"But it may be too late"

Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman demonstrates that there's no I.Q. test to be a columnist. His column, with my commentary.

Supreme Court blesses town prayer 

Thanks to immigration, America's religious makeup has changed. Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus are much more common than they once were. In 20 or 30 years, it's possible these groups will attain numerical dominance in a town here or there.

There's probably already Muslim dominance in Deerborn, and various non-Christian dominance in neighborhoods in many of our major cities. Freedom of religion is like that. It's a good thing.

Many Christians will applaud today's Supreme Court decision allowing a town council in Greece, N.Y. to begin its meetings with an invocation by a "chaplain of the month," even if the invited clergy choose to proclaim "the saving sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross.” It's nice to have the government publicly endorse your faith. But if it can champion Christianity today, why not Islam tomorrow?

I have no problem with Islamic prayer at public meetings. It's completely Constitutional, and I respect other people's religious practice.

If Christians attending the local city council meeting had to sit through a prayer to Allah or Vishnu, they would most likely feel excluded and offended. But somehow they think non-Christians should have to put up with the equivalent without complaint or recourse.

Why would I feel excluded and offended by other people praying according to their faith? This happens often in my life-- my in-laws are Jewish, and I often attend family events at which Jewish prayers are said. I don't feel excluded at all. In fact, I feel privileged to be invited. They know I'm Catholic, and I'm honored to be a part of their worship. I was at a niece's Bat Mitzvah recently, and when we were praying in the temple, I said a silent prayer to Jesus and enjoyed the service. If I were at a government event in, say, an Orthodox Jewish community or a Muslim community and the prayer was Jewish or Muslim, I'd listen quietly and respectfully and say the Lord's Prayer to myself. I like it when other people pray. It doesn't exclude or offend me. What does exclude and offend me is when an atheist calls a federal judge who threatens to fine or jail anyone who prays. That's exclusion and offense.

Five Supreme Court justices members agree, with three of the four dissents coming from justices who know something about religious discrimination, being Jewish. The fourth, Sonia Sotomayor, apparently does not belong to a church.

What could Chapman possibly mean about "religious discrimination" against Jews in the U.S.? Jews prosper in the U.S.. Breyer, Ginsberg and Kagan are Jewish. They have lived enormously successful, even privileged, lives. Jews are highly over-represented on the Court. Two percent of the population is Jewish. One third of the court is Jewish. In what way have Breyer, Ginsberg and Kagan experienced discrimination? What a stupid thing to say. Now there is one person on the Court who has experienced real discrimination, and still is attacked for his race. Clarence Thomas has been attacked racially, by Democrats, for decades.

This is one case where being in the majority can blind one to the perspective of the minority. Christians may someday find out how it feels to be on the other side. Then they will remember what Jesus said about doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. But it may be too late.

"Too late" for what? Too late for Christians to be paranoid anti-religious bigots, like atheists?

Try to understand what this moron is saying. He is asserting that Christians should oppose the Court's honest interpretation of the Constitution, which plainly permits government prayer,  because he believes that Christians should allow their paranoia and bigotry against other faiths to determine their opinions on Supreme Court jurisprudence. Chapman is saying this: 'Christians, you shouldn't be so happy about this interpretation of the Constitution, not because it is an incorrect interpretation, but because it allows people you hate and fear to pray in public.'

What offensive swill.

Bottom line: the Constitution says what it says, regardless of our bigotry and paranoia. Public government prayer is constitutional, period. And Christians overwhelmingly do welcome prayers from other faiths-- how many lawsuits have Christians filed trying to stop other people from praying? Our nemesis here isn't Jews or Muslims or Hindus who might get to say a prayer or two at our city council meetings.

Our nemesis is atheists with a totalitarian itch who violate the Constitution and try to strip citizens' rights to pray in public, and columnists who write highly repellant swill that plays to Americans' worst instincts on the assumption that Christians hate and fear other religions as much as atheists do.