[general_re]

thus saith the Supreme Court .... since the 1950s or so.

Render unto Caesar, and all that jazz ;)

Government may express an opinion on matters or might do things that encourage one idea, but may invoke no coercion in either sphere. The establishment clause further underlines that determination so there is no favored sectarian religion.

In particular, it may not restrict the public square to one favored sect or creed, as Judge Moore did.

[WOSG]

In particular, it may not restrict the public square to one favored sect or creed, as Judge Moore did."

Uh, I agreed up to this point - "restrict" ... the point is, Judge Moore did no such thing. He didnt "restrict" anything, another Judge could do his thing, another office or court could do theirs. And of course private citizens could do there own thing ("A tribute to the contribution of Viking morality to American life ...").

Judge Moore's display does not involve any official edict, any establishment, any favoritism towards a particular sectarian group, nor any coercion or intimidation. Only those in the business of being professionally aggravated by religious sentiment even claim to be "offended". NOBODY is harmed by it.

What he did was no more an establishment of religion than making "MLK Boulevard" in our town means a violation of the free speech of those who oppose him.

Or maybe its okay to impose the religion of MLK but not Moses?:-)