A Blunder of Supreme Proportions
I have been neglectful and, for that, I apologize. This week however, there is enough canon fodder to keep both barrels blowing for a long time. The topic of the day though is our supreme court who can't see the forest from the trees. Acting like a political body in a 5-4 decision, this committee of supposedly experienced legal minds really showed their stuff by sanctioning religious emblems on government property. Rather than just saying "no", they marginalized the decision by allowing some, and not others, thereby placating their neocon constituency. You think that's OK? Go here:
http://www.reandev.com/taliban/
Then come back and tell me you think these are thinking people. They've even conned themselves into believing that this country was founded by christians. Well, it wasn't. To further the point, the first settlers (not the founders) were Puritans who came here in pursuit of religious freedom- a principle the real founding fathers and the leadership that has followed them for two centuries have, until now, managed to preserve. If everyone were "christian", there could be no religious freedom by definition.
What irks me is that a decision like this will, no doubt, be accompanied by applications for other religions' symbols and the decision made today sets the precedence by which the point can effectively be argued. Believe me, it would have been much easier to say "no". The court's actions today are analogous to giving in to a toddler. I will be very surprised if the boundaries don't get tested very soon.
They should have said "no" to the land grab case in New London CT too, but that's another rant.
http://www.reandev.com/taliban/
Then come back and tell me you think these are thinking people. They've even conned themselves into believing that this country was founded by christians. Well, it wasn't. To further the point, the first settlers (not the founders) were Puritans who came here in pursuit of religious freedom- a principle the real founding fathers and the leadership that has followed them for two centuries have, until now, managed to preserve. If everyone were "christian", there could be no religious freedom by definition.
What irks me is that a decision like this will, no doubt, be accompanied by applications for other religions' symbols and the decision made today sets the precedence by which the point can effectively be argued. Believe me, it would have been much easier to say "no". The court's actions today are analogous to giving in to a toddler. I will be very surprised if the boundaries don't get tested very soon.
They should have said "no" to the land grab case in New London CT too, but that's another rant.