I fail to see what these cases have to do with the topic. If you want to cry about the ACLU, make a thread about it rather than ruining all of them by changing the topic to the ACLU.

 

And which federal law might that be???

As for the Constitution it states that...

How is the displaying of a religous symbol an establishment of religion? A cross has the same meaning to Mormons, Catholics, Protestants, Methodists, and Lutherans. So by displaying a cross which religion has been established? Further by displaying a cross which religions are being prohibited from freely exercising their right?

 

Displaying a Christian symbol (when done by a state actor) shows that the state is endorsing that religion. The original test to determine if state actors could do this came out of a case in which one of the parties was named Lemon and was called the Lemon test.

However, recently the court has basically abandoned the Lemon test in favor of the endorsement test as set out in Lynch v. Donnelly, McCreary County v. ACLU, and Van Orden v. Perry. Basically the court has said that context matters and a display of a certain religious symbol may be allowed depending upon the context. First case was Christmas display and they said the nativity scene put up by the state was ok because it was in the context of an overall Christmas display. Other two are 10 commandments cases. One display was ok, one was not.

Sorry for the long post, but I'm studying for Con. Law and just went over this part.

 

Also, the only way the Supreme Court got out of having to take those "Ten Commandment" tablets down was by showing documents, etc. from the designing phase of the building that showed those tablets are not the Ten Commandments, they are the Bill of Rights. The tablets themselves just show a tablet with Roman numerals I thru X on them.

If they had been the 10 commandments, it is highly likely it would have been considered endorsement of religion and therefore not allowed, given the overall context of the courtroom.

 

Everson v. Board of Education, 1947. Justice Hugo Black wrote...

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'" 330 U.S. 1, 15-16."

I sourced this quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson...d_of_Education

This wikipedia entry also has a little bit of historical context for the decision.

You have a legitimate question here, but before I respond I want to point out that the word "establishment" in the context of the bill of rights is a noun, not a verb. Its not in reference to establishing religion, but rather the institution that is religion. I realize this is a minor point, and that I'm kind of an anal grammar nazi sometimes, but it does make a difference and it is an important distinction.

The answer is that the symbol of the cross represents all denominations of Christianity, just like the star of David is a meaningful religious symbol to any Jew. Displaying the icon of Christianity could potentially be a violation of the establishment clause or federal law if certain criteria are met.

 

Here is the flaw in the argument though, Christianity is not one particular religion but rather a collection of religions all of whom believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God. Their differences are in how they choose to worship and if the follow the Pope or not. There is no particular religion being enforced upon people and there is no restrictions on the freedom to practice other religions as well. When someone proposes a bill saying that Catholicism is to be the state religion of the US and all other religous sects are outlawed I will stand up and cry fowl. (I am Catholic BTW) But if my town wants to put a Menorah on the town green I am not going to be upset about that because I can be tolerant of others faiths and recognize that displaying anything religous is not an imposition.

 

Correct me if I am wrong but laws are written by our legislators both at the state and local level, legislators that have been elected by the people to represent them in government. Justices are to apply the laws written by the legislators to cases brought before them. Because this case was decided by the Supreme Court its decision takes affect to the entire nation in the same manner that Roe vs. Wade has. However there is no law written by our legislators explicitly establishing a seperation of Church and state, it is a Supreme Court decision that takes precedent in legal matters.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=establishment

If you use the above link you can see that my interpretation of "establishment" is right on and that I was using it as a noun because it is a noun. One such definition is "a church recognized by law as the official church of a nation or state and supported by civil authority" and at this point the US has not done this. When it does I will be all up in arms about it but if the state wants to have religous items I see no issue with it. If the American people really want a true and complete seperation between Church and state then lets have the legislature vote to approve such a law.

 

The Supreme Court has the power to write case law, almost regardless of existing common law or statues. For example, "Miranda rights" are read to a person being arrested because of Miranda v. Arizona (1966). Decisions from the Supreme Court are federal law.


You said "So by displaying a cross which religion has been established?" Established is a simple past tense regular verb. I only mentioned it before because its something I've seen a number of times.

The thing is, "the state" doesn't have desires. It is the desires of the individuals who are elected or otherwise given power by the citizenry about which we must be concerned.

 

In our legal system, all rulings in previous cases are equivalent to law, called case law.

 

I dont think it's the change that makes people angry as much as having to correct themselves. To me it is just a case of you say toe-may-toe I say toe-ma-toe.

When I say Christmas vacation I mean winter recess, and whenever I refer to Christmas it's not against anyone to join in the festivities, because what I am celebrating is not a religion thing, but a human thing. The gathering of friends and family for pure enjoyment. Who cares the historical importance, I say just have fun and stop ruining it for everyone else by pointing out that you don't agree with what the textbook definition of what we use to describe it is.

In the same way it's not a religion thing why I don't like people who point it out, it's a human response to them getting on my nerves by "correcting" me.