|
"A secret motive stirs up no strife and does nothing too make outsiders of non-adherants, and it suffices to wait and see whether such government action turns out to have (as it may even be likely to have) the illegitimate effect of advancing religion."
Like many relgious believers, some atheists will proselytize their religious views, when they see a golden opportunity to do so (a captive audience of children). Atheist court justices have no immunity to that impluse. Also not immune are theist court justices who incorporate evolution into their belief system and rule in evolution cases. While no one can look into the mind of a justice and know what motivates the person, it is without a doubt that in far reaching decisions, under the cloak of thwarting religious purposes or establishment in public schools, they have effectively and illegitimately advanced core religious beliefs of atheism.
"If someone in the government (a majority of justices perhaps?) hides religious motive so well that the objective observer, acquainted with the text, legislative history, and implementation... cannot see it, then without something more (eye opening?) the government does not make a divisive announcement that in itself amounts to taking religious sides."
That quote should open some eyes.
"Nor is their any indication that the enquiry is rigged in practice to finding a religious purpose dominant every time a case is filed. In the past, the test has not been fatal very often, presumably because government does not act unconstitutionally, with the predominant purpose of advancing religion."
Ordinarily you would not expect the government to act unconstitutionally with the predominant purpose of advancing religion, yet that is exactly what the Supreme Court has been doing for many years, advancing Atheist religions, organized or unorganized, named or unnamed.
"That said, one consequence of the corollary that Establishment Clause Analysis does not look to the veiled psyche of government officers could be that in some of the cases in which establishment complaints failed, savvy officials had disguised their intent so cleverly that the objective observer just missed it."
Are a majority of savvy Supreme Court justices, for religious purposes, disguising their intent so cleverly that objective observers miss it? If this is not the case, then the court, in it's blindness, has illegitimately advanced the core religious beliefs of atheist religion in public schools.
"But that is no reason for great constitutional concern."
An error not caught isn't anything the Supreme Court will worry about until it is brought to their attention. It is precisely this error that we at "Origin of Life Fairness in Public Schools, Inc." wish to bring to their attention through the voices of millions across this great country.
Top of Page
|