Replies

What is your basis for this statement? Did you not see that the Court relied, in part, on Judge Moore's refusal to give "equal time" to other religious sources?

I'm basing it on the myriad attacks on religion in the courts all over the country - from religious displays on public property, to the wearing of religious symbols, relgious books verboten, prayers forbidden, etc. And most important, tradition morality based on universal religious principles scuttled.

(you're right - I'm catching up. Live near the Pacific.)

Just to clarify - your statement seemed to say that THIS Court was attacking religion in general with THIS decision. Do I understand now that you are simply decrying a general attack on all religion, as opposed to saying that this Court, by prohibiting the preference of one religion by the top judicial officer of the state, was attacking all religion?

Okay, let me address a few of these:

As noted upthread, the display of religious symbols on public property is not forbidden as long as they are not limited to symbols of one favored religion.

I am not aware of any laws prohibiting the wearing of religious symbols, nor am I aware of any laws prohibiting prayer. Some here will cite school prayer laws, but let's be clear on this - any public school student can pray in school. There is no prohibition whatsoever against this. The only prohibition is against the school - teachers, principals, etc. - leading the students in prayer. And don't think it doesn't happen anyway. I played high school sports in a public school, and we never played a game that wasn't preceded by the Lord's Prayer in the locker room.

Again, there is no law against religious books in school. Only the providing of religious books by the school, to the exclusion of other views.

The rulings are geared to state sponsorship and state endorsement of a religion, not to the practice. I have no problem with this. I've never had any problem with access to any religious materials because of it - and my worship tends to take place in places of worship - not government facilities. In addition, I tend to follow the Biblical admonition that prayer and worship is a personal and private matter.

Appreciate the discussion. My only comment would be that while you are taking up for the view of this issue adopted by some Christians who promote state endorsement of their religion, you may want to closely examine whether their view would accept and tolerate your rather broad interpretation of these issues. In my experience, it wouldn't. (An aside - the area where I grew up had a small Indian population, and the principal of my high school was an Indian Christian. He took a very harsh view of any display of Hindu culture by the Indian students - perhaps because of his own experiences in India. But his view of the primacy of Christianity was very typical, and he clearly believed it should be enforced through government institutions. Judge Moore expressly believes the same thing.)