fromtheright

And this was a portion of SLD's opinion re that concurring opinion:

I should finally add that from a legal perspective, the opinion is not appealable. That religious motivations play a part in a judge's decision is unavoidable - I don't see how the Lemon test can be applied to the Judge's decision. The decision may have biblical basis and motivation, but that is not enough to overrule it unless it has the primary effect of endorsing or forwarding the cause of religion. The entire legislation may be motivated by Exodus and the Ten Commandments to outlaw murder and perjury, but murder and perjury are not laws that primarily advance religion. In this case it has the primary effect of a mother not getting to have custody changed to her - something difficult to do in most circumstances anyways.

Living Dead Chipmunk

FTR: Ok, I think I see your point now. You're saying that because this man is putting up the 10 C's in an individual capacity, and not as a matter of policy, it doesn't violate the establishment clause. Am I correct?

fromtheright

No, I am saying what I said to start with--that a granite block with the Ten Commandments in a state building does not constitute an establishment of religion. There are aspects of this that trouble me too, as noted above, but I don't think that the brick is an establishment of religion.

[ December 05, 2002: Message edited by: fromtheright ]</p>