Religion and the Court

In the aftermath of the Ten Commandments decisions, a couple of sources of information caught my attention. Skeptic's Eye did a bit of research and found that, in the 1948 presidential election, the Democratic Party (yes) was happy to team up with the Catholic Church (again, yes) to turn out the Democratic vote. It seems that there was a referendum on the Mass. ballot to determine whether or not state officials would be able to hand out birth control information. The Church was staunchly against it, and the high turnout of heavily Democratic Catholics helped carry the state for the Democrats.

The second, if you haven't already read it, is George Will's column, "Thou Shalt Split Hairs." Will recalls the long history of religion on the Hill -- including services held in the House of Representatives until 1857.

His conclusion, sure to upset the tender psyches of ever-vulnerable lefties:

Nowadays many people delight in being distressed. They cultivate exquisitely tender sensibilities and practice moral exhibitionism, waxing indignant about minor encounters with thoughts and symbols they dislike. So, just to lower the decibel level of American life, perhaps communities should refrain from religious displays other than in religious contexts.

But this is a merely prudential, not a constitutional consideration. On Monday the justices churned out 140 pages of opinions and dissents about the Texas and Kentucky displays. Here is a one-sentence opinion that should suffice in such cases: "Because the display on public grounds does not do what the establishment clause was written to prevent -- does not impose a state-sponsored creed or significantly advantage or disadvantage one sect or sects -- the display is constitutional."