Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rambi who wrote (73032)	8/22/2003 11:23:31 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

That is a worthwhile question, and, after all of this publicity, it may. According to an opinion about Lemon I quoted, even if there is a religious intention, it does not necessarily matter if there is also a secular purpose. My argument has been based on the intrinsic harmlessness of the display, regardless of its provenance, or the judge's antics. I consider that if there had not been a megillah made over the display, there would not be such a demonstration. But now that we are here, it may be that turning it into a contest of wills on the question of supporting religion has too far tainted the matter. I will ponder that, thanks......

To: Rambi who wrote (73032)	8/22/2003 11:40:23 AM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

There is no question that Moore is a polarizing figure. I try hard to distinguisn between the act and the actor. If you can get past that and just ask, is it per se unconstitutional to have a display of the Ten Commandments in a public place, and if so why, the discussion can get away from personality and back to the real issue. And what is the real issue? It is, IMO, whether the display violates the first amendment of the Constitution. Actually, one thing I realized re-reading the Amendment in light of this exchange: the Amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . " Now, we realize that the SC, probably in violation of the intent of the 14th Amendment, has nonetheless extended this prohibition to the States, which is probably itself not a constitutionally valid principle. But let that pass. The plain words of the Amendment are that "Congress [State legislatures] shall make no law . . . " In this case, nobody made any law of any kind. Neither Congress nor the State Legislature acted in any way. the Chief Justice of the State Supreme Court made a decision about a decoration to be placed in the Courthouse. I can't see any way in which that violates the plain language of the Constitution. Can you?