Skip to comments.
Federal Court Rejects “Separation of Church and State”
Family Policy Network ^
| 12/20/05
| FPN News
Posted on 12/28/2005 10:51:54 PM PST by TheAverageGuy
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-29 next last
FINALLY!!! - - Oh, if only this decision would be appealed to the Supreme Court. Then maybe we'd see this mythological "wall" fall once and for all. As of now, this decision is only binding in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee.
4 down, 46 to go!!!
To: TheAverageGuy
An ide alightbulb just appeared over my head...Get a conservative to appeal it, so the outcome will become national.
2
posted on
12/28/2005 10:54:38 PM PST
by
HHKrepublican_2
(OP Spread the Truth....http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1535158/posts)
To: TheAverageGuy
Good news. The ACLU strawdog arguments are truly tiresome and not constitutional.
3
posted on
12/28/2005 11:00:56 PM PST
by
Grampa Dave
(Link to Great TV ad re rat traitors and their words re Iraq: http://www.gop.com/Media/120905.wmv)
To: TheAverageGuy
we plan to call for legislation placing the Ten Commandments in courthouses throughout the stateWhy stop with just the courthouses? Why not also place the 10 Commandments in just about every public place: public libraries, public schools, firehouses, municipal buildings, county nursing homes, football stadiums, etc. Seriously.
If "the wall" doesn't exist, why assume that placement will be limited to courthouses? Also, if "the wall" doesn't exist, why should the placement of religious codes, or representations of religious codes, be restricted to just the 10 Commandments? Not to be crude about it, but other, non-Judeo-Christian religions will be interested in such prime product placement.
Who will get to make such decisions? Or will the "product placement" be put out to bid?
4
posted on
12/28/2005 11:13:49 PM PST
by
mumps
To: TheAverageGuy
"Oh, if only this decision would be appealed to the Supreme Court. Then maybe we'd see this mythological "wall" fall once and for all."
I doubt you would see it "fall". The S.C. would most likely rule narrowly, meaning just to the specifics of what ever case they were hearing and would uphold the Lemon test. Just a prediction.
5
posted on
12/28/2005 11:36:53 PM PST
by
ndt
To: TheAverageGuy
To: mumps
"Why stop with just the courthouses? Why not also place the 10 Commandments in just about every public place: public libraries, public schools, firehouses, municipal buildings, county nursing homes, football stadiums, etc. Seriously."
Because the court applied the Lemon test and determined that this posting was legal because "..the Mercer County display lacks a religious purpose and further conclude that it does not endorse religion.". If other posting are placed in a manner that is deemed to "endorse religion" as opposed to the context of history (as this case was) then it would still fail the lemon test and be barred.
7
posted on
12/28/2005 11:44:34 PM PST
by
ndt
To: TheAverageGuy
To: TheAverageGuy
9
posted on
12/28/2005 11:45:06 PM PST
by
Falconspeed
(Keep your fears to yourself, but share your courage with others. Robert Louis Stevenson)
To: TheAverageGuy
10
posted on
12/28/2005 11:48:42 PM PST
by
Tall_Texan
(Santa Claus is an illegal alien.)
To: mumps
Why not put them out to bid? Go for it, doesn't bother me.
You folks get all wrapped around the axle about silly stuff, and always fail to recognize that painting blue mud in your bellytbutton is a survival skill.
Well, have at it.
11
posted on
12/28/2005 11:53:17 PM PST
by
patton
("Hard Drive Cemetary" - forthcoming best seller)
To: Tall_Texan
12
posted on
12/29/2005 12:55:30 AM PST
by
Recovering_Democrat
(I am SO glad to no longer be associated with the party of Dependence on Government!)
To: TheAverageGuy
I believe that there is a wonderful legal argument to made that the original intent of the 'establishment clause' was to actally codify the First Commandment.
After all, if the government establishes a religion, the government would be assuming the role of God.
13
posted on
12/29/2005 1:16:40 AM PST
by
rwilson99
(South Park (R)
To: TheAverageGuy
Thank You Lord, this is an answer to millions of prayers. Please continue to add states to the list who recognize this truth. The implications are huge. It's about time this Christian nation get it's head screwed on straight. Please work in the hearts and minds of those who have the authority and power to right this terrible wrong perpetrated by the ACLU and others. Amen
14
posted on
12/29/2005 1:20:13 AM PST
by
Frwy
(It takes a child to raze a village. (author unknown))
To: HHKrepublican_2
Be careful what you wish for, the SCOTUS already destroyed the first amendment with the campaign finance reform jewel that Bush didn't veto.
15
posted on
12/29/2005 1:48:06 AM PST
by
liliesgrandpa
(The Republican Party simply can't do anything without that critical 100-seat Senate majority.)
To: HHKrepublican_2
To: patton
Well, I like the spirit of your response, but I'm not sure what it means.
17
posted on
12/29/2005 1:50:59 PM PST
by
mumps
To: ndt
If other posting are placed in a manner that is deemed to "endorse religion" as opposed to the context of history (as this case was) then it would still fail the lemon test and be barred.So basically, somebody could put up the 10 Commandments or the Crucifix, or a portrait of Mohammed Ali (the Islamic hero, not the boxer), claiming some sort of "historical context." Aggrieved parties litigate, and the ensuing dispute goes to court. Well, it will keep the lawyers busy.
18
posted on
12/29/2005 1:59:33 PM PST
by
mumps
To: mumps
"So basically, somebody could put up the 10 Commandments or the Crucifix, or a portrait of Mohammed Ali (the Islamic hero, not the boxer), claiming some sort of "historical context.""
Basically yes. But being overzealous with it would backfire IMHO. The Lemon Test does not ban displays of religious items, but the display of those items must pass the test.
- The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
- The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and
- The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion.
The recent case about ID being taught in science class also applied the test. This case was a good example of why I say that being overzealous would back fire. I believe that a strong case could be made that ID could legitimately be covered in classes such as philosophy, world religions or current events. The overzealous attempt to push it into science however backfired with the result of a solid ruling that now specifically bars it.
19
posted on
12/29/2005 3:42:21 PM PST
by
ndt
To: ndt
The war is not over. Nothing's permanent. ID is much more scientific (if that means factual, actual, true) than Darwin's atheistic (and illogical) musings. We must continue to flail at the wall. With the 6th Court ruling, there is a crack in it--howbeit, tiny--nevertheless, a precious tiny crack. PRECEDENCE has been set. Future cases CAN (oh I pray WILL) widen the crack. Here's a pitch for the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF): doing a great job helping to break down the wall. I contribute to it regularly.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-29 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson