Hairsplitting at the Court - (what a relief! Sage George Will on historical religion/state concepts)

TOWNHALL.COM ^ | JUNE 28, 2005 | GEORGE WILL

[CHARLITE]

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Monday rendered two more hairsplitting, migraine-inducing decisions about when religious displays on public property do and do not violate the First Amendment protection against ``establishment'' of religion. In a case from Texas, where a Ten Commandments monument stands outside the state Capitol, the court, splintered six ways from Sunday, said: We find no constitutional violation. The second case came from Kentucky, where the Commandments displayed in several courthouses are surrounded by historical symbols and documents -- e.g., copies of the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, the Star Spangled Banner -- to comply with the ``reindeer rule,'' more about which anon. On Monday the court recoiled from Kentucky's displays, saying, they are unconstitutionally motivated by a ``predominately religious purpose.'' Not enough reindeer?

[GSlob]

Well, but how to write into, or find in, the law simple common sense and good manners: "do not push any religion in the face or ears of those who might not share or like it; and likewise, those who do not share or like it should not be going out of their way looking for it"?

[kingu]

Fifty years from now, when they write books about this astounding era, the debate about religion in the public square will likely be at the forefront. What is it about religion that so confounds and distresses the liberal left? Is it because it is about trust in a higher power?

That is hardly something they would object to, what with their nanny state laws over every human interaction. It seems that they wish to replace God with themselves; secular humanism gone overboard.

There is a twist to this little game - to replace God, one first must acknowledge Him, and if you acknowledge him, you've established that religions are quite valid. It is fascinating to read submissions to courts where the ACLU tries to do the cha-cha-cha around this issue, while at the same time ignoring the invocations that they have at their own conferences!

And what a minefield that they have to walk here - it is not just the God of Republicans that they oppose, but the same God that many of their subscribers believe wholeheartedly in. It is of the utmost irony that one sees a presidential candidate from the liberal left speaking to a Black or Hispanic congregation in a church, or when they decide to remember that they have strong Jewish support and appear at a synagogue.

Like many of their 'core' support groups, the anti-religious fever always risks setting off a reaction within their own party. Not that conservatives are immune to this disease - when the ultra-religious conservatives make moves within the conservative party, the worries spread.

The liberals need to take a deep breath, look again as to the context of the constitution regarding the establishment clause and the people who wrote it and realize that they are making themselves into clowns with their constant witch hunts for Christians while at the same time ensuring that smaller faiths not only are protected, but given more preference and rights than the dominate religions.

Because like political philosophies, religious belief is one of those things that does not change over night, and indeed, is the linchpin of many people's lives. Continuing to pick at it will eventually loosen that pin and a vast segment of the party will depart for lands more familiar.

[sageb1]

"simple common sense and good manners"

If people had the above, we would not be discussing this now.

[raisincane]

About seven years ago in our small community, officials were forced to remove the ten commandments from our courthouse. They managed to keep them on display as long they surrounded them with historical documents. Now I suppose we will be forced to take them out of the courthouse totally. I loathe the ACLU.

[GSlob]

"If people had the above, we would not be discussing this now."
And since they do not, the USSC has a perennial problem of either writing them into the law [which is not easy], or reading them out of it [and how to do that, if they are not there?]. Thus the hairsplitting - unenviable task, to say the least.

[Lancey Howard]

The Supreme Court on Monday rendered two more hairsplitting, migraine-inducing decisions about when religious displays on public property do and do not violate the First Amendment protection against ``establishment'' of religion.

I guess this is Will's polite way of saying that the Supreme Court (five member of it, anyway) are incompetent, pandering cowards.
Yep, George. No question about it.

[marty60]

You mean like Tom Cruise.

[GSlob]

"You mean like Tom Cruise."
Who is this Tom Cruise and what did he mean? I have been trying [successfully, so far] to protect myself from so-called pop culture, if he is from there, and thus I enjoy my blissful ignorance, and also the savings from not buying any tickets, tabloids, pop books and suchlike. It is a form of mental hygiene. But I guess that if he started reciting multiplication table, I'd have to agree [even with him, or with people worse than him] that 2x2=4.

[marty60]

He is the a hole that went to Europe and Threw off on President Bush. His remarks were just as stupid on that subject. i was referring to his attempt to convert Ameericans to Scientology. I wonder what this brainiac thinks of the supreme court ruling today.

[judgeandjury]

The generation that wrote and ratified the First Amendment obviously thought that none of these practices -- all recounted in James H. Hutson's book ``Religion and the Founding of the American Republic,'' published by the Library of Congress and based on an exhibition there -- violated the Establishment Clause.

That's because Congress didn't make a law in violation of the Establishment Clause in any of these noted practices.

[GSlob]

Well, if that's the case, then my meaning is different from Tom Cruise: my "do not push any religion in the face or ears of those who might not share or like it" would not square with any attempt at conversion, be it to Scientology or to anything else.

[Tom Jefferson]

I think that this fear of anything religious - especially Christian stems from the Declaration of Independence where the founders declared, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness..."

If our unalienable rights, such as the right to Life, and the right to Liberty, are given to us by our Creator, then, they truly are unalienable..and can't be taken away by man. However, if we can eliminate the Creator from everyday life, and we can inculcate into the next generation that the rights we enjoy are given to us by Congress, or even by the Judiciary, they can be alienated...or altered by man.

So...if socialists, such as the ACLU want to take away some of our liberty and rights, they first have to remove the Creator.

[Mr Ramsbotham]

Religion is the only true impediment to the unhindered practice of sodomy and abortion. As such, leftists will fight it to the death.

[GSlob]

The right to life is alienable [sometimes with the due process - cf. death penalty]; so is the right to liberty [again, hopefully with the due process - there are courts, jails and institutions for involuntary commitment], and there are the others to spoil one's pursuit of happiness.

[GoLightly]

Seems to me people hate the ACLU because they defend the rights of minorities.

Say what?

[andie74]

It is of the utmost irony that one sees a presidential candidate from the liberal left speaking to a Black or Hispanic congregation in a church, or when they decide to remember that they have strong Jewish support and appear at a synagogue.

Irony, perhaps. Hypocrisy, definitely. I always wondered when minorities would wake up to this fact.

Fifty years from now, when they write books about this astounding era, the debate about religion in the public square will likely be at the forefront.

We will determine if the pendulum will swing back to the right so that truthful books will actually be written and read, not propaganda.

What is it about religion that so confounds and distresses the liberal left? Is it because it is about trust in a higher power?

Three thoughts. First, if the left embraced religion, they would have to acknowledge that the fundamental rights given to Americans in the Constitution have their roots in God. That would be problematic, since they really disagree with most of those rights. How can you disagree with God? Wipe Him out, of course.

Second, liberals struggle with people dependent upon a source other than government. It makes the people powerful...and we can't have that, now can we???

Third, and this is really just a sidebar: If every one is dependent upon the Democrats for their every need, where are the precious tax monies that the Dems so covet going to come from? If nothing is produced, if there are no profits...there are no tax dollars.

Thanks for the excellent post.

[pyoursu]

"There is a twist to this little game - to replace God, one first must acknowledge Him, and if you acknowledge him, you've established that religions are quite valid. It is fascinating to read submissions to courts where the ACLU tries to do the cha-cha-cha around this issue, while at the same time ignoring the invocations that they have at their own conferences!"

I've often asked atheist just what it is that they don't believe in, but have yet to get an answer.

Quite frankly, I'm not on the religious right. In fact, I can't picture myself in one of those white robes for the rest of eternity, would rather burn in hell.

I look upon religion as the best alternative to evil in an immoral world. I can not fathom a world devoid of morals or with morals that are left to the popular fantasies of the time. Kind'a leaves you with the morals of the Aztecs or Incas, they're not important, cut their heart out.