[general_re]

People lie in court all the time in order to avoid the consequences of their actions - Judge Moore would hardly have been the first. That being said, this is why there is the second half of that standard, evaluating whether the practical effect is one of promoting religion or not. Also, I further presume that Judge Moore is not simply paying lip-service to the commandment proscribing false witness when he put his monument up...

[mrsmith]

"this is why there is the second half of that standard, evaluating whether the practical effect is one of promoting [an establishment of] religion or not. "

Look how close we all are to agreement LOL!

Oh well, I expect the Supreme Court to come up with a defensible First Amendment doctrine next session- though I probably won't approve of anything this bunch would concoct.

[VRWC_minion]

That being said, this is why there is the second half of that standard, evaluating whether the practical effect is one of promoting religion or not.

The so called second half of the standard is the only thing that makes sense. However, when you attempt to apply the second half by itself without Moore's posistion the monument by itself could simply be history or art. It loses its apparent religious sigificance. I would then agree that if a jury of peers decided it was religious based on their own standards of the day then that could be a reasonable basis but the one that has been put forth here can only result in bizarre consquences.