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: The Philosopher who wrote (73048)	8/22/2003 12:05:08 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Alan Keyes argued that same point last night (boy, that man can talk)-- that there is no law being violated and he used the same phrase you are using, so I guess you are talking about the same thing. I know he is has a similar goal of restoring America to its "founding ideals". 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. I see what you are saying--but the paragraph says that the Est. Clause "has come to mean" which I guess means by way of court rulings and interpretations. And that these interpretations have led us to the "neutral toward religion" interpretation. And that is where the Lemon test and intent come into play. So this is where the conflicts all start- strict constuctionism versus whatever the other is called? Well, great- that means there is no absolute Right or Wrong, as usual. 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.