You call the posting of the Ten Commandments choosing a state religion?
That's what Keyes was addressing in this speech.
"How does the 14th prohibit USSC wall decorations? -- I don't think it does.
Well good, we are in agreement, because that's why Judge Roy Moore was kicked off the bench. For a marble decoration, no differant from the one at the Supreme Court.
Look, neither yours, nor my rights are violated by the Pledge of Allegiance -"One nation, under God" line, any more than they are they violated by the posting of the Ten Commandments, whether that be in the courtroom of Alabama, or on the walls of the Supreme Court.
" Goverment sponsored religions are coersive by their nature."
Yes, like in Sweden, where the Lutheran Church is sponsored and paid for by the state. Name anything similar here in this case of Judge Roy Moore. You can't, because that's not what Keyes is talking about.
A generic referance to God does not violate your civil liberties in any way, to either believe or not believe, worship or not worship any god you choose.
"Illogical. The majority is violating the choice of ALL, by choosing a state religion repugnant to some."
Again. You cannot name or cite any particular religion here, because it doesn't apply to this case. Unless you believe the acknowlegment of God somehow is repressing or coercing you.
Better get down to the US Capitol building,and tell them to stop opening sessions with a prayer! Oh, and tell the Supreme Court as well...
As the U.S. Constitution is written, matters of religion fall into this category of parallel individual and governmental possibilities.
Not true. Goverment sponsored religions are coersive by their nature.
You:
Yes, like in Sweden, where the Lutheran Church is sponsored and paid for by the state. Name anything similar here in this case of Judge Roy Moore. You can't, because that's not what Keyes is talking about.
Keyes is saying that States have a power to establish religion, just two lines below.
Keyes:
Federal and state governments, in matters of religion, are forbidden to coerce or prohibit individual choice and action.
Within the states, the people are free to decide by constitutional majority the nature and extent of the state's expression of religious belief.
Contradictory reasoning.
This majority "expression" would be coersive on its face.
Keyes:
This leaves individuals free to make their own choices with respect to religion, but it also secures the right of the people of the states to live under a government that reflects their religious inclination. As in all matters subject to the decision of the people, the choice of the people is not the choice of all, but of the majority, as constitutionally determined, in conformity with the principles of republican government.
Illogical. The majority is violating the choice of ALL, by choosing a state religion repugnant to some.
You:
Again. You cannot name or cite any particular religion here, because it doesn't apply to this case.
You are denying Keyes advocates a -- "right of the people of the states to live under a government that reflects their religious inclination"? --
It's a coersive 'choice' on Keyes own terms.
The man has slipped a mental cog in his religious zeal, imo.
And you seem unable to read his clear words on the matter , printed just above.