Antagonism toward religious belief by the activists is nothing new. But we did expect that the Supreme Court would uphold constitutional freedoms, didn’t we?
This week has marked a shift in attitudes toward the role of religious observance in our culture.
Some of this has been a long time coming, and some of it has not.
What DID come as a surprise to many was the SCOTUS ruling that was made with respect to the exercise of religious freedom. Well, Chief Justice Roberts was the swing vote here, so maybe it wasn’t entirely a surprise. He’s been kind of hit-and-miss on the issues that matter.
The Supreme Court late Friday rejected a bid that it block California from limiting the number of people allowed to attend religious services during the novel coronavirus pandemic.
Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court’s liberal minority to vote 5-4 in favor of denying an application for injunctive relief that aimed to overturn attendance caps recently imposed on religious services within the state to help slow the spread of COVID-19, the contagious disease caused by the coronavirus.
“Although California’s guidelines place restrictions on places of worship, those restrictions appear consistent with the free exercise clause of the First Amendment,” Chief Justice Roberts, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, wrote in an opinion concurring with the court’s ruling. —WashingtonTimes
That’s right. The country that was the destination point of refugees looking for religious liberty has just made religious activity something that happens at the pleasure of the State. Our Constitutional freedoms aren’t quite as secure as we thought they were, are they?
Meanwhile, the militant wing of the secular left has shown their true face during the riots.
Only a block from the White House, a historical church as been put to the torch, in the name of tolerance and justice, naturally.