Monday, June 27, 2005

Ten Commandments Displays - Impermissible and Permissible Both!

I love it when the Supreme Court resorts to the ridiculous to make a decision on a religious display.

To wit, McCreary County v. ACLU (impermissible in courthouses) and Van Orden v. Perry (permissible on state capitol grounds). In the absence of what is most assuredly a mind-numbing pair of opinions, weaving logic in and out of the borders of credulity, I can only assume that the court is viewing these cases on a case-by-case basis to test the "religious effect" of the displays.

The current paradigm appears to be whether the Commandments displays have a historical-legal value or a purely religious value. And it reminds me of the nativity displays that the left constantly protests any time they are even visible from public property and the Court's permitting of them if they are somehow watered-down by "secular" images like Santa Claus, reindeer, snowmen, carolers, etc.

For fear of abandoning the atheist agenda of the ACLU (enforcing secularism is indeed a religious endorsement in itself--one of irreligion), the Court once again fails and refuses to find that displays with religious overtones do not endorse religion. Because neither Congress nor the states made any law respecting an establishment of religion. They just put up a display. But the concern from the atheist left is that any display with any colorable religious symbolism in the public square is an endorsement of religion.

This stems from cases where the atheists have argued that such displays create a feeling in the hearts and minds of those who do not choose a faith or whose faith is different than the one implicated in a particular display of truncation or religious domination. Basically, the hurt feelings and broken heart crowd changed the law to get their emotions protected from legitimate displays of religion.

It's time that we put away the kleenex box. Other people have a right to a state that is not atheist-driven. They are not our masters, and the law needs to be read for what it is. Because it doesn't favor them, but many of us are too scared to disagree because of the noise these leftists will create.

But look at the noise they currently make. It plays poorly in Peoria. The government should never make law endorsing one religion over another or over all others. But by the case law we have, it has done just that. Atheism is the preferred religion of the land. And perhaps it's time that it take its place with the rest of the faiths.

1 Comments:

Blogger Jay D. Homnick said...

Apparently, Rehnquist downed two tablets and he's feeling better now.

2:32 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home