YHAOS, you asked: If a particular religion were to be “established” by this union of states, what actions would one reasonably expect The Congress to take to accomplish that end?
IMHO, all Congress has to do is to enact law to codify the atheistic decisions of the Supreme Court for the last quarter century (theistic symbols, actions and speech being abolished from publicly funded institutions).
I suspect Congress has already codified these decisions at least in the Federal workplace and use of funds for public schools - but I don't have time to search the Titles and Regs because my niece is coming to visit very soon now. But I will when I get a chance.
Further, I suspect a keen legal mind (like soon to be Chief Justice Roberts) - will pick up on atheism as a religion (various caselaw in above post 68) when it visits the Newdow "under God" decision assuming it is appealed.
That "win" could (IMHO) bring the whole house of cards down around the secular humanists....
“all Congress has to do is to enact law to codify the atheistic decisions of the Supreme Court for the last quarter century”
In light of subsequent posts, I’m sure you understand by now I was posing that question as an introduction to my thesis that all the alarms over a merging of state and religion are nothing but a lot of ephemeral squawking designed to exclude from the public square any discussion of Judeo-Christian values.
But, let me say this:
We may expect that Congress has done about all it can do to enact laws codifying the atheistic decisions of the Supreme Court, short of committing wholesale political suicide. Surely there are some significant number who would do more if they thought they dared. It is incumbent on us to beam the fear of electoral failure squarely in their eyes and hold it there. Nothing else has any effect on them. It is a sad commentary, but fear is the only emotion which will control a significant number of our representatives and senators and hold them to an honorable course.
“Further, I suspect a keen legal mind (like soon to be Chief Justice Roberts) - will pick up on atheism as a religion . . .”
There was a case some thirty or forty years ago where a judge found secular humanism to be a religion, subject to the same constitutional restraints effecting any other religion. Not unexpectedly, it was overturned at the appellate level and not appealed further. I wish I could remember the name of the case. Maybe it will come to me.”
I do not think declaring secular humanism or atheism a religion will hold up under Supreme Court scrutiny, but neither do I believe the phrase ‘under God’ in the PoA will be found unconstitutional. The Supremes do not like to be held up to ridicule, and they are surrounded by too many references to God and the Judeo-Christian tradition right on their building to risk torpedoing their own dignity. They will find the phrase has too much historical and traditional significance to be found unconstitutional. The Ninth Circus Court of Appeals, on the other hand, seems to revel in being ridiculous. Just one man’s opinion.