ACTUALLY, I liked your previous post better. This has nothing to do with the religious flavor of the federal government. This is a states rights issue.
States rights has been a dirty word since the civil war when Lincoln arrogated the constitution. At the time arrogating the constitution was justified because the higher priority was preserving the union. The constitution guarantees the limitations of the the Federal Governments Powers, granting those powers not specifically enumerated in the constitution to the states and then to the individual.
But TODAY the constitution is interpreted as an overarching megalomaniacle grabbag of 'RIGHTS' from which any politician can grab a tool of demagoguery to implement a tyranny. And it is used in this case to ENFORCE the federal governments ESTABLISHED religion of secular humanism in spite of and in conflict with the desires of the majority of the people in that state.
So in a very real way the federal government has NO jurisdiction in this case. Their best move right now would be to challenge the authority of the federal government and IGNORE the ruling from the federal court. LET THEM TRY TO ENFORCE IT.
If we had leaders with the guts of Andrew Jackson, that would happen (while I disagree with his position on the Cherokee Nation versus the State of Georgia, I applaude his contempt for the Supremes).
Looking a recent TV presentation on the Presidents, you can come to realize what relative moral pygmies we have had in the White House recently.
I think Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan were probably the only Presidents with any substantial backbone in recent times.
I agree with your posting on this subject entirely.
I can understand why you might disagree with my last posting, but I think we have permitted the governmetn and the courts to stand logic on it head in trying to appease minorities of whatever stripe.
Sure, minority rights should be protected. But minority rights should NEVER be protected at the expense of persecuting majority opinion.
America was founded as an essentially Christian nation.
The non-establishment clause refers to a state church to which all citizens were required to belong, as existed in Europe at the time. I don't think the Founding Fathers, all of whom were Christians, ever in their wildest dreams intended for that passage to be used asa cudgel to de-Christianize America.
I think a fair solution to the issue is what I proposed, permit alternating Christian ministers and priests and rabbis to open prayers at the House session. I would even have no problem with Buddhists. But I would draw the line with Muslims for many reasons, which I have outlined many times before, as have so many opther posters on this forum.
Read "Men in Black" by Mark Levin - it exposes the tyranny and capriciousness of the Supreme Court most lucidly.
Based on your excellant post, I'm sure you would enjoy it.