Here’s a concept for you. A “plaintiff claiming an unconstitutional establishment of religion must demonstrate that he was actually coerced by government conduct that shares the characteristics of an establishment as understood at the founding.”
That’s Justice Thomas in American Legion v. American Humanist Association. The case decided this week declared the Bladensburg, Maryland Cross was okay right where it was on government property, tending to and cared for with public dollars. And that such expense is not a government establishment of religion.
I’m working my way through the decision. I’ve long opposed the humanist, atheist, whatever-ist notion that any object construed as religious anywhere near something construed as the government demanded redress in the courts. I expect to be reward repeatedly. I intend to share those rewards with you, dear readers.
And this, I find rewarding (pg 5).
The plaintiff claiming an unconstitutional establishment of religion must demonstrate that he was actually coerced by government conduct that shares the characteristics of an establishment as understood at the founding. Respondents have not demonstrated that maintaining a religious display on public property shares any of the historical characteristics of an establishment of religion.
Claiming that cross is an establishment of religion is like saying the Burger on the BK sign is a mandate to eat beef. There is no act of force. Not even a tiny bit.
The First Amendment’s prohibition was created to prevent the Federal Government from demanding you worship at the feet of its preferred deity. Which is ironic.
The Separation of Church Statists, the humanists, secularists, atheists, all tend to align with the Democrat Socialists who demand that we bend-the-knee to the will of Government. That we put all other beliefs second and put all our faith in them; which includes state control of speech, religion, press, association, and nearly every aspect of our lives. The exact opposite purpose of Amendment 1.
Democrat Socialism is Secular Islam.
So, this 7-2 decision, while not a knockout blow is a significant step in the right direction.
Religious displays or speech need not be limited to those considered nonsectarian. Insisting otherwise is inconsistent with this Nation’s history and traditions, id., at 578–580 (majority opinion), and would force the courts “to act as supervisors and censors of religious speech.
Which the courts have been doing.
Sadly, this Decision does not do away with the Lemon test Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), but it does squeeze it.
“This area of law has long been plagued with judicial hand-waving at nebulous standards, producing results good for a particular case but without real guidance about the kinds of actions regarding religion that governments can take (or allow to be taken on government property),” he added. “As Justices Thomas/Gorsuch explain in their concurrences, the Court in future should rely on the original public meaning of the Establishment Clause, which ensures liberty of conscience and protects people from truly ‘established’ state religions that coerce belief and support.”
And while this doesn’t exactly clear things up, it presents a less murky view of the establishment clause and constitutional protections to religious liberty it was created to protect.
| PJ Media