[7thson]

Wrong! The law of man does not trump the law of God. Two examples - one - the Dred Scott decission. This said that a certain group of people were things, not human. It issued from the highest court of the land and it was highly repugant and immoral. Two - the laws in Germany during the 1930's that made it illegal to be a Jew. We convicted people by saying that following orders and laws, when they were illegal, is wrong. So is this. If this is wrong, than sandblast the Ten Commandments off the Supreme Court. No more using the Bible for swearing of public officials or in courts. Take IN GOD WE TRUST off the money. If the stand is not made now, eventually it will be against the law to be a Christian.

[kesg]

If the stand is not made now, eventually it will be against the law to be a Christian.

Hardly. The very establishment clause that the federal courts are invoking here (rightly or wrongly under the facts of this particular case) would prohibit such a law. So does the even more fundamental principle of the rule of law, which is what Bill Pryor was defending here.

The people on the other side of this debate want to stand on a skyscraper while blasting away its foundation. It cannot be done. Take away the rule of law and the establishment clause and what you will eventually lose is the very religious freedom that you are concerned about losing.

[YoungKentuckyConservative]

Wrong! The law of man does not trump the law of God.

As our Founding Fathers pointed out in the Declraration of Independence.

[cryptical]

The law of man does not trump the law of God.

I must have missed "Thou shalt display the Ten Commandments".

If this is wrong, than sandblast the Ten Commandments off the Supreme Court. No more using the Bible for swearing of public officials or in courts. Take IN GOD WE TRUST off the money.

Sounds good to me. It's the old slippery slope. If you think it's ok to have those Christian symbols as a matter of public policy, then you'll be comfortable with swearing on the Torah, or the Koran, or a having a number of pithy koans carved onto the Supreme court, etc.

Maybe you mean that the First Amendment barring establishment of a state religion is all well and good, until it "infringes" on state recognition of your religion. Then it's as bad as slavery or genocide, and you can ignore the law?