Ah, so you're saying we ought to decide this case based on a set of conditions that aren't before the court and which are, in fact, opposite of the practices of this small town, which was incredibly inclusive (they had a Wiccan give the prayer, fundamentalism indeed)?

You know, some years ago it was impossible to purchase the Life of Brian in Boston, or buy alcohol on a Sunday. And, while I wouldn't advocate going back to either of those practices, we were very, very far away from theocracy. 

I simply see no evidence whatsoever that a totalitarian Christian imperialism is lurking just beneath the surface of American society (though I do see some evidence of some Christian groups who behave too fervently in some places).

I do see a fair bit of evidence of government overreach and persecution of Christian groups based on the phantasm of that idea.

This must be that most underused definition of novel where it means: entirely in keeping with Supreme Court precedent in Marsh from three decades ago, a decision which merely confirmed and ratified longstanding and widespread American practice.

Your call for complete secularism everywhere in public, however? That is indeed novel.

Firstly, it is simply wrong to call a harmless non-denominational prayer offered voluntarily at the start of a town council meeting an "establishment" of religion of any kind. Your tax dollars are not being provided by the state or locality to fund any denomination.

Secondly, you've simply got the precedent wrong. The only entity barred from establishing a religion under the Constitution is the Congress at the federal level. Otherwise, individual states and localities have their own regulations laid out in their own statutes. Let federalism flourish and let the people of every state and locality govern themselves as they see fit in such a matter.

Thirdly, I simply cannot understand why you feel so put upon by such a practice. Dissent being silenced? I mean, really, don't you think you've exaggerated more than a little here. To the contrary, it appears that you can get all the way to the Supreme Court if you dissent--that's hardly "silenced". 

Finally: where has any bias been shown by this locality toward minority religious views?

David Pryce-Jones notes a related dynamic in the wake of the attacks.

The authorities evidently dread a future confrontation between the EDL and the Muslims. Their response is to contend that Islam forbids killing and therefore bombings on the subway or murder in Woolwich have nothing at all to do with Islam. Prime Minister David Cameron showed how to obscure reality by declaring that “there is nothing in Islam that justifies this truly terrible act.”  The murder in Woolwich is “solely and purely the responsibility of the individuals involved,” as though they were deranged rather than fulfilling what they think is an Islamic obligation. His advice to “stand up to these people whoever they are” supposes that they might be anybody, and not Muslims at all.

This misrepresentation verges on apologetics. People on the street know otherwise. In the immediate aftermath of the Woolwich barbarity, the EDL has attracted 60,000 new subscribers and could easily develop into a quasi-patriotic, quasi-fascist mass-movement.

Politicians, quick to see incipient fascism in any complaint from the right about the enormous problem of Muslim communities refusing to integrate into the West, fuel the very fire they fear.

This is why I completely understand it when Catholics rush to defend the Pope against whatever the latest "scandal" in the headlines happens to be--because, so much of the time, the media just butchers the story or misrepresents what was said.

Not always, but often enough.

In this case, there's no smoke and no fire here, just the dust kicked up by the media. In the previous case of the Pope's economic remarks before the ambassadors, there was indeed some smoke there. John O' Sullivan was particularly good in his very sympathetic, yet nonetheless critical, take on that situation over at NRO.

Ed: Well said. Of course, you're right, and I'm not unaware of this--oh, Alizee, how you have fallen! 

And see! Nearly to the level of rocking Girls tat-sleeves!: my darling dear, do you understand nothing of boys and girls? Have you learned nothing in your years on stage?

I despair for her, as I do for most of Western Civ.....

l

Oh, that is awesome.

The schlapping, of course--the weiner is hardly worth mention.

ἀλήθεια.

Our cousins have grown limp-wristed in their old age.

Welcome aboard. 

If they think they're going to feed Lois Lerner to the wolves and walk away, they've got another thing coming.

We have some news for "our friends": we yellow-eyed wolves aren't going to rest content with some hapless mid-level bureaucrat.

Sailed into Singapore a couple of times and loved it.

Ricochet members should absolutely take the plunge and travel there if they haven't. I'd welcome the chance to go back.

Singapore is a masterpiece, and Lee Kuan Yew was a statesman of a rare order. 

Also: whatever Tiger beer lacks in body, the girls more than make up for.

We already suspect the truth, sir.

Speak, General.

Your service to the Republic outlasts your service for this administration.