The Establishment Clause

George Will provides some historical context to expose exactly how twisted and inconsistent and generally lame the Supreme Court has become in its rulings on religion.

The First Amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Regarding the Establishment Clause, George Will points out some facts about the era in which it was written.

In 1789, the First Amendment was drafted by the first Congress -- after it had hired a chaplain. Although President Jefferson's religion was a watery deism, he regularly attended Christian worship services, often with the Marine band participating, in the hall of the House of Representatives. The House was used because of the shortage of suitable venues in the newly founded District of Columbia.

Jefferson, who coined the metaphor "wall of separation" about relations between church and state, also allowed the War Office and Treasury to be used for religious services that were open to the public. The Supreme Court chamber also was used for services.

On the Fourth of July, 1801, a reverend took up a collection on the House floor to support services he conducted at a nearby hotel. Jefferson contributed $25 to the cause. The Speaker's chair served as a pulpit for Anglican, Presbyterian, Methodist and Quaker clergy.

In 1813, a Massachusetts congressman reported that "two very Christian discourses" were "preached in the hall introductory to a contribution for the purpose of spreading a knowledge of the gospel in Asia." Services were conducted in the old House, now Statuary Hall, until 1857.

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.

Will offers an explanation as to why today's court is "preoccupied with the supposed problem of mere displays of the Commandments." He believes it's "because beginning about 25 years ago the court evidently decided that the Establishment Clause's historical context, and the Framers' intentions regarding it, are irrelevant."

He goes on to suggest that "nowadays many people delight in being distressed. They cultivate exquisitely tender sensibilities and practice moral exhibitionism, waxing indignant about minor encounters with thoughts and symbols they dislike. So just to lower the decibel level of American life, perhaps communities should refrain from religious displays other than in religious contexts.

"But this is a merely prudential, not a constitutional consideration. On Monday the justices churned out 140 pages of opinions and dissents about the Texas and Kentucky displays. Here is a one-sentence opinion that should suffice in such cases:

"'Because the display on public grounds does not do what the Establishment Clause was written to prevent -- does not impose a state-sponsored creed or significantly advantage or disadvantage one sect or sects -- the display is constitutional.'"

I really don't know why people can't seem to comprehend that the Constitution does not protect one from being offended by others' religious beliefs. For example, if someone doesn't like the presence of a display of the Ten Commandments, too bad.

The Establishment Clause protects one from being coerced by the state into practicing a specific religion. It does not protect one from being offended by seeing a cross or the star of David, if one considers those symbols offensive. As Will points out, purging religion from the public square is not what the framers had in mind. It is not how they lived their lives.

Wouldn't you think that the display of religious symbols would be celebrated and looked upon as quintessentially American, rather than something that our society must try to eliminate?

It seems odd that exercising our Constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion elicits the wrath of the ACLU and results in a slew of court cases. Why are these people bent on fighting to limit our freedoms?

Isn't tolerance and respect for our differences an important American principle?

I'm not offended when I see the religious symbols of another faith, whether it be on public or private land.


Scalia's dissent in McCreary County vs. ACLU begins on page 45 of the pdf file of the ruling.

Read it to understand the difference between interpreting the Constitution and rewriting it.

Boycott the "Happy Island"

June 20: Steve Gregory Croes, left, is escorted into the court house in Oranjestad, Aruba.


June 26: Croes leaves the court house.

Steve Croes isn't hiding his face anymore. Today, he was released from an Aruban jail.

The latest story is Croes volunteered to go to the police and lied for his friends, the Kalpoe brothers. He intended to help them out by covering up for them. When it was discovered Croes was lying, he was detained under the assumption that he could be lying about other things as well and possibly was involved in Natalee's disappearance.

ORANJESTAD, Aruba - A party boat disc jockey was freed from police custody Monday, one day after an Aruban judge ordered the release of him and the father of a Dutch teen arrested in the disappearance of Alabama teenager Natalee Holloway.

Steven Gregory Croes was released from custody Monday, according to police in Aruba. A judge Sunday ruled authorities did not have enough evidence against him in the Holloway case.

Croes' mother spoke to FOX News' Geraldo Rivera Sunday evening after it was announced her son would be released.

"I am asking God to please let us know what's the problem in this case ... and where [Natalee Holloway] is and that we can find her alive and I will tell [Holloway's family] to please hold onto God right now, because now he is surrounding them with his love," Imelda Stacia-Soliana said.

I believe Croes' mother, Imelda Stacia-Soliana, is sincere in her claims to be praying for Natalee and her family.

If her son is not involved in Natalee's disappearance, Croes certainly does not deserve to be detained.

The release of Croes and Paul van der Sloot, while bringing relief to their family members, is seen as a setback by Natalee's loved ones.

"Natalee Holloway's aunt, Linda Allison, told FOX she was not pleased with the development, which she characterized as another down in the 'emotional roller-coaster ride ... just take a deep breath, this is a setback.'"

Meanwhile, "still jailed are the young van der Sloot and his friends, Surinamese brothers Deepak Kalpoe, 21, and Satish Kalpoe, 18. Van der Straaten said the judge on Sunday ordered their detention extended another week.

"The three young men initially told police that after a night of eating, drinking and dancing, they took Holloway to a northern beach before dropping her off at her hotel around 2 a.m.

"On Saturday, Satish Kalpoe's lawyer said his client admitted that his story was a lie.

"Satish now claims that he and brother dropped Holloway and Joran van der Sloot off together at a beach near the Marriott hotel, then went home, said the lawyer, David Kock.

"On Sunday, Kock said the brothers were becoming increasingly angry with Joran van der Sloot and accusing him of changing his story to put the blame for Holloway's disappearance on them. Kock would not elaborate."

Wouldn't you think by now Aruban authorities would have some idea who is responsible for Natalee's disappearance?

Are Joran and his father so confident that they've committed the perfect crime that they feel no need to confess all that they know?

It looks that way to me.

It is certain that someone involved with Natalee's disappearance is lying, that someone has no conscience, and that someone is incomprehensibly selfish.

If Joran van der Sloot and the Kalpoe brothers keep their mouths shut, if no forensic evidence or body is found, it's possible that they will walk.

The possibility exists that this case will never be resolved.

Many on the "Happy Island" just want this all to be forgotten.

I hope people don't forget Natalee and how Aruba handled the disappearance of this American girl.

Aruba should no longer call itself the "Happy Island."

Island of bungling, incompetent, idiot law enforcers is much more fitting.

Dissing Abraham Lincoln Not a Smart Move

Barack Obama gives a glimpse of his true colors in this week's issue of Time.

Regarding how Lincoln influenced his own life journey, Obama writes:

"In Lincoln's rise from poverty, his ultimate mastery of language and law, his capacity to overcome personal loss and remain determined in the face of repeated defeat - in all this, he reminded me not just of my own struggles. He also reminded me of a larger, fundamental element of American life - the enduring belief that we can constantly remake ourselves to fit our larger dreams."

Obama questions Lincoln's motives in ending slavery, casts doubt on the purity of his principles, and dismisses the significance of one of our nation's most important documents.

"I cannot swallow whole the view of Lincoln as the Great Emancipator. As a law professor and civil rights lawyer and as an African-American, I am fully aware of his limited views on race. Anyone who actually reads the Emancipation Proclamation knows it was more a military document than a clarion call for justice."

Obama delivers a final slap at Lincoln when discussing his election to the U.S. Senate.

"He may not have dreamed of that exact outcome. But I like to believe he would have appreciated the irony."

I suspect these comments will someday come back to haunt Obama, especially in any national campaign. His address at last summer's Dem National Convention played well across America, impressing Republicans and Independents. His remarks on Lincoln, however, show Obama to be less moderate and mainstream than he appeared to be.

Apparently, even Obama has caught the dreaded Dem fever, showing symptoms that include saying outrageous things that alienate Red state America.

Religious Displays Not INHERENTLY Unconstitutional

It looks like any celebrating by the anti-God crowd was premature.

The Supremes demand freedom FROM religion only in certain cases, when there seems to be an attempt to promote a religion in government spaces.

From AP:

Sending dual signals in closely-watched cases, the high court said displays of the Ten Commandments _ like their own courtroom frieze _ are not inherently unconstitutional. But each exhibit demands scrutiny to determine whether it goes too far in amounting to a governmental promotin of religion, the court said in a case involving Kentucky courthouse exhibits.

...In a stinging dissent to the ruling involving Kentucky's courthouse exhibits, Justice Antonin Scalia declared: "What distinguishes the rule of law from the dictatorship of a shifting Supreme Court majority is the absolutely indispensable requirement that judicial opinions be grounded in consistently applied principle."

Imagine that. Scalia points out that the role of the courts is to interpret law, not create it. (The libs find that scary.)

According to Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, "Simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the Establishment clause."

Perhaps the biggest news of the day--

The Supreme Court ended its term with no retirement announcements. However, this doesn't mean that a retirement couldn't come later, by way of a letter to the president or press release. It does mean that, at least for now, the battle to fill a Supreme Court vacancy will be waged another day.

Media Blackout: A Vast Left Wing Conspiracy

Carl Limbacher of NewsMax reports:

In what may be an unprecedented act of media censorship, several major TV and cable networks – including NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, Fox and CNN - have cancelled planned appearances of the author of the new, red hot book on Hillary Clinton.

...Hillary's top aides and supporters have also launched a major effort to stop any discussion of the book over the TV airwaves. So far, their censorship effort has been a huge success in stopping Klein from appearing on television.

Though the celebrated author was scheduled to appear on more than a half dozen major TV network shows, all have cancelled except one, Fox's "Hannity & Colmes."

However, conservative host Sean Hannity did reveal that he was under immense pressure to cancel the program.

"I've had more political pressure than I've ever had in all my years in radio," Hannity said to Klein during a radio interview. "Do you know the number of requests I've had to cancel you and not have you on this program? I've never in the history of this program had more demands to cancel the guest."

Hannity did not identify the source of the "political pressure."

Other hosts had similar experiences. Salem Radio Network's Mike Gallagher, syndicated nationwide, said he was deluged by emails opposing Klein's scheduled appearance and demanding he drop the author. Gallagher described the campaign as "very unnatural, like an orchestrated [effort]" and not from his listeners.

But other networks, particularly television, have succumbed to the pressure.

Klein's original schedule had him appearing on several top-rated TV shows. But all of them have cancelled. Among the cancellations: "Extra;" MSNBC's "Hardball with Chris Matthews;" and CNN's Paula Zahn show.

Several shows apparently expressed a keen interest in booking Klein until pressure from the Hillary camp stopped them, among them ABC's "Good Morning America," NBC's "Today" show, and CNN's "Aaron Brown."

Still more shows were expected to sign on after the book began hitting the bestseller lists. It has done just that, but Klein's publicist's phones are still not ringing.

A source close to Klein's publisher, Sentinel, blames the censorship effort solely on the Clintons and their enormous power base.

"A number of people who have booked me on TV and radio have already cancelled," Klein told Sean Hannity last week. "And the reason they've cancelled is because the publicity machine of the Clintons is hard at work."

...[T]he TV cancellations are raising questions about the unusual effort by the Clinton Spin Machine to stop this book.

An MSNBC producer told NewsMax that Chris Matthews' "Hardball" had merely considered booking the Hillary author, saying the idea was dropped when producers found out that the book was "a big piece of crap."

However, another source at the network told NewsMax that MSNBC chief Rick Kaplan has long been close to the Clintons (he was one of the celebrated Friends of Bill and Hillary who spent the night in the Lincoln Bedroom) - a fact that could have played a role in the network snubbing the Klein book.

On the issue of media hypocrisy, NewsMax exposes the glaring double standard of how Kitty Kelley's salacious book on the Bush family was greeted last year versus Ed Klein's Hillary book.

The books are hardly comparable, though; Klein is a veteran, award-winning journalist known for serious, and non political biographies, while Kelley has developed a reputation as a purveyor of gossip on her targets.

Last week, Fox News host Neil Cavuto told his audience, "Kitty [Kelley] was booked on shows. Ed is getting no bookings, period ... Could it be the media relished dirt on the president, less so on the woman who wants to be president?"

With a heated presidential campaign underway last year, Kelley was given star billing on show's like NBC's "Today" show (with an unprecedented interview over three days); CNBC's "Capital Report;" CNN "Newsnight" hosted by Aaron Brown; CNN's "Lou Dobbs Tonight;" CNN's "American Morning" with Paula Zahn; MSNBC's "Hardball" with Chris Matthews, among others.

Though Kelley made unsubstantiated allegations, including charges of illicit sex and drug use against Bush (previously she accused President Reagan of date rape in a book that received page one coverage from the New York Times), her book drew huge media interest.

Limbacher points out that "Klein's story underlines his central complaint that Hillary is dangerous and 'Nixonian' with power. But that may be an understatement. Even Richard Nixon as President didn't have the power Hillary Clinton seems to wield today over the mainstream media."

Sometimes, it seems the Clintons have the power to black out the sun. They have that power only because of the hypocritical actions of most in the media.

Some television outlets no doubt would enjoy the ratings boost a Klein interview would bring; but their rabid anti-Bush, anti-conservative agenda prevents them.

While some of the outlets that bowed to the Hillary camp's pressure are simply cowardly, others prove themselves to be willing arms of the Clinton 2008 machine.

Rather than having the TV spotlight that Kelley received, Klein must be content with radio interviews.

Unfortunately for Hillary, her TV media blackout doesn't seem to be hurting Klein's sales.

Supremes Demand Freedom FROM Religion

By a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Ten Commandments may not be displayed in courthouses.

Does that mean in the courtroom?

This decision may not be as dramatic as it sounds on the surface.

More...

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A split Supreme Court struck down Ten Commandments displays in courthouses Monday, ruling that two exhibits in Kentucky cross the line between separation of church and state because they promote a religious message.

The court's decision was 5-4, with Justice Sandra Day O'Connor casting the swing vote.

The decision was the first of two seeking to mediate the bitter culture war over religion's place in public life. In it, the court declined to prohibit all displays in court buildings or on government property.

Justices left legal wiggle room, saying that some displays -- like their own courtroom frieze -- would be permissible if they're portrayed neutrally in order to honor the nation's legal history.

But framed copies in two Kentucky courthouses went too far in endorsing religion, the court held.

According to the Constitution, government cannot promote religion. However, the Constitution states that the government cannot impede religion.

In this case, the Supremes are saying the Kentucky courthouses crossed the line and endorsed a religion. This decision does leave wiggle room for other displays.

Although this ruling doesn't call for the elimination of the Ten Commandments from public places in all cases, those in the anti-religion camp will probably claim this as a victory in their efforts to sanitize American society of religious references.

Secularization is on the march!

One more thing--I hope that the libs will admit that at present there is NOT a conservative majority on the court.

The First Gentleman

When do you think a woman will be elected U.S. president?

In 2008?

Regardless of what polls say, I can't imagine Hillary ever being elected to occupy the oval office.

I'm uncomfortable with keeping it all in the family. I wasn't that troubled by a son, George W., becoming president after his father had left office eight years earlier. That's not like a spouse, a former first lady, RETURNING to the White House as the president.

Bill as the first gentleman?

I just can't picture it.