Supreme Arrogance II: The establishment of Atheism.
by Ryan McCann

There are two categories in which all of mankind falls:

1) Those who believe in God
2) Those who do not believe in God.

Sure, some people believe God is polytheistic, deistic, etc. but they believe that some form of a Divine Creator exists. Others are not outright atheists; they may be agnostic or just maintain that they have no opinion on the subject. However, in reality, we all live our lives based on our answer to this, the most basic of questions: Does God exist?

Obviously, one could write novels on this topic and still only graze the surface. What does this have to do with the Supreme Court? My point is that because all men fit somewhere within these two categories, the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision on the Ten Commandments (McCreary County, Kentucky v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky) is ridiculous at best and governmental establishment of the non-belief in God, at worst. Let me explain.

In McCreary, Justices Souter, O'Conner, Ginsberg, Breyer and Stevens ruled that the display of the Ten Commandments on public property is unconstitutional. The Majority Opinion specifically asserts that favoring an adherence to religion is unconstitutional. First of all, the Court is incorrect on this point. However, Justice Scalia eviscerates the Court's argument in his excellent dissent and that is not the main issue I wish to touch on, so I will not address it here.

The main issue I want to address is the Court’s view that "the First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between...religion and nonreligion." This view is incorrect because it is impossible. A good example is this very case. One side has to win. Either McCreary County (the party that indirectly represents those of us who believe in God) or the ACLU (the party that indirectly represents those who do not believe in God) must win this case. There is no middle ground. Either the monument stays on public property, or it doesn't. In fact, decisions like this continue to change and separate the governemnt from the twin pillars George Washington informed us that it was built upon, religion and morality. This is not neutrality, it is a distinct effort to undermine and reject our Christian heritage.

Therefore, by siding with those who do not believe in God, the Court broke its own rule of neutrality. What's more, if we are to believe that placing the Ten Commandments on public property is an establishment of religion, particularly the religion of 97% of Americans, (As Justice Scalia mentions in his dissent, the Ten Commandments are recognized by Christians, Jews and Muslims) wouldn't the removal of the Ten Commandments from public property be an establishment of the beliefs of the other 3%? If you follow the logic of the Court, the answer must be yes. So, based on the Court's own reasoning, they have allowed 3% of the population to dictate their beliefs to 97% of the American public. Because 3% of the population might be offended by the Ten Commandments, the rest of us must be denied the free exercise of our religion. That is the very definition of "Supreme Arrogance."

For questions or comments on this topic email IFI at ifi@hoosierfamily.org