Gramsci, Lenin, and Marx are dead--and their failed ideologies are expiring.
But I think you are right to suggest the DNC are indeed smiling, and with good cause: a small band of religious fundamentalists are about to get clobbered in a court case (and most deservedly so), exposing ID as an attempt to use bogus science to smuggle religion into the classroom. This will allow our opponents to portray (and, sadly, with some modicum of truth) conservatives as assailers of our basic 1st amendment freedoms. This was a completely stupid thing to do.
I almost wish for their "revolution" to start openly
Whose revolution? What on earth are you talking about?
Bull-crap.
Since we are all properly obeying * the modern interpretation * of the First Amendment... Good or bad isn't the question. Good, bad, right, wrong, evil, moral: all of these are purely religious. Morality and all of its associated concepts are rooted in the belief that some higher power is defining the correctness of human behavior.
* The First Amendment says that Government must exorcise all traces of religion and theism from itself. * (The “modern interpretation.”) Therefore, the Government should never consider issues of morality and of right and wrong.
Therefore, it becomes a question of benefits versus costs, not a question of right and wrong. Fetus killing has its benefits to society, especially if you like to sleep late on Saturday. However, it also has its costs as well. Society (by which I mean whoever manages to seize power) needs to evaluate these costs and decide accordingly.
Today, “morals” are a religious pagan philosophy of esoteric hobgoblins where transfiguration is from pantheons of fantasies as the medium of infinitization. Others get derision for having an unwavering Judaic belief in Yahweh or Yeshua, although their critics will evangelize insertion of phantasmagoric fetishisms into secular law. (Like you have some sort of God given right to teach evolution.)
It was landmark U.S. Supreme Court precedent Reynolds v. United States in 1878 that made “separation of church and state” a dubiously legitimate point of case law, but more importantly; it confirmed the Constitutionality in statutory regulation of marriage practices.
“Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices...” [Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 8 Otto 145, 24 L. Ed. 244 (1878).]
First Amendment???
Is dissatisfaction with inevitable mortality compelling ersatz secularists and religious heretics to seek connection with the Eternal through a Universal Truth by constructing an idol out of their own vanity or conceit they label as morality or science?
Is it a self-deceptive replacement of avoiding sin with a synthetic secular morality?
Is the "Big Bang" theory an inadvertent admission the Universe is an Immaculate Conception?
Is teaching evolution a religious ministry? It also says life is an Immaculate Conception.