[WOSG]

Look: We are debating what SHOULD BE, not what IS, in this debate of whether Judge Moore's display really is or is not Constitutional. We *know* a Judge has ruled against Moore. that is what is. He based it on recent precedential law. Case closed? Nope, because he is wrong.
I think the ruling is against what SHOULD BE the proper Constitutional reading. History, the text, definitions, and common sense are on our side. The only things not on our side is recent jurisprudence, the ACLU and the secularized culture that's forgotten what we were about in 1789.

Saying that 'this is the law' in this context is more of an argument from authority than a conclusion.

Saying that Brennan got a majority to make this stuff suddenly illegal when before it wasnt in this context is thus better than saying "this is the law", as it describes better the real historial context.

But who am I to "rule" on rules of debating points. I just happen to think that's the reality that got us here.

"I think your main objection is that you prefer the law as it used to be, rather than as it is now - a position not entirely devoid of merit. "

If we could fix the establishment clause understanding at Everson or so, I would not be unhappy. It would at least avoid the Brennanite extremism inherent in some recent rulings.

Sometimes "the law" is an ass. Right?

[general_re]

Look: We are debating what SHOULD BE, not what IS, in this debate of whether Judge Moore's display really is or is not Constitutional

Ah, well, that's two different discussions, as you say. Personally, I think Lemon goes too far in trying to turn "separation" into a full-blown divorce. It's just silly for the state to contort itself into pretending that religion doesn't really exist.

On the other hand, there are plenty of non-Christian citizens who are entitled to the protections of the Constitution these days - they don't deserve to have someone else's faith pushed on them, any more than you deserve to have theirs pushed on you. So, with that in mind, how should the state deal with religion and religious expression?