High atop Washington Monument overlooking is engraved Praise be to God

John, please recheck the reading of the First Amendment - "Congress shall make no law..." - and revisit the division of powers according to the Constitution - Congress = Legislative; President = Executive; Supreme Court = Judicial. When the framers used the words "Congress" and "law" in the First Amendment they were clearly referring to the Legislative Branch. Neither the President nor the Court can (constitutionally) make laws, and therefore it would not be sensible to suppose the framers had them in mind.

Atheists and agnostics might have a hard time appreciating the fine points of your argument.

 

You're right. He did not attempt to establish a religion. He attempted to respect an establishment of relgion.

No religion is being established. However, there has been a government repecting of the establishment of the religion.</font>[/QUOTE] Your going to have to explain this distinction. If the gov't cannot "respect" religious establishments then it has no basis for tax law regarding churches nor a host of other limitations and protections. Recognizing/"respecting" religious views/organizations is a far cry from establishing a state sponsored religion.

Gov't can and should respect religion. No free society can maintain itself without a high degree of self-governance and in our society this force has always resided within our various religious institutions.

 

The judge removed the child from the mother's home, even though there was no danger. He did so solely based on his religious beliefs, not on legal precededent.

The expert testimony of someone in the medical profession, be they a christian or secular professional, would bear weight.</font>[/QUOTE] So in other words, the "expert" testimony of a human being (ie. there is no danger to the child because of its mother's lesbianism) is a valid basis for making a decision (whether a legal precedent or not) but the Word of God on the matter is invalid?

Some things are sinful because they are destructive to ourselves and others around us. I think you have stated something similar yourself. Sexual sins fall into this category. God's dictates on sexual behavior fall into this category. I believe God can be trusted on this matter and do not fault a judge that would defer to biblical morality in determining what the best home environment for a child would be.

It is just as inferior as a judge basing his ruling on the Koran. I'm sure if "secular humanism" saw fit to "trump" Islam, Christianity would have no problem with it.</font>[/QUOTE] Maybe, maybe not. The Koran does teach moral values. Further, if such a judge were open about his faith and its impact on his worldview, as Judge Moore seems to be, then was elected, he would have a basis for employing his worldview.

I say this not because I necessarily even agree with Judge Moore on every point but because I recognize that no judge is without some type of bias. You reject the notion but approaching the law from a purely secular view is a bias no less likely to infringe upon personal rights than approaching the law from a religion-based worldview. A judge that will accept the testimony of a secular psychiatrist is no more unbiased than one who reads your last Bible-based sermon on how to properly raise a child. It is a matter of whose influence can be trusted, not whether influences will affect decisions.

 

Yes. A Judge may not make legal decisions based on anything but law. The Salem witch trials are a good example of why this is so.

There was no assumption in the courtroom that the mother was having sex with another woman. So if the gay mother isn't having sex with anyone, and it's discovered that the father is having sex with another woman, can the mother get custody?

Okay, so if the parents are Muslim, and if one parent pulls out a Bible and says one thing, and another parents pulls out the Koran that contradicts it, should the judge make a determination based on his beliefs, the mother's beliefs, or the father's beliefs? What if the Judge is Muslim? What if the Judge is Jewish? What if the Judge is Mormon? Then what? Would you be in favor of a Jew or Muslim using his personal religious beliefs to make a legal decision?

That's your opinion. American Muslims would disagree. American Muslims, as well as American Jews, Buddhists, and Atheists, are allowed the same protection under the law as as an American Christian. What if the two parents are Baptist and Catholic? If you're a Baptist Judge, should you be allowed to award the child to the Baptist because you think a Baptists upbringing will be more beneficial to the child's upbringing?

 

The protections fall under the "free excercise" clause, which is also in the first amendment. The only protection is that a house of worship is assumed to be a charitable organization, and as such, is not required to file for tax exemption. This remains true so long as it operates as a house of worship.

I never said othrwise. I never said that Judge Moore was trying to establish a state religion. I said he was sttempting to respect an establishment of religion.

Yes, it can. It can respect religion in general. It cannot, however, respect an establishment of religion.

 

So you're saying that the display is allowable because no law was enacted that leglized the display for religious purposes. But since this case was brought before the courts, it is left to their interpretation. Had they allowed the monument to remain, it would have resulted in case law that would have respected an establishment of religion.

Which is why the ACLU has also lost many cases regarding the topic.