Count - Pointercount

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34270

Another interpretation of the constitution re: 'state religion.' This one argues that the federales should butt out.

I read the article. It is an interpretation within the letter of the Constitution but clearly in violation of its intent.

Unfortunately, or fortunately, the Constitution was written over 200 years ago before modern legalese evolved to the point that all documents are designed to have no loopholes but have been rendered incomprehensible in the process.

The Constitution, being very old, is a document that can be read and understood by ordinary humans. That means it's riddled with loopholes because the Founding Fathers didn't think to add an extra 8,415 pages of incomprehensible WHEREAS's, HOWEVER's and other legal mumbo-jumbo.

As a result, divining Constitutionality is very much an exercise in adhering to the spirit of the document, the intent that the clauses were written in.

It should be abundantly clear that the Founding Fathers forbade Congress from passing laws regarding the establishment of religion for the purpose of keeping the government out of religion. PERIOD. The Founding Fathers, of course, never forsaw the hijinks of religious-activist judges trying to stir things up with a religious statue in a government building.

No one is preventing the judge from religious expression, of course. He can display a statue like this on his own property, or any other private lot on which he has permission, he can even tote it along on a demonstration of some sort. Key here is that he is doing this as a private citizen as is his Constitutional right to express.

However, if he installs it on public property by the power of his judicial authority, he is NOT acting as a private citizen, he is acting as a part of the GOVERNMENT and is then guilty of government meddling in religious matters, something the Founding Fathers never intended.