Hey, P-M, about the link to the court case in post #70 is there any legitimacy in the pastors' interpretation that part of this ruling had to do with a rally around the monument?
It was part of the judge's reasoning. Since Christians rallied to save the bible (after the ACLU and athiest liars and perjurers- who testified that they were "offended by it" - hogwash!!), it was seen as evidence of a religious purpose and thus a violation not of the constitution, but of the infamous and invisible Lemon Test clause.
The opinion states (quite correctly) that the Supreme Court has established the Lemon Test, but has given little if any guidance as to how to apply it.
Hopefully this will be appealed. The decision is clearly another badly reasoned decision which is based not on the constitution itself, but on the stupid Lemon Test, which apparently has become more a part of the constitution in judicial circles than the very words of the Constitution itself.
Hopefully (now that O'Connor is gone - good riddance) the SCOTUS will take up the Lemon Test and squeeze the life out of it.