"Although the words 'under God' undeniably have a religious tinge, courts that have considered the history of the pledge and the presence of those words have consistently concluded that the pledge, notwithstanding its reference to God, is a fundamentally patriotic exercise, not a religious one." (Source)

And with these incongruous words, the highest court in Massachusetts issued a ruling which, by its own admission, denied the undeniably religious words 'Under God' are, in fact, religious. Because, having considered and notwithstanding the religious aspect-- which is unlawful-- it's not religion at all. It's "history".

This continues the ongoing and increasingly popular strategy used by judges and legislators of the religious right: substitute "history" (or rather a mythologized version of history) for legal analysis as a means to shelter Christian shrines and observations on public property. By declaring that religion is "history" and thus entirely secular, it becomes permissible. "History" can be an event as recent as 14 years ago.

Other recent examples include...

1. The Roberts Supreme Court ruled that officials in Greece, New York may jabber Christian prayers at city hall on government property, on grounds that such prayers are "history", not religion.

2. The Oklahoma State Capital's Ten Commandments monument: “The only reason why the Ten Commandments qualified is because at the Capitol, what we do is we make laws. We are lawmakers. Well, one of the earliest laws we have are the Ten Commandments. So therefore, it has historical significance.”

3. The Ten Commandments monument at the Texas State Capital: "The Chief Justice [Roberts], Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Thomas, concluded that the Establishment Clause allows the display of a monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments on the Texas State Capitol grounds. Reconciling the strong role played by religion and religious traditions throughout our Nation's history..."

4. The statue of Jesus erected on federal land at Whitefish Mountain: For many, [Judge] Christensen said, the statue is mostly “a historical reminder of those bygone days of sack lunches, ungroomed runs, rope tows, T-bars, leather ski boots and 210 cm. skis.”

5. The Christian Cross of Ground Zero : "Federal Judge Deborah Batts of the Southern District of New York ruled Thursday that display of the beams is permissible because they bear historical importance."

Thus equipped with such "reason", legislative bodies and courts packed with Christians are excluding shrines to Islam, Hinduism and Satan, and a monument to the 500 irreligious who died in the 9/11 attacks. Also excluded: the irreligious wishing to petition the prayerful at City Hall and the Humanist kids who want to participate in the daily patriotic exercise at their public schools. But Christian religious shrines and observances, being included in the government-backed in-crowd, may proceed unchecked.

That's how it works. Judges rubber stamp the whitewashing of the Constitution and grant "history" its special, privileged place. Every group that isn't part of "history": sit down and shut up. You're excluded.

That's "equality".

Anyone care to wager on whether "history" will repeat itself in New Jersey too?

Views: 1446

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I wish religion was history (gone).

This all conflict is usually caused by the power of religion mixed in the power structures of the rulers. The time periods of 2000 years for Christians & maybe 12000 years for others. There is no end to this problem . non religious power rulers use force or fear to rule. This is all based on false gods & demons& also the horror of the witches ghost reality method which is very effective conditioning on the fighters& killers used against foes etc.

Want to own a slave? It's okay because it's History!

That is the justification, isn't it?

History is repeating itself?

No. The judges fear an xian backlash.

Their fear is repeating itself and xians regularly reinforce those judges' fear.

We want reason to prevail over emotion.

Which says that both we and xians are deluded.

Let's get smart. Let's fight battles we can win, not battles we will lose.

Here are a few of the battles we are winning:

1. We're keeping creationism out of science classrooms.

2. We're keeping prayer and religious images out of public schools.

3. We're seeing young people leaving the bigoted religions of their parents.

Let's support the organizations that are winning these and other battles.

Let's support the websites that are helping us keep our heads (when those about us are losing theirs).

No. The judges fear an xian backlash.Being a US Supreme Court justice is the ultimate in safe jobs. They serve for life or until they quit. What kind of backlash are you referring to? That they might be prayed out of office?

They do not routinely shy away from unpopular rulings. They've made many of them, establishing many of the rights we, even as atheists, enjoy today.

I suspect that the majority of them are religious, though, and they might be accused of a conflict of interest that colors their rulings when it comes to these Christianity-is-historical cases.

U, the judges' salaries and economic security are safe; their reputations are not.

The angry reactions of millions of xians who need the government to acknowledge their god won't endanger the  judges' economic security.

If you know Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, you know economic needs are near the bottom and reputations are near the top.

For a Supreme Court justice, his/her most valued reputation isn't in the eyes of The Great Unwashed, but in the eyes of intellectuals and even more so in the eyes of other judges and justices, not only here but abroad, but also in the eyes of History itself. How does selling out to unsupportable prejudice not tarnish his or her reputation?

What does a justice care about how a farmer, assembly line worker, or retail reacts to his rulings?

My conclusion is that they rule according to their personal values and beliefs. I don't believe any of them from the most conservative to the most liberal gives a shit what the average American thinks of their rulings. I do believe, however, that they may look at how a certain ruling may be reacted to and decide that now isn't the time for the ruling they know in their hearts is the right one.

GM, I downloaded the Greece ruling but haven't read it yet.  Thanks for the paragraph from the ruling; it states clearly that standing to sue requires that plaintiffs experience actual harm (monetary, physical, etc). That they FELT excluded by their council's xian prayer was not enough.

To get change they will have to pursue corruption, not praying.

I've been reading SCOTUS First Amendment cases for decades, mainly those on church and state and on free expression.  The many 5-to-4 and 6-to-3 rulings are evidence that SCOTUS is not a judicial body whose rulings are objective. It's a political body whose rulings are subjective.

I followed the link you gave to the study and found a $35 publication. That's more than I want to pay.

Got it. Thanks.

GM, I read the pdf and hope its conclusions find support in law schools and in the courts.

A study about ten years ago (I don't have a link to it) concluded that SCOTUS is now more conservative than at any time in American history.

As to my remark about delusions that some of us here share with xians:

I will bet a few dollars (a big bet for me) that most of us agree that religion is a delusion.

I won't bet a like amount that we here agree that emotion influences our behavior more than reason.

In a retirement community (partly paid for by taxpayers for war veterans) where I've lived for twenty years, I occasionally meet and chat with retired college and university professors. When context allows, I enjoy describing faculty senate meetings as hotbeds of passion. I enjoy mischief-making in general.

In one chat I had with a still-active professor while travelling by air, he told me of his commitment to pragmatism. I regard myself a pragmatist but his enthusiasm for it set off an alarm.

I'd been studying sociopathy for a while and opined that pragmatism at its outer limits resembles sociopathy and its lack of empathy.

He said no more for the rest of the flight and I concluded that my remark had ended our chat. I once believed (and would have bet) that reason prevails over emotion but several years in hardball politics ended my innocence.

BTW, if you happen across Federal Appellate Court Judge (and law professor) Richard Posner's early 1990s book Sex and Reason, you'll see mischief making by a Reagan appointee.

He achieved fame in the Law and Economics field and the early pages tell why he wanted to give his fellow jurists an education in sexuality.

The Supreme Court has ruled, voting along party lines, that irreligious and non-Christians are de facto second class citizens at City Hall. Stop voting for conservative Republicans who will appoint and confirm conservative Republican judges at a federal level. Do that and in time the judicial bias will swing back in our direction, at least on a federal level, regarding religion.

I suspect you're preaching to the choir here.

You're right in that it's virtually asking the impossible to expect justices to vote contrary to their own values, even when interpreting the plain words of the Constitution.


© 2021   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service