Feather

Well since displaying the monument isn't actually "establishing" religion then it's okay and holds up to the strict standards of the Constitution.

Philosoft

Even if you understood the "strict standards of the Constitution," the immediate issue is the summary judgement nonsense. I am incredulous that a judge can summarily rule that displaying a wholly religious text is an obviously secular act. Additionally, we have actual precedent now. The Roy Moore case, while not identical in nature, was adjudicated previously. To claim that the lawsuit has no merit is laughable.

Feather

Well, it may not be a secular act, but it doesn't actually "establish" a religion, either. No churches, priests, or edicts were given the weight of law in erecting the monument.

So on that basis the Moore ruling was incorrect also. Moore never actually created a religious establishment.

Stephen Maturin

Which is why I find it peculiar that Judge Forester bothered to rule at all in this case. Another judge of the same court (Jennifer Coffman) held back in 2001 that similar displays in three other Kentucky counties were unconstitutional. That ruling is now on appeal in the Sixth Circuit. Were I in Judge Forester's shoes, I would have stayed the Mercer County case and waited to see what the court of appeals has to say.

Stephen Maturin

But "establishing a religion" isn't the test for determining whether such displays violate the First Amendment.

Psycho Economist

You're right. Dubbya didn't get up in his pulpit and say "I officially turn the nation over to the Southern Baptist Convention, to rule in the name of the Lawd." But, we have a very clear constitutional case law about what "respecting the establishment of religion" means. And it sees emphasis on "the establishment of religion", meaning the entire subject matter... not solely on "establishment", meaning creation of a state religion.

ACLU and the American Center for Arguing a Protestant Theocracy is Constitutional, as Long as It's Non-Denominational are going to butt heads on this for a while. Sure, they have a valid argument: the Constitution doesn't specify. Sure, they're waiting for the Supreme Court and Appellate Courts to get stacked with judges who agree with their interpretation. But these guys are into strict-interpretation about as much as fundies are into biblical literalism: They pay it lip service. They even like to think they're doing it. But in reality, it's not possible. In the case of the Constitution, it was intentionally left vauge in spots, sometimes so society could interpret it in ways that suited them, sometimes because vaguery was the only consenus that could be reached.

What we have is a crisis in interpretation, and the strict interpreters think their reading is more righteous because they don't cite as much case law... but there's probably reasons why there's not as much case law on their side.