Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:

:|Jd <Igo.B4u@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
:|>>"Government secularism" requires that government be neutral on
:|>>religious issues, but has nothing to do with atheism.
:|>
:|>Irrelevant. Governments do not operate outside the jurisdiction of the
:|>Almighty.
:|
:|In this country, legally, there is no Almighty. The government
:|therefore does not recognize itself to be under the jurisdiction of
:|the Almighty, and constitutionally is forbidden to do so.
:|

Well, along about the end of June, give or take a week or so, the highest
court of the land will acknowledge, officially (unless they wimp out on

standing issue) that this country is "under God."

That might still be a step away from the government acknowledging itself

be under the jurisdiction of God.

However, I am quite sure that that ruling will inspire one or more

of the various law firms that are making a nice living representing the
religious right in one or more of their many law suits of recent years to
search for and find all sorts of creative ways to expand on that into

areas getting it cited in additional cases thus forming more "official"
unions between church and state in the future.

The other ridiculously flawed ruling, Marsh v. Chambers is cited on a
regular basis in church state cases and cited as authority in just about
every brief filed in opposition to Newdow. That case, flaws and all, is
being used to remove layers of bricks from that metaphoric "wall of
Separation."

This upcoming ruling, if it does go against Newdow, and was not decided on
the standing issue will serve the same purpose for the religious right in
the future.

In the 80s Rehnquist began a process of "creating new law" voodoo law,
voodoo precedence actually, with his ruling in Mueller v Allen that
eventually allowed the Cleveland voucher ruling to be handed down
(Ironically, he wrote the opinion this term in Lopez v Davy that might

put an period to that whole "new law" series of rulings." Time will

Marsh v Chambers was a beginning for that same eventual potential

in other areas of church state jurisprudence.

That was always a danger of the lawsuit if Newdow lost, which legally and
historically speaking should never happen.

This is not about history or law with this Supreme Court. With this
Supreme Court it is the usual politics, but even at that, at least one of
the usual pro church state separation justices is going to have to break
ranks and side with the usual the "other" side on this one to make a
Newdow loss come true.

That was one reason why organizations like the ACLU, PFAW, Americans
United, etc, were rather lukewarm in the beginning with this whole "under
God" thing. They know this Supreme Court far better than Mike did and
figured that there was no way this current USSC was going to give Mike a
win.

Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:

:|Jd <Igo.B4u@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
:|>>"Government secularism" requires that government be neutral on
:|>>religious issues, but has nothing to do with atheism.
:|>
:|>Irrelevant. Governments do not operate outside the jurisdiction of the
:|>Almighty.
:|
:|In this country, legally, there is no Almighty. The government
:|therefore does not recognize itself to be under the jurisdiction of
:|the Almighty, and constitutionally is forbidden to do so.
:|

Well, along about the end of June, give or take a week or so, the highest
court of the land will acknowledge, officially (unless they wimp out on the
standing issue) that this country is "under God."
That might still be a step away from the government acknowledging itself to
be under the jurisdiction of God.
However, I am quite sure that that ruling will inspire one or more lawyers
of the various law firms that are making a nice living representing the
religious right in one or more of their many law suits of recent years to
search for and find all sorts of creative ways to expand on that into other
areas getting it cited in additional cases thus forming more "official"
unions between church and state in the future.