| This week the Supreme Court upheld the right of religious groups to participate in the beautiful mosaic of after-school activities. No new territory was broken: The case was almost identical to another case in which the Supreme Court reversed the exact same court years ago. This was massive resistance.
Justice Clarence Thomas remarked on the oddity of having to reverse the same court twice, noting that while the appellate courts aren't required to cite all the Supreme Court's precedents, they might want to cite the last time they were reversed on the same facts.
At least the 6-3 decision gives us an accurate count of the atheists on the court, probably as accurate as my dream of giving them all polygraph tests someday. ("Do you believe in a Higher Being ... no, seriously.") Concerned someone might be reading Leviticus during school hours, Justice David Souter dissented in a hair-splitting exegesis about the precise time classes let out (2:56 p.m.), vs. the time the organizers would enter school property (2:30 p.m.).
The New York Times' obligatory hysterical denunciation of the decision revealingly complained: "(C)hildren that young are unlikely to discern that the religious message of authority figures who come to the school each day to teach does not carry the school's endorsement."
It is simply taken for granted that it's desirable for children to revere "authority figures" at government schools. Normally those authority figures are teaching the youngsters to put condoms on zucchini or training them in the catechism of recycling. Sending a mixed message about government "authority figures" might interfere with the state's ability to turn small children into Good Germans inculcated in the liberal religion.
It's well past time for liberalism to be declared a religion and banned from public schools. Allowing Christians to be one of many after-school groups induces hysteria not just because liberals hate religion. It's because the public school is their temple. Children must be taught to love Big Brother, welcoming him to take over our schools, our bank accounts, our property, even our toilet bowls.
We're told the First Amendment requires a separation of church and state, which, just as an incidental matter, is completely false. The whole point of the Constitution is to separate the federal government from the individual.
In keeping with the general theme, the First Amendment provides that Congress cannot establish a religion -- but nor can it stop the states from establishing religions. That's why it says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Dear Congress: You may be eligible for a free country. You do nothing.
The only thing that tempers my annoyance with the canard about states not being allowed to establish religions is imagining the kind of established religion we'd have in New York. We'd be doing daily devotionals to Saint Hillary.
Still, it is a fact that when the First Amendment was ratified, several states had established religions. Fortunately for the burgeoning minority religions in those states, the established religions were things like "Episcopalianism" and "Congregationalism" rather than "Liberalism." Continued... |