[WOSG]

I still believe that Lemon will be revisited - it's rather sloppy, which makes it potentially kind of draconian in the wrong hands. But I don't think that whatever replaces it will go far enough to protect what Judge Moore wants to do.

A point of agreement at last. I'd go further of course: Lemon is wrong. The 'intention' part of the test raises a *host* of problems, many of which we've discussed (Burkhas in or out). The other parts are wholly subject to abuse as you mention. But the key is - the Test rally has no basis in the Establishment clause text, in the original intent, or in the understanding of establishment of religion as held by the founders and Judges for the first 150 years of the nation's life. It's a Judicial act of legislation.

As for the 10 Commandment display, it should be permissible under any Judicial regimen that properly allows a place for official recognition in voluntary, open ways of religious sentiment or religious heritage on our culture. It's a monument of historical significance and does not coerce or require any set of beliefs by citizens. It should be as permissible as "under God" in the pledge.

I like the Scalia quote because he is basically accussing the court of overruling Lemon but keeping it around as a cudgel. It should and someday WILL be overturned. If it's not overturned, I fear for the Republic!

[general_re]

As for the 10 Commandment display, it should be permissible under any Judicial regimen that properly allows a place for official recognition in voluntary, open ways of religious sentiment or religious heritage on our culture.

"Voluntary, open" - see, we weren't that far apart after all ;)