In the annals of the Supreme Court of the United States the decisions upon the public display of the Decalogue, McCreary and Van Orden, will stand testament to the perfidy of modernist jurisprudence. There were a few rare glimmerings of properly godly jurisprudence in the opinions, but the Truth did not carry the day.
Brother Thomas came nearest the Truth, as he often does, but stopped short of the mark. Bother Thomas divined that the 14th Amendment’s nasty habit of incorporating other civil rights so as to make them incumbent on the states does not reach the religious clauses of the First Amendment; the First is simply too thewy to be manhandled so by the puny and pusillanimous 14th. In Brother Thomas’ view, a state, save for any provisions they might wish to place in their own constitutions, should be free to establish and promote religion as their respective Houses of Burgesses feel proper. Surely this is the right conclusion of Law in accord with His Holy Will. States should be free to set forth laws enforcing Holy Commands, not just display them futilely in a park or public building. Without the teeth of actual punitive Law behind those displayed Commandments, it will degrade the public morals to have His Word displayed with governmental approval without the sanction of the criminal justice system standing behind them. Clearly, states should be free not only to display the Words of God, but to enforce them as well.
In the states, whatever sect is strong enough to claim control of the government surely deserves the ability to lay low its rivals with the power of the state, as Brother Thomas would provide. Clearly, each state was intended by the Founders to be a society of Faith with the power to exclude those of other faiths, for their own good. As long as a religion is Christian, any sectarian cleansing in pursuit of proper purity only brings greater glory to His Name.
‘Judge’ Souter
also touched upon some Right Reason, though he is normally a godless
wussy-boy, when he quoted the great Justice Brother Story who said the
purpose of the Establishment Clause “was not to countenance, much less
to advance, Mahometanism, or
Judaism, or infidelity, by
prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian
sects.” Surely this insight is key. The framers intent when they sought
to limit government patronage of ‘religion’ was to prevent patronage to
various sects of the only ‘religion’ of the Founders, Christianity.
This nation was conceived as a nation of Christians, and thus any
proper originalist understanding of the Clause is that the federal
government, while restricted from choosing sides in the squabbles of
established Christian sects, is perfectly free to discourage, even
outlaw non-Christian beliefs, or post-Foundational Christian heresies,
such as the Jahovah’s Witnesses and Mormonism.
Surely, any interpretation which protects the Mohammedian or other heresies, animalistic many-godded goobledygook, or Godless atheism from a healthful and wise pogrom to rid the body politic of such infections falls too far from the intended meaning of the Constitution. These Decalogue cases demonstrate that even the most ‘conservative’ of ‘judges’ have their noses too far up the Devil’s ass to deserve the title of the office they inhabit. Not only should the Ten Commandments be posted prominently in every public space, but the government should have the power to compel adherence and belief in those Laws, and cause them to be published and obeyed in every corner of the land, including your house if you don’t have a Bible (you Godless thug).
Now I have to go rub my body with fragrant oils for the adoration of my fans and well-wishers whilst I stand before my picture window that looks out upon the orphanage’s playground.
Comments