US Supreme Court Declares First Amendment Dead—Establishes Christian Theocracy

It may come as quite a shock to most people to discover that the pro-theocracy majority in the SCOTUS all belong to same religious sect. Anyone who thinks the religious domination of the Court by Catholics has nothing to do with the anti-American rulings the Republican majority constantly perpetrates, is an utter fool. This is not to say all Catholics are precisely the same on questions of politics, but when the question is the extent to which the right of the people not to be assaulted by government-sponsored Christianity, and the answer the Catholic majority provides is don't worry about the Establishment Clause, because "tradition" is more important that the words in the Constitution, you can see the Catholic style at work in dismantling liberty.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”—First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America

Attacking the fundamental right of all American citizens, indeed the first right specified in the Bill of Rights, known as the Establishment Clause, which is the protection against government establishing a religion, the Supreme Court of the United States, yesterday overthrow that principle (voting five Republican Catholics against 1 Democratic Catholic and 3 Democratic Jewish dissenters), arguing:
“Legislative prayer, while religious in nature, has long been understood as compatible with the Establishment Clause…history [supports] the conclusion that the specific practice was permitted. The First Congress voted to appoint and pay official chaplains shortly after approving language for the First Amendment, and both Houses have maintained the office virtu- ally uninterrupted since then.”
In principal dissent, in a case that decided predominantly Christian invocations at town meetings in Greece, New York, were constitutional, Justice Elena Kagan said:
“[W]hen each person performs the duties or seeks the benefits of citizenship, she does so not as an adherent to one or another religion, but simply as an American…I think the Town of Greece’s prayer practices violate that norm of religious equality—the breathtakingly generous constitutional idea that our public institutions belong no less to the Buddhist or Hindu than to the Methodist or Episcopalian.”
We should note that the ownership by atheists of the constitutional idea, was not considered, and it is almost never considered, even though in this instance “invocations” by atheists were acknowledged as possible (if silly), at least in terms of policy, but the town just couldn’t find any atheists about to offer an appeal to spirits, even though as many as 20% of Americans now self-identify as atheist or agnostic.

Kagan spoke more specifically about what she held to be the defects of Greece’s case:
“Greece’s town meetings involve participation by ordinary citizens, and the invocations given—directly to those citizens—were predominantly sectarian in content. Still more, Greece’s Board did nothing to recognize reli­gious diversity: In arranging for clergy members to open each meeting, the Town never sought (except briefly when this suit was filed) to involve, accommodate, or in any way reach out to adherents of non-Christian religions.”
Again, atheists need not apply to this discussion of religious diversity.

Illustrating the impact of decades of evangelical Christian political domination in degrading the national intellect, even Kagan was willing to concede to the Inquisitorial Party (GOP) that she was not contending there was any “bright separationist line” in the Establishment Clause, despite what Thomas Jefferson may have argued.

Nevertheless, after going through several examples of how the Greece, New York style of practicing the anti-constitutional traditional of spiritual invocation might extend to other governmental venues, such as a judge forcing parties at a trial to listen to his prayers to the saving power of Jesus, Kagan said:
“I would hold that the government officials responsible for the above practices—that is, for prayer repeatedly invok­ing a single religion’s beliefs in these settings—crossed a constitutional line.”
Kagan said this would be true, regardless of which religion was favored. However, she did not give any guidance for how the measurement of the repetition, the exact percentage of prayers that establish unconstitutional dominance in the proceedings of one religion over others, should be assessed. Instead, Kagan argued that a kind of generic, but primarily monotheistic, all-purpose religious message could be delivered that would satisfy her constitutional concerns.

Kennedy alluded to this, saying it set up a scenario where every government gathering would require a government censor, insuring that diversity of prayer was not afflicted by the fact that, as in the Greece, New York, situation, the predominant religious players, were Christian.

Of course, the easiest way to avoid all of this conflict and constitutional concern is to get rid of the unconstitutional mumbo-jumbo spiritual invocations altogether. And while Kagan at one point takes note of the obvious:
“Justices have often differed about a further issue: whether and how the Clause applies to governmental policies favoring religion (of all kinds) over non-religion.”
—she chose not to engage that argument, but quoted maniac pro-religionist Justice Scalia’s dissent in a 1992 case (Lee v. Weisman), to establish a line Kagan felt even conservatives would adhere to:
“[O]ur constitutional tradition, from the Declaration of Independence and the first inaugural address of Washington . . . down to the present day, has . . . ruled out of order government-sponsored endorsement of re­ligion . . . where the endorsement is sectarian, in the sense of specifying details upon which men and women who believe in a benevolent, omnipotent Creator and Ruler of the world are known to differ (for exam­ple, the divinity of Christ).”
It is important to understand what Kagan, via Scalia, is arguing here, or acknowledging, that the closest we are likely to get to any consensus respect on the part of the judiciary for the meaning of the Establishment Clause, is to start with the premise that “men and women who believe in a benevolent, omnipotent Creator and Ruler of the world” define the line.

And that is not only arguing for an essentially theistic interpretation of the Establishment Clause, but is adding an effective corollary to the Establishment Clause, something along these lines: “Subject to the consensus of citizens who believe in a benevolent, omnipotent Creator and Ruler of the world”—or, from an atheist’s point of view, in other words, subject to the consensus of a bunch of deranged lunatics.

The First Amendment of course says nothing like this, and the passion to amend it to say so, through judicial action instead of legislative action (which would inspire a divisive debate almost as terrible as if one tried to overturn the Holy Second Amendment), is consistent with the fact that most Americans are basically uncomfortable with what the First Amendment actually holds to be true about the rights of citizens—especially minority citizens. Indeed, most people understand the freedom of religion to mean being able to practice an individual faith, regulated by what is effectively, and now officially, a Christian theocratic state.

Regardless of Kagan’s equivocal stance, she did articulate what seems a divide between what are effectively the Republican and Democratic positions on Establishment, arguing that the effect of the majority’s decision would be to alienate large number of Americans from what would now be officially Christian-blessed governmental functions:
“And so a civic function of some kind brings religious differences to the fore: That public proceeding becomes (whether intentionally or not) an instrument for dividing [a citizen] from adherents to the community’s majority religion, and for altering the very nature of her relationship with her government. That is not the country we are, because that is not what our Constitution permits.”

Finding that a government “establishment” of religion does not occur, obviously and with clear peril to the rights of citizens, when ceremonial invocations of spirits are sponsored by government, is an example of the utter hypocrisy, dishonesty, and sheer idiocy, on the part of people appointed to be the greatest protectors of our constitutional rights.

As Kagan noted, this is especially the case in determining what are constitutionally allowed religious expressions by government, in a setting where citizens are coming forward to act upon another First Amendment right—to peaceably assemble to petition the government. To declare this setting as somehow immune from the protections against establishment, essentially because for so long so many government organizations and officials in the US, including Congress and the Supreme Court, have ignored these protections and infringed the rights of citizens in this regard, seems especially, stupidly, egregious.

Any government official, any judge, and especially any Supreme Court justice, who would argue, as this Republican, Roman Catholic, majority have argued, in defense of the establishment of a Christian theocracy, is by definition an enemy of the Constitution, and the American people.

Demand that these traitors be impeached!