Replies

I agree.

But whoever started the precedent "wall of separation" over "congress shall make no law...." screwed the pooch and how to turn that back is beyond my limited knowledge.

I know Moore is an activist...no doubt about it. He is actually a very accomplished and resolute and smart fellow...folks should read his personal history. Whoever took the role he is leading would be marked as an opportunist or activist. I'm happy to see my side on the offensive even if we have lost a battle for now.

I think what bothers many on my side is the plethora of religious icons that dot hundreds of our public buildings including SCOTUS and Congress and many like me feel that the enemy wishes to erase God from the public forum entirely.

All one need do is look at the usual suspects in the enemy camp (and here on FR btw)

ACLU
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
Morris Dees

That says it all for me....it's the same gang cheering the sodomy rulings last month.

Glad to see you are sympathetic.

Btw...you know I am hardly pious. I slpet in while my wife took the babies to a PCA service today. Shame on me. I simply like my culture which is the one in my view we were founded on largely (95% at least) and am tired of seeing it attacked. They will go for coins etc next. It's an ongoing battle from school prayer to the pledge to Christmas and Hannahka dispays etc.

I also see a parallel between our cultural demise and this..although it may be more complimentray than causative.

I have to go round up everyone to go to Cool Springs now and will be back later...gotta go spend some $$$...what fun...$$$$ for things we really don't have to have.

We'd all like to hear all about your trip!

Scalia said in Lawrence v. Texas that the USSCT has chosen sides in the larger cultural battle for gay rights. It should be equally clear that the court has chosen sides in the cultural battle over this country's religious heritage and character.

With regards to the Establishment Clause, the Court has freed itself of any restraints imposed by the language or history of that clause. By changing the tests for establishment from ones that included some calculus of actual coercion of a citizen's conscience to tests which found a violation wherever there was "excessive entanglement" between state and church or whereever the government may have "endorsed" a religion however casually, the Court has turned the Establishment Clause in to a tool for the complete secularization of society. I believe their greater aim is to discredit religion as a typically human aspiration or ideal.

How many people were going after Moore on FR? Were there lots of people expressing sympathies with Morris Dees et al?

Oh, and once again, what is this "overlapping amendments" stuff you mentioned in an earlier post. I'm deadly curious to know exactly the source and nature of this foolishness. :-)