ACLU Gives Up 10 Commandments Fight

We had a great decision in Snohomish County, WA sure to irritate every one. Judge said they could stay because they were not religious.

 

Finally. Another Judge who decided to enforce the Constitution instead of rewrite it from the bench.

 

Chalk one up for the good guys.

 

That is great news!

 

If you want to know the truth about the ACLU and other things that should concern Americans check out these sites:

www.reclaimamerica.org

www.coralridge.org

 

That won't happen, Ken. This is a flawed question, since that has not, and will not happen. That does fall under free exercise.
</font>[/QUOTE]
It already has.

Reed v Van Hoven
</font>[/QUOTE]Wrong. That case was about the Pledge of Allegiance and the ACLU was not part of it. Linkie (pdf)

If you want to know the truth about the ACLU try:
http://www.aclu.org/

 

That won't happen, Ken. This is a flawed question, since that has not, and will not happen. That does fall under free exercise.
</font>[/QUOTE]
It already has.

Reed v Van Hoven
</font>[/QUOTE]Wrong. That case was about the Pledge of Allegiance and the ACLU was not part of it. Linkie (pdf)

If you want to know the truth about the ACLU try:
http://www.aclu.org/ </font>[/QUOTE]You better do some more research Daisy. Then you can wipe the egg off your own face.

 

I used to respect D James' Kennedy's agenda, but since he has unfortunately decided to tread the path of misinformation and revisionism, I no longer support him, and would not recommend these sights. I do, however, still respect Dr Kennedy in other spiritual matters, and as a man of God.

It wasn't an issue of the judge, it was an issue of the law. The circuit court correctly ruled that the display was primarily secular in nature, not religious in nature. Hence, it can stay. The ruling is consistent with previous SCOTUS rulings on the same issue. Ultimately any 10C display comes down to intent and nature. If the display is primarily religious, then it must go. If it's primatily secular, then it can stay. (the court also recognizes that a secular display need not be devoid of a religious nature altogether, and that a religious display need not be devoid of a secular nature altogether.)

 

I'll stand by my statement.

This judge made a decision based on the law instead of his personal feelings, whatever they might be.

Sounds a lot like what you said, just fewer words.

 

Yes, but I had much more fun typing all of that.

 

Yes, but I had much more fun typing all of that. </font>[/QUOTE]

I'm too slow a typist to waste words.

 

I'm having trouble finding the decision, but the document I did find references it:

 

There are many references to this case. One of the most persistent interpretations of it is:

If a student prays over his lunch, it is unconstitutional for him to pray aloud. (Reed v. Van Hoven, 1965.)

 

I still think:

 

Yes, there are references, but what does the actual ruling say? It's the original source that counts.

I don't know why it is so difficult to find.