I think that the opinions of Mssrs. Scalia and Thomas, members of both a certain court and a certain Federalist Society, might carry a bit more weight here than the known liars at SPLC...
Good. Let's get rid of the "Freedom FROM religion" thing once and for all!
Absolutely !!!! I love this guy.
Great, if they want to ban God let them do it at the local levels, and then smack it down if it goes up in the judicial system.
With all due respect, "Judge," I think you're the one attempting to make a law, here.
It's as if someone is trying to pull the mezuzah off of his doorpost.
Los Lunas, New Mexico, United States:
>>>Cyrus Gordon (1995) proposes that the Los Lunas Decalogue is in fact a Samaritan mezuzah. The familiar Jewish mezuzah is a tiny scroll placed in a small container mounted by the entrance to a house. The ancient Samaritan mezuzah, on the other hand, was commonly a large stone slab placed by the gateway to a property or synagogue, and bearing an abridged version of the Decalogue. Gordon points out that prosperous Samaritan shipowners were known to live in Greek communities at the time of Theodosius I circa 390 A.D., and proposes that the most likely age of the Los Lunas inscription is the Byzantine period.<<<
http://economics.sbs.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/loslunas.html
The Ten Commandments monument designed by Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore is pictured at the State Judicial Building in Montgomery, Ala., in this Aug 7, 2001, file photo.
God bless Chief Justice Roy Moore.
The "Establishment Clause" constraint is clearly placed upon Congress, not the states. In fact, any law made by Congress constraining the states with respect to religion would be in direct violation of this amendment and therefore null and void.
"I think what we heard today echoed of George Wallace," Cohen said. "He said the federal courts have no authority to order him to do anything Alabama law doesn't require him to do. Whatever views Moore has about this, federal law is supreme."
This echoes of Reconstruction and violation of state sovereignty by the federal government. Unless (and even if) Cohen wishes to make some lame application of the "elastic interstate commerce clause", his claim that "federal law is supreme" in this case is unfounded. Federal law is NOT supreme where the federal government does not have jurisdiction.
Chief Justice Moore is right, and Mr. Cohen is dead wrong. The U.S. Constitution specifically and clearly excludes the federal government from jurisdiction over matters of religion, whether pro or con. By contrast, according to Chief Justice Moore, the Alabama State Constitution has no such prohibitions.
According to this article, the cause for action given by the Southern Poverty Law Center, Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the American Civil Liberties Union is that "the monument violated the constitution". What constitution are they referring to? This case, and others like it, should be non-starters.
While I don't personally advocate the incorporation of religion or religious documents into government at any level, I must acknowledge the U.S. Constitution and the primary importance of protecting it above all else. I am sworn to do so.
I find that Judge Thompson's order violates the Constituition's ban against government prohibiting the free exercise of religion. So there. ;-)
The U.S. Constitution only refers to the federal government's "ban against government establishment of religion". It makes no reference to what the states can or can't do regarding religion.
No, Cohen, you infintesible organism, what we hear today is an over reaching, oppressive, Federal judiciary that would make Stalin green with envy, backed by a lawless, over reaching Federal monstrosity busy grinding under it's heels, and actively attempting to slip the chains of the Constitution that grants them "limited" authority.