Replies

What is unconstitutional about this particular ruling?

I think most arguments have it that the series of rulings (I don't know that people are addressing the USSC refusal to . . . in particular) is more like extra-constitutional, based on an invented interpretation of church and state that has no basis in the US Constitution and results in ridiculous prohibitions like this one.

"I think most arguments have it that the series of rulings (I don't know that people are addressing the USSC refusal to . . . in particular) is more like extra-constitutional, based on an invented interpretation of church and state that has no basis in the US Constitution and results in ridiculous prohibitions like this one."

Exactly. There is a REASON why "In God We Trust" is on every coin. There is a reason why congress pays a minister to pray before each session. There is a reason why there is a monument to the Ten Commandments in the Supreme Court building. The reason? Our Founding Fathers never intended to ignore God ANYWHERE. Not in a single building did they want God ignored. God is too important. They wanted unity, so they simply say "God". Other than that, there is no place in the Constitution where 'separation of church and state' is mentioned. That theory comes from leftist infested professors, being parroted by today's judges. Theoretically speaking, in a more perfect nation, they would be impeached before the end of the month. However, there are so many parrots taught to spew out all this leftist garbage that we can't even find unity here in this forum on a day like this. Amazing.

Then again, this forum used to have some great minds who held the respect of other posters. I am no constitutional scholar. But I've been swapping posts with constitutional scholars since before there was a registration process here, back when Ash and Eschoir were flaming at us like mad, and JimRob was unable to ban them. Back in '97, we would have united behind Judge Roy Moore. Now we have to educate people who think they learned so much during their party days at college.

Or pehaps they want to 'respect the law' because they see a comparison over Monicagate. Too bad. Liberals defend people for being jerks. Conservatives defend people for being God fearing patriots. I can live with that comparison.

FReegards....

I think most arguments have it that the series of rulings (I don't know that people are addressing the USSC refusal to . . . in particular) is more like extra-constitutional, based on an invented interpretation of church and state that has no basis in the US Constitution and results in ridiculous prohibitions like this one.

I think there is a basis in the constitution: the establishment clause. Having said that, the result in the case also strikes me as silly. I don't think that Alabama is trying to establish a religion here. The case is closer (although not identical) to the situation in which a publicly funded museum contains art with religious themes. No one would seriously argue that in so funding the museum, the government is also promoting a religion.

My point here is not that Justice Moore was necessarily wrong, but that he fully litigated the issue and lost and that as a sitting state court judge he needs to abide by the federal judge's order and thereby re-affirm the rule of law.