Where did I say there has to be an absence of religion? I'm quite supportive of retaining "under God" in public usage of the pledge of allegiance, since with it's lack of specificity, it isn't likely to offend any reasonable person. But highly specific religious texts and pronouncements, especially those that explicitly denigrate or declare superiority over differing belief systems, make reasonable people uncomfortable, when they are promulgated in public institutions -- particularly in courts, where people may reasonably feel that they are not getting impartial treatment if their professed belief system differs from the one publicly promoted at the courthouse.
I believe it is the "Reasonable people" who understand that
any display is just that. Any acknowledgement of religon
ought not be construed as a government endorsement of a
religion. but seems precisely what the Soviet Communists
and atheists of the ACLU desire-contrary to what was
the intent. (see 1853-1854 Congressional reports on the
Establishment clause.)The State ought be allowed to display
what they will- IF the Supremes will not intervene when the activist and errant Court of Mass. oversteps its'
constitutional bounds to declare homosexual marriage legal
there- then the States ought be allowed any religious displays,as originally intended. In close.I alone determine
how I feel -I hav eno compassion for those unreasonable few
who insist their godless feelings are hurt by what I believe.
" ... since with it's lack of specificity, it isn't likely to offend any reasonable person."
Ahem, the only people offended by ANY of this, which merely reflects the historical and current beliefs of most Americans, are UNREASONABLE people.
"But highly specific religious texts and pronouncements, especially those that explicitly denigrate or declare superiority over differing belief systems"
Dear me... so stating what you belive in "denigrates"
other belief systems. What relativist/modernist claptrap!
And since when is "offending people" the moral rule to follow? I AM OFFENDED BY THAT RULE!
And since you "MUST Not Offend" you must discard that rule!
Please stop posting now - your posting is inherently offensive to logical people!
"particularly in courts, where people may reasonably feel that they are not getting impartial treatment if their professed belief system differs from the one publicly promoted at the courthouse."
I am sure that the "Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness" could be offensive to a number of witnesses... but I wonder if that is such a bad thing. btw, it's not the 'belief' or felling of impartiality that is important, its the fact of impartiality. That has to do with the Judges behavior, not with the displays.