Replies

“you asked: If a particular religion were to be “established” by this union of states, what actions would one reasonably expect The Congress to take to accomplish that end?”

“all Congress has to do is to enact law to codify the atheistic decisions of the Supreme Court for the last quarter century”

In light of subsequent posts, I’m sure you understand by now I was posing that question as an introduction to my thesis that all the alarms over a merging of state and religion are nothing but a lot of ephemeral squawking designed to exclude from the public square any discussion of Judeo-Christian values.

But, let me say this:

We may expect that Congress has done about all it can do to enact laws codifying the atheistic decisions of the Supreme Court, short of committing wholesale political suicide. Surely there are some significant number who would do more if they thought they dared. It is incumbent on us to beam the fear of electoral failure squarely in their eyes and hold it there. Nothing else has any effect on them. It is a sad commentary, but fear is the only emotion which will control a significant number of our representatives and senators and hold them to an honorable course.

“Further, I suspect a keen legal mind (like soon to be Chief Justice Roberts) - will pick up on atheism as a religion . . .”

There was a case some thirty or forty years ago where a judge found secular humanism to be a religion, subject to the same constitutional restraints effecting any other religion. Not unexpectedly, it was overturned at the appellate level and not appealed further. I wish I could remember the name of the case. Maybe it will come to me.”

I do not think declaring secular humanism or atheism a religion will hold up under Supreme Court scrutiny, but neither do I believe the phrase ‘under God’ in the PoA will be found unconstitutional. The Supremes do not like to be held up to ridicule, and they are surrounded by too many references to God and the Judeo-Christian tradition right on their building to risk torpedoing their own dignity. They will find the phrase has too much historical and traditional significance to be found unconstitutional. The Ninth Circus Court of Appeals, on the other hand, seems to revel in being ridiculous. Just one man’s opinion.

Thank you so much for your reply and further explanations!!!

Of a truth the Court has gotten itself into a "catch 22" on the issue of religion with decades of seemingly contradictory decisions and most recently the conflicting decisions on the display of the Ten Commandments (Texas, yes; Kentucky, no).

Because the Kentucky decision was cited in the recent "atheism is religion" opinion of the Seventh (and exerpted at post 68) - it seemed like a good idea to revisit McCreary County, KY v. ACLU

The decision of the majority (which ruled against Kentucky) does indeed revisit equal status to nonreligion (which was previously declared in other opinions of the Court). Scalia, in writing the dissent, makes a compelling case that this country is pro-religion by history, tax laws, legislation, tradition, and reveals the conflict between decisions of the Court - which the majority opinion also recognizes.

It's a fascinating read considering there will be two new Justices in the next decision on this subject - and Roberts does not see legislation as a function of the Court. Even if he didn't want to touch settled law, this could hardly be called settled.

I'll be ready with popcorn if they take either the Pledge case or the "atheism is religion" case!