Yesterday was a bad day for the anti-religious/atheist activists:
A 40-foot-tall, World War I memorial cross can continue to stand on public land in Maryland, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday in an important decision about the use of religious symbols in American life.
The justices said preserving a long-standing religious monument is very different from allowing the building of a new one. And the court concluded that the nearly 100-year-old memorial’s presence on a grassy highway median doesn’t violate the Constitution’s prohibition on the government favoring one religion over others. Seven of the court’s nine justices sided with the cross’ backers, a lineup that crossed ideological lines.
The 7-2 Supreme Court vote fits nicely with my “tell it like it is” observations from back in February:
Yet according to atheist/humanist activists, the Memorial is actual part of a government conspiracy to force them all to adopt Christianity so they have gone to court to have it removed. These kooks think a WWI memorial, that was constructed a century ago, is actually the government trying to establish the Christian religion. So they, of course, are “offended.” They squeal about the memorial being “illegal” and try to come up with any ad hoc argument to support their revisionism. Yet even with a 100 years of data to collect from, not a single one of them has been able to come up with evidence that the memorial has actually been establishing Christianity as the official religion all this time.
All this case establishes is that atheist activists are snowflakes. Hypersensitive, easily offended, intellectual lightweights always on the look out to ban that which offends them.
Of course, the atheist activists are in full blown meltdown mode. Activist Hemant Mehta is archiving some of the hysteria from his fellow activists. We’ll have to apply some critical thinking to their complaints.
Activist Jerry Coyne was deeply upset and began to lash out at the Court:
The strategy of American courts in their desire to continue allowing religious incursion into the government—be it “In God We Trust” on our money or religious symbols on public land—has been to pretend that religious symbols and mottos morph into nonreligious, historical and secular icons over time. This is patently bogus, an offense to anybody with two neurons to rub together.
Hmmm. In God We Trust first appeared on coins 160 years ago. It appeared on paper money 60 years ago. The Peace Cross was erected about 100 years ago. This “strategy” Coyne speaks of sounds like a Huge Conspirary that is well over a century old. I’m not surprised that Coyne would defend his crackpot conspiracy theory by implying those who disagree are stupid. In reality, Coyne’s extreme, radicalized position is stupid.
It get’s even more interesting in the comments section. Someone named rustybrown wrote, “This is a sound ruling. Who is this harming?”
Coyne was triggered. He begins with the insults:
Here’s someone lacking the requisite two neurons.
Then tries to answer the question:
Who is it harming? How about the CONSTITUTION, rustybrown.
Gotta love the all caps. But someone needs to tell Jerry “two neuron” Coyne that the Constitution does not qualify as a “WHO.” Second, seven of nine experts on the Consitution don’t agree with Coyne. Third, there is no evidence this war memorial has harmed the Constitution. The memorial has stood for 100 years. As I wrote months ago, “Yet even with a 100 years of data to collect from, not a single one of them has been able to come up with evidence that the memorial has actually been establishing Christianity as the official religion all this time.”
Only Crackpots think the Constitution is being harmed by allowing this memorial to stand.
Given his own position is so weak, Coyne tries to change the topic:
Should we have mandatory Christian prayers in school, like we used to? Who is that harming?
No one is talking about making people say prayers in public. The issue was a war memorial and whether it should allowed to exist as is.
And of course, Coyne then bans the dissenter:
People like you don’t belong on this site. Not enough neurons.
Given the weakness of Coyne’s crackpot views, is anyone surprised he so quickly needs to ban dissenters?