The Establishment Clause has generally come to mean that government cannot authorize a church, cannot pass laws that aid or favor one religion over another, cannot pass laws that favor religious belief over non belief, cannot force a person to profess a belief. In short, government must be neutral toward religion and cannot be entangled with any religion.
And does the monument do any of those things? It certainly doesn't authoize any church. It isn't a law favoring one religion over another or favoring belief over non-belief, it doesn't force anybody to profess any belief, does it? So even by that standard, it isn't violative.
Please note, btw, that I have never said that the TC belonged there, or that I would put them there, or that I approved of their being there. I have simply taken the fact that they are there, and tried to analyze the legal and societal consequences of their being there and of those who are trying to get them removed.
But I think when you say the Judge put a "decoration" in the Courthouse, you are being a bit flippant with the whole issue.
He should have called an interior decorator for help.
Really that thing looks like a tomb.
Well, it's better than a Velvet Elvis painting. <g> |
