil and criminal laws of this country. That extraordinary influence has been repeatedly acknowledged by the Supreme Court and detailed by scholars. Equally so is its influence upon ethics and the ideal of a just society." The Court concluded its opinion by noting the Ten Commandments influence on American law and stating, "There is no constitutional right to be free of government endorsement of its own laws."
Mathew Staver, President and General Counsel of Liberty Counsel, stated, "This decision begins to turn the tide against the historical revisionism of groups like the ACLU who seek to remove all references to the Ten Commandments from our public life." Staver added, "We are excited that the Court issued such a ringing endorsement of the Ten Commandments and their effect on our laws. This opinion energizes us to take our fight to preserve our history, including the Ten Commandments, to the highest levels." Staver concluded "The Ten Commandments have both a secular and religious aspect. To ignore the influence of the Ten Commandments in the founding and shaping of American law and government would require significant historical revisionism." Liberty Counsel is currently defending 10 separate Ten Commandment displays throughout the country. In the past 14 months, two federal courts of appeals and three federal district courts have found such displays to be constitutional.