Wednesday, August 24, 2005
Silliness Might Lead To Clarity
According to Evangelical Outpost, the SCOTUS has ruled that atheism is a religion. Joe seems to think this is a problematic ruling.
Not being a lawyer, I may be all wrong here, but it strikes me that this may be the court's best most rapid option to reverse the last 30 years or so of rulings that were pretty blatantly discriminatory against Christianity.
As the ruling points out, the "touchstone of Establishment Clause analysis" is the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion. But if, as the courts claim, religious belief can be theistic, nontheistic, atheistic and inspired by religion, philosophical beliefs, and ?secular concerns?, then how can we determine what is "neutral?" Where does the neutral ground lie in a dispute between a Muslim, an atheist, a Secular Humanist, or a person who considers themselves "nonreligious?"The analysis Joe presents in that paragraph is correct, but I am not sure its problematic. This ruling will go a long way towards stopping a lot of the legal silliness we have seen in recent years. For example, to rule that a governmentally owned park cannot host a Nativity Scene now becomes as much a promotion of religion (atheism) as hosting one. The very lack of a clear understanding of what is "neutral" that Joe bemoans could very well result in opening the doors in a completely indiscriminant manner, which is what I think the founders intended.
Not being a lawyer, I may be all wrong here, but it strikes me that this may be the court's best most rapid option to reverse the last 30 years or so of rulings that were pretty blatantly discriminatory against Christianity.
