The legislature enacts the laws,

Was the display of a religious icon, a result of a judge enforcing a law?

In Moore's case no, in fact he had to bring the monument in at night, in secret because he knew he couldn't get away with it if he did it openly. There have been attempts to pass laws to force schools to put up specific christian materials, but they are unconstitutional of course.

Will the judge have to quit his religion because he is a representitive of government? Or does having a Christian judge offend people and violate the Constitution?

A person is allowed to believe anything they want. It only can be a problem when they try and force that belief on other people. For instance, a judge is allowed to pray before starting court, but he is not allowed to lead the court as a whole in prayer.

Also I ask is displaying a religious icon imposing religion on the population?

That depends on several things, including your intent in displaying the item, if other items are allowed to be displayed, where the item is being displayed, and who is paying for the display.

To give a more concrete example, imagine that some new religion has swept across the US so that 51% of the population follows this religon. This religion requires that all members pass through religious sin arches at least once a day.

For the government to spend tax money to put sin arches in front of government buildings would unconstitutional. For the government to allow private groups to build sin arches on government property would generally be unconstitutional. But it could be allowed in special cases if the arches are placed such that people that don't follow that religion don't have to go out of their way to avoid the arch.* A judge that wants to put a sin arch in his private chambers would generally be OK, as long as it wasn't placed such that everybody going into and out of the chambers had to pass through the arch.

Jay

* The reason for this is that the government is required to allow the free exercise of religon. But the government can not support that exercise. Balancing those two things against each other, and balancing free exercise against harm in cases of dangerous religious practices is a very complex and situational question.

Post #145,277 by ChrisR 3/10/04 12:32:41 PM Reply	The legislature enacts the laws, The executive branch administers the law; The courts enforce the law. As enforces of the law, the courts are acting upon legislation passed by congress (at least that's the theory). As such, the courts are not supposed to enforce laws that extend the power beyond the restraints imposed on legislation emanating from the legislative branch. As for states, the 14th amendment is what is applied there. No, the state, county, and city courts are not part of Congress. However, the interpretation of the law is that they can not impose restrictions on freedom of religious expression, nor can they impose religion upon their populace.
Post #145,301 by orion 3/10/04 1:17:07 PM Reply	Still more questions Was the display of a religious icon, a result of a judge enforcing a law? Or was it something else? Will the judge have to quit his religion because he is a representitive of government? Or does having a Christian judge offend people and violate the Constitution? Also I ask is displaying a religious icon imposing religion on the population? *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #145,352 by JayMehaffey 3/10/04 3:09:19 PM Reply	Re: Still more questions Was the display of a religious icon, a result of a judge enforcing a law? In Moore's case no, in fact he had to bring the monument in at night, in secret because he knew he couldn't get away with it if he did it openly. There have been attempts to pass laws to force schools to put up specific christian materials, but they are unconstitutional of course. Will the judge have to quit his religion because he is a representitive of government? Or does having a Christian judge offend people and violate the Constitution? A person is allowed to believe anything they want. It only can be a problem when they try and force that belief on other people. For instance, a judge is allowed to pray before starting court, but he is not allowed to lead the court as a whole in prayer. Also I ask is displaying a religious icon imposing religion on the population? That depends on several things, including your intent in displaying the item, if other items are allowed to be displayed, where the item is being displayed, and who is paying for the display. To give a more concrete example, imagine that some new religion has swept across the US so that 51% of the population follows this religon. This religion requires that all members pass through religious sin arches at least once a day. For the government to spend tax money to put sin arches in front of government buildings would unconstitutional. For the government to allow private groups to build sin arches on government property would generally be unconstitutional. But it could be allowed in special cases if the arches are placed such that people that don't follow that religion don't have to go out of their way to avoid the arch.* A judge that wants to put a sin arch in his private chambers would generally be OK, as long as it wasn't placed such that everybody going into and out of the chambers had to pass through the arch. Jay * The reason for this is that the government is required to allow the free exercise of religon. But the government can not support that exercise. Balancing those two things against each other, and balancing free exercise against harm in cases of dangerous religious practices is a very complex and situational question.

Welcome to IWETHEY!