FNC: Bill Would Protect Religious Displays

[BlueEyedSon]

ATLANTA — Sen. Richard Shelby and Rep. Robert Aderholt of Alabama have introduced bills in the Senate and House that would define public religious displays as constitutional rights not subject to review by federal courts.

"If a judge did not act appropriately then, of course, impeachment would be one of the options that the Congress could consider," Aderholt told Fox News.

The Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 (search) was written in part by former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore (search), who lost his legal battle to display the Ten Commandments (search ) in Alabama's Supreme Court Building.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,111706,00.html

Zell Miller is in on this too....

[no_hypocrisy]

1. Here's the rub: religious displays on public property are OK if they're

ALSO in the company of non-religious items. What the sponsors want is religious symbols without the competition. Suggesting that government is a sponsor of religion by having its symbols displayed to the public.

Example: Christmas displays of the manger on the front lawn of municipal townhall if Rudolph or Frosty the Snowman are watching nearby or a generic Christmas tree is included.

They haven't gone this far: Christ crucified on the cross for Easter with the Easter Bunny watching guard.

I heard Moore is trying to get the 10 Commandments back if a copy of the Magna Carter and the Constitution are also hanging with them and passing it off as "historical legal documents".

[Bandit]

8. I would like to see any "Legal Reference" to the Ten Commandments

The Ten Commandments have absolutely nothing to do with American Law.

[ixion]

2. hmmm... I wonder if these hypocrites would feel the same

way if I were to build a large Buddha or a statue of Shiva or Bes or something other than the 10 commandments (ironically, tennants that they largely ignore)?

Freedom of religion? Sure, as long as it's Christ. :eyes:

[Bridget Burke]

3. How about the Yab-Yum?

It's the sacred Tantric symbol of the balance of energies--fly the banner in the public square!

[ixion]

4. exactly...

do you think they'd be so quick to come to the defense then? I highly doubt it.

[Malva Zebrina]

5. I like that guy's looks

[DBoon]

6. A pentagram with a goat's head

Would surely be a protected religious display, right?

[BlueEyedSon]

7. LOL!!!

[yellowcanine]

9. One small problem fellas, you can't define Constitutional rights that way.

Simple logic would tell you that Constitutional rights are defined by the Constitution, not legislation. Am I missing something here? Shelby seems to be trying to usurp the role of the courts in interpreting the Constitution. Seems to me this particular battle was settled way back in the early 19th century in Marbury vs. Madison. I sincerely doubt that even Scalia and his sidekick Thomas would be willing to overturn Marlbury vs. Madison.