Two thrusts to this diary:
1. In today's NY Times, there's a very disturbing piece about the trend toward bible study in our public schools.
In a horribly alarming movement, elective bible courses are being offered as part of the public high school curriculum. Just to give you a feel:
The course's broad statements about the Bible being the blueprint for the nation are askew, said Mr. Haynes of the Freedom Forum, part of a nonpartisan ecumenical group promoting the Bible Literacy Project textbook. "If the Bible is a blueprint for the Constitution," he said, "I guess they haven't read it," referring to the Constitution.
...
Some of the claims made in the national council's curriculum are laughable, said Mark A. Chancey, professor of religious studies at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, who spent seven weeks studying the syllabus for the freedom network. Mr. Chancey said he found it "riddled with errors" of facts, dates, definitions and incorrect spellings. It cites supposed NASA findings to suggest that the earth stopped twice in its orbit, in support of the literal truth of the biblical text that the sun stood still in Joshua and II Kings.
There is no question that religious liberty is under direct assault by the activist religious right. If this kind of thing passes constitutional muster, does the First Amendment really mean anything? ... And what if I'm a muslim or hindu, with no elective choice for MY religion? - just shit out of luck, I suppose...
Now for my second peg:
2. Losing O'Connor means that this approach will likely find support in future Supreme rulings. One of her most important legacies has been the creation of the "endorsement test" on church-state matters. The heart of that standard is ascertaining whether a "reasonable observer" would consider government action an "endorsement of religion"... Strict constructionists hate that sort of thinking, and typically would rather let local majorities - not judges - make such decisions. I disagree - religious liberty must be defended by the courts, not granted by legislatures.
I'm fearful that John Roberts discounts O'Connor's endorsement approach. He needs to be asked point blank about it...