From: atropos@mac.com   
      
   On Feb 22, 2026 at 1:06:48 PM PST, "Rhino"    
   wrote:   
      
   > On 2026-02-22 4:03 a.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:   
   >>  I wonder if BTR1701 agrees with me that the Louisiana statute requiring   
   >>  display of the Ten Commandments is an unconstitutional Establishment.   
   >>   
   >>  Here's the King James Version. I got a kick out of the state's argument   
   >>  that "Don't kill or steal shouldn't be controversial". I'm not seeing   
   >>  secular language in Thou shalt have no other gods before me.   
   >>   
   >>  In Roarke v. Brumley, en banc, the 5th Circuit reversed the   
   >>  injunction upheld by the 3-judge panel, claiming that lacking evidence   
   >>  that the posters themselves weren't an Establishmemt, they just couldn't   
   >>  sustain the injunction.   
   >   
   > I still have trouble seeing how putting up a sign is the same as   
   > establishing a state church. Isn't that what the Establishment Clause is   
   > designed to prevent?   
      
   Yes, much like the Commerce Clause, the Court has taken the Establishment   
   Clause and twisted way beyond what it was intended to be. As you say, it was a   
   way of preventing the establishment of a national church, not to ban any   
   mention of religion, however minute, from government institutions.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)