Can't argue that. It is amazing how the USSC arrived at some of that. Of course, the private property decision was, for most of us the most serious. Yet that can simply be negated by the actions of each state legislature. As for the 10 Commandments, it does seem that the court recognized its place in our history and culture at least to some degree. But all of this simply points to the importance of the President's nominee, as several of those were I believe 5-4 decisions.
The latter, of course, fully obliterates the First Amendment. Religion on the public square is allowed only if it can be excused on historical grounds. This ranks somewhere with the Soviet Union if not (yet) in practice, then in legal theory.
Still there is another view. Should it be permissable to place the 10 Commandments within a courthouse for nothing more than religious observation, where do you stop? Would it be lawful for a chief judge who was a Muslim to place the Koran or some other Islamic item on display in his courthouse? Should the judge in the first example be permitted to take it further, for example, to place copies of the 10 Commandments inside the courtroom for each observer to see? Or in an extreme case, add some reading of the 10 Commandments to the jury instructions? Where do you stop?
No, I am not limiting my understanding of freedom of speech, including freedom to educate, to Christianity. We have a pluralistic society and all the rabbis and mullahs should be equally protected. The only thing that protects them now is political correctness.
What about the freedom to educate to Islam? I don't understand your last statement concerning political correctness though. Aren't they protected by the First Amendment?
Religion, of course, becomes stronger when persecuted. We are, quite possibly, living through a third Great Awakening thanks to the robbers in the Supreme Court. The point is not whether Christianity is seriously endangered by these shenanigans, but whether we have anything remotely resembling a civli society at this point. In my opinion, we do not.
I would say that Islam is being persecuted far more here in this country than is Christianity, certainly since 9/11. And I don't believe Christianity is at all endangered by the actions of the USSC. It has been hurt far more by the actions of priests who have for years preyed on children and then condemned those who would practice birth control. Christianity hurts itself far more than any outside attacks can ever do. The infighting concerning gay and lesbian unions and even leadership is far more serious than any distinction pertaining to the siting of the 10 Commandments on government property.
No big disagreements here. A few minor (but persistent) ones and a few clarifications.
The eminent domain decision is huge. Even if the states create a statewise framework that protects the property owners, we have moved from property rights being a natural right recognized by the Constitution to property rights that are the outcome of the political process. As with any decentraliziong trend, this cloud has some silver linings, but the property rights has been dealt an irreparable blow. Similarly, the federal jurusdiction has been extended to people's backyards by the marijuana growers decision, another irreparable injury, this time to federalism.
Sure, Bush can appoint a conservative judge or two, and even get them confirmed. But first, this predicament exposes the juducial branch as an extension of the other two, not as an independent purely intellectual law-interpretive body. And, of course, we have a pattern of judges that were perceived conservative at the time of the nomination promptly drifting leftward once on the bench. The chances of either of these three disastrous decisions to be overturned are virtually nil.
Yes, it would be lawful for a judge to display any symbol, religious or otherwise, from which he draws inspiration, and it would be lawful to have opening prayers of any religion during the court sessions. Likewise he should be able to explicitly use religion in his reasoning. I don't know if the instructions of the jury are matter of procedural law, so I don't know if personal opinion may be injected in those; but if a personal opinion (e.g., "follow your heart") is allowed, then a religiously-based personal opinion (e.g. "be merciful as your Father in heaven is merciful") should also be allowed. Religion is an intrinsic part of what a human being is; it should be an important factor in considering the qualifications of the judge, and it should be his right to exercise his religion or irreligion once he is installed in office. It would be wrong for the judge to arrive to sectarian decisions outside of the law of the land, that is all. For example, a judge may not attach civil guilt to things his religion considers wrong. A judge violates the separation clause when he hands down sentences for violating the Sabbath. He does not break the separation clause when he himself publicly observes the Sabbath.
Stephen Breyer's opinion on the Texas Ten Commandment case is interesting, all the more so because it was the swing opinion that enabled Texas to display its Ten Commandment monument. He reasoned that the monument is OK because there is no evidence that the Eagles (which donated the monument) used any religious language to describe its purpose. Note that he thinks that Ten Commandments is apriori wrong, but if the culprit is discreet enough not to leave any evidence of religious conviction, there is not enough in the law to stop them. It is to him a case of a teller in a bank suddenly buying luxurious houses cars and yachts, -- obviously guuilty of embezzlement, -- who still needs to be caught with his hand in the coffers before he can be jailed. Also note that it is the speech that is sanctioned. If a clergyman spoke at the dedication then that speech would be enough to ban the monument. Conversely, we have to presume that if a school principal posts the Ten Commandments on the wall and slyly explains that the display is there to teach about Roman numerals, then such display would pass the Breyer's test. This is the connection to the freedom of speech, as well as freedom of conscience, being violated by the Supreme Court.
So, the Jews and the Muslim, and of course the Christians, are no longer protected by the First Amendment. The minority religions are protected by the fungible code of political correctness that teaches us to be nice and non-judgemental to one another. This is a weak, and ultimately incorrect principle, and so the protection is illusory. It holds well for the Jews, the pagan, and the atheists. It is breaking down for the Muslim, and it offers no protection to the Catholics or Evangelical Protestants.
One important distinction is between hurting Christianity and hurting the civil society. The article is about the civil society in Europe being on the verge of death, not Christianity. Indeed, the pederast priests did more to hurt Christianity than anty Supreme Court decisions; but it is Supreme Court decisions like these that injure our civil society.