Replies

NO it doesnt "have to be". I send money to the Govt, they dont give me anything back except roads.

But Judge Moore is the administrator there and has the right and duty to manage the site. Why cant he dispense in a way that expresses a religious sentiment, so long as it is voluntary and non-coercive? And what if the money itself was not the issue, and was donated?

Keeping coming back to strawman and evading the questions shows imho that you really deep down AGREE that this is a harmless and non-coercive display. Your *feelings* of animosity for whatever reason are driving you to try to repress what Judge Moore is expressing, but logic would force you to conclude that indeed this is alike oher permissible and legal behavior. SO you strain at gnats.

The question you keep evading is "Who is harmed by this display?"

I answered your question directly. Your efforts to ascribe other views to me fail.

You are the one avoiding questions. If this monument presents no constitutional problem, would it be okay to purchase it with taxpayer funds?

1017. That was the answer.

Your claim would be that the Establishment Clause is meaningless unless someone's free exercise was also violated. If that were the case, they wouldn't need both.