Posted on 12/09/2005 12:26:51 PM PST by Caleb1411
Very reasonable.
Some will argue that a Christian prayer should not be offered in public because a non-Chrisitan might be offended. The argument is unpersuasive: If anything, I would be flattered if a Muslim or a Hindu were to think enough of me to offer a prayer in my behalf. The form of that prayer might be unfamiliar, but the sentiment is a positive one.
No Federal judge has any authority whatsoever to make such a ruling or even consider such a case. The 1st Amendment refers only to Congressional action via-a-vis an offical religion. And the 10th Amendment prohibits the Federal government from interfering in State authority in such matters. Once again, as with the Ten Commandments issue, we have a simple matter of nullification. The Indiana House has no obligation whatsoever to obey the judge's ruling. The Speaker and the Governor should also issue a full rebuke of the judge and his illegal ruling to give Hoosiers and indeed all Americans a valuable civics lesson.
Not at all. The ruling itself is illegal on its face. The judge had no jurisdiction whatsoever to even have considered the case.
If one more totally idiotic "judge" or group thereof try to redefine the 'establishment clause' in such an asinine way, I swear.........they're getting us out here in flyover country very, very riled up. Something's gonna give.
Rampant Christophobia.
Judge Roy Moore was.....and many Republicans blasted him for "grandstanding."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.