Replies

I'm a little surprised we haven't had these complaints before. The article points out the "affirmation" exemption, but I suppose I can appreciate the islamists argument. Regardless, right or wrong, my indifference toward Islam turned to bitterness after 9/11.

Hey Andy. (I don't mean to sound like Gomer or Goober.)

My indifference turned to many things as well. As to whether the judges can decide whether to honor an establishment of religion (Bible but none others), I think the 1st Amendment is very clear on that.

As to whether the judges can decide whether to honor an establishment of religion (Bible but none others), I think the 1st Amendment is very clear on that.

Don't worry about the Andy Griffith references; I get 'em all the time (friends really love immitating Aunt Bea).

I have an archaic opinion when it comes to the establishment clause. I believe that it's sole purpose was to prevent the establishment of a national church. I don't believe that endorsing or favoring equates to establishment. Establishment would be forced tithing, outlawed alternative religions, forced attendence, a state-controlled church authority, etc.

My reference to what judges could do in this case was based on the fact that this is actually a request (I'm picturing CAIR dumping a piece of paper in a suggestion box), and not part of a lawsuit.

In that case, I suppose the judges could do whatever they want, assuming it does not contravene existing state law. IOW, I don't think they could rule a law unconstitutional without a case before them actually challenging the law.