[mrsmith]

Moore's monument imposes neither criminal nor civil sanctions on any type of religious service or rite," the high court majority said. "It does not deny to anyone the right to participate in the political affairs of the community. And it does not require anyone to choose between their religious beliefs and receiving a government benefit.

But you want a different standard for acts that are "for" religion even if they meet all of the standard above.

Amazing.

[Modernman]

Moore's monument imposes neither criminal nor civil sanctions on any type of religious service or rite," the high court majority said. "It does not deny to anyone the right to participate in the political affairs of the community. And it does not require anyone to choose between their religious beliefs and receiving a government benefit.

The two cases are quite similar: they deal with the obligation of a state to pay for religious matters. Here, SCOTUS is saying that a state is not obligated to pay for religious schooling. The student suing here wanted the court to rule that states are obligated to spend tax dollars for religious teaching. In Moore's case, Moore was claiming that the state is required to allow a government official to spend government money and use government property for his own religious expression.

In both cases, the parties who lost were trying to force the government to spend money on religion.