DescentBB

Something interesting: the same federal appeals court in California that declared the Pledge of Allegiance an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion is itself being sued for allegedly having a representation of the Ten Commandments in its seal. The term "hypocritical" might come to mind.

Source

I doubt they had any idea. You think any of those old fogies ever looked at the seal?

LOL... 'course, knowing them, they may very well just get rid of the seal.

Secular fundamentalists at war with churchianity. Film at 11.

Heh@churchianity.

It is not freedom of religion, it is freedom from religion.

Krom wrote:It is not freedom of religion, it is freedom from religion.

It was supposed to be freedom from state controlled religion not a guaranteed absence of any mention of religion. Just look at all the references to religion the authors of that document included in previous and subsequent documents....

Will Robinson wrote:

Krom wrote:It is not freedom of religion, it is freedom from religion.

It was supposed to be freedom from state controlled religion not a guaranteed absence of any mention of religion. Just look at all the references to religion the authors of that document included in previous and subsequent documents....

Playing "devil's advocate" a bit here:

Not only freedom from state-controlled religion, but also state-mandated/supported religion. If the seal representing that particular office has a symbol of a particular religion, at the very least it can be construed as support for that religion.

(Not that I think a symbol on a seal should be changed, given its historical significance. A city near me was sued about a cross on its seal, and the resulting legal battle and media frenzy was pretty ridiculous.)

The first ammendments religion clause also applies only to congress....Oh well.