Now, I personally agree with this decision. But Justice Moore made some valid points. By tradition, the Supreme Court is opened with the phrase "God save the honorable court", our currency is imprinted with the phrase "In God We Trust", schoolchildren are taught to pledge allegiance to the the flag of "One nation, under God", and the congress employs congressional chaplains. Moore claimed that ruling against him would necessitate ruling against these practices.

The courts have claimed that the word God in official speech is a meaningless term that serves only to impart solemnity, even in the case of the cold-war insertion of God into the Pledge of Allegiance. Given the fervor with which the public sentiment is defended, that argument seems to be merely a polite falsehood. It may be a necessary lie for preventing a fight, but it might be a fight worth having.

If Moore is wrong, but some or all of these other examples are right (and that seems to be the way most people feel), then there's some kind of slippery slope. I wonder how (and where) other people draw the line.

Given that there was a kerfufflel in 2000 concerning the appointment of the congressional chaplain and that the basis for the problem was the suspicion that the House refused to appoint a Catholic, it's worth considering James Madison's arguments against the post from a letter written sometime before 1832:

Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a [Congressional] Chaplain! To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers or that the major sects have a right to govern the minor.
--From James Madison Detached Memoranda (bef 1832)

I would agree that eventually consistency has to be upheld - either you can invoke God in a governmental setting or you can't, and based upon separation of church and state, I'd say you can't.

If Moore is wrong, but some or all of these other examples are right (and that seems to be the way most people feel), then there's some kind of slippery slope. I wonder how (and where) other people draw the line.

I'd draw it somewhere between "God save this honorable court" and "I am the Lord thy God; Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

I'm not bothered by most of the civic "God"'s out there (reciting the Pledge in schools bugs me more because nobody thinks about what it means than because of any negligible religious content), but there's a clear difference between most of the vague mentions of a nonspecific deity, and the first couple of Commandments.

Chad:
Good, but can you pick something closer to your line? It's easy to define the ends of these things, but the interesting part is what's in the middle and where the inflection point is.

I'd say that it's the exclusivity that bugs me in the case of the Ten Commandments. They're explicitly referring to a particular version of God, and denying the validity of all others. With things like "In God We Trust" on currency, you're free to imagine that to be whatever God you like, from the bearded Old Testament fire-and-brimstone type, to Alannis Morissette doing a handstand in plaid boxers.

In the context of public statements, I'm really not bothered by statements like "God save this honorable court." It strikes me as just a sort of rhetorical accretion over years, like the "Oyez, oyez" business that opens some legal proceedings. It doesn't particularly mean anything at that point. I'm more bothered by explcitly prayerful displays, particularly when God is specifically invoked.

So, what are the grey areas? Student led prayers at football games? Student led prayer by the football team?

Congressional Chaplains? Paid Congressional Chaplains? Paying Congressional Chaplains $138,000 a year? Doctrinal tests for potential Congressional Chaplains?

The Texas Constitution says "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."

Are any of these near the line where you might say "yes, but I understand the opposition" or "no, but I understand why others would say yes?"

Prayers at sporting events: Depends on the prayer. In the cases that have come before the courts, I'd generally say "no," because the intent has always clearly been an exclusive Christian-wingnut sort of prayer.

The grey area here is the sort of vague, inoffensive, let's-bow-our-heads-before-dinner sort of prayer. It's the sort of thing that offends some people, but strikes me as fairly harmless, so long as names are kept out (i.e., "We are thankful that we could all be together tonight, and that we have this food" is ok, but "Bless us oh Lord, and these thy gifts that we are about to receive from your bounty through Christ our Lord, Amen," is not...)

As for legislative chaplains, I have no particular problem with that. Congressmen are as likely to need to seek spiritual counsel as anyone else, and more likely than most to need to unburden their souls to members of the clergy. Do it like the Army, and hire a whole bunch of chaplains, of all different denominations, to cover all the bases.

As for the Texas constitution, well, no offense, but if tomorrow I heard that we'd decided to give the whole place back to Mexico (or Spain, for that matter), I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. If there were a sensible way to send Mississippi along with them, I'd be all for it.

I find one line of that Texas Constitution to be shocking - "provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being." Have I not had enough coffee, or does that mean that someone CAN be excluded from holding public office if he does NOT acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being? Which, in turn, means that according to the Texas Constitution atheists and most agnostics can be prevented from holding public office. That's really scary.