The Supreme Court just agreed to hear a case that could nuke the separation of church and state - by IAN MILLHISER

Found here. My comments in bold.
-----------------------------

Get ready for a whole lot more religious icons in government buildings.

In what will almost certainly be a victory for the religious right, (Actually, a win for religious liberty.)

the Supreme Court announced on Friday that it will decide whether the Constitution permits a local government to display “on public property a 40-foot tall Latin cross, (The cross was erected in 1925. I wonder when it changed from constitutional to unconstitutional?

The memorial's base is "...inscribed with the words 'valor,' 'endurance,' 'courage' and 'devotion.'” Are those religious words? 

The memorial happens to be in the shape of a cross. Perhaps it's shapes that offend the haters and humanists? The mere fact of the shape is offensive? Shapes can be unconstitutional?)

established in memory of soldiers who died in World War I.” Although a federal appeals court held that this cross violates the Constitution’s ban on laws “respecting an establishment of religion,” (This cross is a law? I thought it was a monument?

Let's quote the First Amendment: 

"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."

So we ask the author, what law did Congress make regarding this monument?)


the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh — which gave Republicans a solid five-person majority on the Supreme Court — all but guarantees that this lower court decision will be reversed.

The cross dispute arises in two consolidated cases, American Legion v. American Humanist Association, and Maryland-National Capital Park v. American Humanist Association.

The Supreme Court typically hears a religious monument case every few years — it considered a case brought by a religious organization hoping to build a monument to “the Seven Aphorisms of SUMMUM” in 2009, and last considered when the Constitution permits the government to display Christian iconography in 2005.

Beginning in the late 1980s, the Supreme Court appeared to settle on a test that judges could use to determine when the government is allowed to display religious images on its own property. (Whose property? It isn't government's property, it belongs to the people.)

As Justice Harry Blackmun wrote in County of Allegheny v. ACLU, the Constitution prohibits “governmental endorsement of religion.” (False. It prevents an "establishment.")

That is, the Constitution “prohibits government from appearing to take a position on questions of religious belief or from ‘making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person’s standing in the political community.'” (False. It prevents government from making any laws whatsoever regarding religion.)

Under this test, many government displays of religious icons remain constitutional. The Supreme Courtroom itself is decorated by images of famous historical lawgivers, for example, including the Jewish prophet Moses and the Islamic prophet Muhammad. These images are widely viewed as unoffensive to the Constitution because they do not appear to endorse Judaism or Islam when seen in context. (Whaaa? They're ok because they don't "appear" to endorse these religions? What kind of test is that?)

Moses and Muhammad are displayed along other historic figures such as King Hammurabi, Caesar Augustus, Napoleon, and former Chief Justice John Marshall. Thus, it is clear that Moses and Muhammad are depicted because of their contributions to the secular field of lawmaking, not because of their religious significance. (Moses and Muhammad made zero contributions to secular lawmaking. 100% of what they did was in the name of their religions.)

Yet, while this “Endorsement Test” rose to prominence when the Supreme Court was dominated by liberals and moderate conservatives, it is largely viewed as anathema by the hardline conservatives who control the Supreme Court today. Even Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was well to the left of Kavanaugh and the other members of the Court’s current majority, claimed that the Endorsement Test “reflects an unjustified hostility toward religion.” (Correct.)

According to Kennedy, government endorsements of faith are acceptable so long as lawmakers do not attempt to “further the interests of religion through the coercive power of government.” The American Humanist Association cases give the Court’s Republican majority an opportunity to, at the very least, write this narrow conception of the separation of church and state into the law.

The particular cross at issue in American Humanist Association has stood for 93 years. So, a decision reversing the lower court will change very little in the short term. In the long term, however, such a blow to the separation of church and state could embolden Christian nationalists and distort American politics. (Letting a cross stay up that has been up for a century will embolden people? In what way? 

And by the way, this cross was put up as an expression of the times 93 years ago. It is humanists that have distorted American politics from this precedent. If there is an effect from allowing the cross to remain, it will be a correction, not a distortion.)

The rule against government endorsement of religion exists for two interrelated purposes. As Justice Sandra Day O’Connor explained, “the endorsement test captures the essential command of the Establishment Clause, namely, that government must not make a person’s religious beliefs relevant to his or her standing in the political community by conveying a message ‘that religion or a particular religious belief is favored or preferred.'”

America is a pluralistic society where people of many faiths and people of no faith all stand on equal footing as citizens. Government endorsements of religion communicate the opposite message, that people of certain faiths are preferred.

Similarly, as the Supreme Court explained in Lemon v. Kurtzman, “political division along religious lines was one of the principal evils against which the First Amendment was intended to protect.” (This is spectacularly false. We quote again: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." The amendment speaks only to government. It cannot, in any sort of way, involve itself in the religious expressions of its citizens.)

In a society where government may fund religious displays and expressions of religious belief, lawmakers are likely to divert funding from schools, roads and other essential services to such displays. (What a strange objection. As if government wisely spends money as it is. But more to the point, if the government puts up a statute, say of Barack Obama, is this diversion of funds in any way problematic for the author?)

Worse, candidates for office may campaign on promises that they will use their office to advance one religious belief or another — and elections could become referendums on religious identity rather than debates over policy. (Already happening, sir.  Ask any Christian who runs for office. They are impugned, mocked, and accused of being haters. Sir, you leftists already have a religious test for office. The clear message: Christians not welcome.)

The Court is likely to lift safeguards against such political divisions in American Humanist Association, and this decision in unlikely to be the last gift the Court’s Republican majority gives to the Christian right.

Just a couple of weeks ago, anti-LGBTQ lawyers filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to consider, once again, whether religious conservatives have a special right to defy anti-discrimination laws. (Actually, the right to follow their religious convictions.)

With Kennedy gone, and Kavanaugh occupying Kennedy’s seat, it is likely that there are now five votes to permit such discrimination.