Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: jwalsh07
The court's decision that the display lacked a secular purpose was based primarily on statements made by various clergy at the dedication of the monument in 1958.

So, the 7th Circuit in this case, came to the same conclusion as the 11th did, because of Moore's statements which explicitly refer to his rock as a religious display.

So, how do you explain Texas? Already litigated, and it was found to have a secular context.

To me, these cases are clear: no religious preference in public displays.

Would you be OK with a Koran in a Supreme Court building foyer?

79 posted on 08/24/2003 2:44:12 PM PDT by sinkspur (God's law is written on men's hearts, not a stone monument.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies ]


To: sinkspur
So, how do you explain Texas? Already litigated, and it was found to have a secular context.

Quite simply, one court has taken a more expansive reading of Lynch than the other. But don't worry the other will catch up.

To me, these cases are clear: no religious preference in public displays.

That would be Karl Marx' view as well. Karl Marx and current US law are coincident. Religion is banned from the public square. You might see that as desirable, I certainly don't.

Would you be OK with a Koran in a Supreme Court building foyer?

Of course. Nothing in the Constitution prevents the display of books in the foyer of the SCOTUS. Cripes.

Now if the SCOTUS began using it as precedent for opinions, I would urger them be impeached.

Just what is it that you are afraid of?

84 posted on 08/24/2003 2:50:17 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson