I have two quick observations on a hot summer night. First, blogging is not inherently conducive to optimal physical activity. Second, reading law professors debating religion is not conducive to an inner sense of harmony and well being. The day of the Supreme Court issued the Kelo ruling affirming there are no principled restrictions to the use of eminent domain seizure, and therefore, no principled protections for individual private property; I called for the resignation in total of the current bench. After a couple days of thought I’m still convinced that replacing the entire Supreme Court has some merit, and now think that anyone with a law degree should be barred from the sitting on the Court.
Today the Supreme Court came down with two opinions about the relationship between Church and State. In effect they say governments can display the Ten Commandments outside of a government building but not inside a Court Room. All afternoon long a swarm of lawyers descended on the pro and con opinions, dissecting out little chains of precedent and quibbling about the relative equivalence of variations in the meanings of words and phrases.
In America there are plenty of organizations free to believe any set peaceful religious beliefs their member’s desire. Individuals are free to join any religious organization they want or not to join any organization at all. Peaceful beliefs mean that human sacrifice is not tolerated, period. I think the Supreme Court is trying figure out a way to say that in a society with religious freedom it is permissible to be identified with your choice, but there are formal government proceedings where the external trappings of belief should be set aside. Nine adults should be able to come up with simple clear statements but first they need to stop thinking like lawyers and start thinking like citizens.
