A few paragraphs that nail the lunacy on the head

XCollin Levey has written a nice column dissecting the ACLU's annual attack on religious expression. In just a few paragraphs from the article, she effectively slices and dices the ACLU's misinterpretation of the Constitution and its anti-Christian bent:

Absolutists have warped the intended protection of freedom of religion to freedom from religion. And, as with most extremist and slippery-slope arguments, they've provoked exactly the kind of reaction they claim to fear. These ACLU-provoked fights over prayer in schools, the Ten Commandments and creches in the town square helped whet the growing political consciousness of the Christian right. An ACLU legal bulletin claims that Supreme Court doctrine on the Establishment Clause forbids not only state practices that 'aid one religion . . . or prefer one religion over another,' but also those practices that 'aid all religions' and thus endorse or prefer religion over nonreligion.' That dubious reading has found some support in the wilder reaches of the federal court system. The left coast's Ninth Circuit, for instance, famously tried to ban the words 'under God' from the pledge of allegiance last year. The problem isn't just the ACLU's oddball principles: Its enforcement regime is selective and agenda-oriented. When the University of North Carolina made the Koran required reading a few years ago, the ACLU issued not a peep. New York City has carved a narrow path by allowing menorahs and crescents but not manger scenes.

I also find it very disturbing that Christianity alone is banned from the public square, while towns make a big deal of Menorahs (and signs of other faiths). Since I'm Jewish, I would be very unhappy if the 85% of Christians in this country, instead of simply demanding (appropriately) that they be allowed back into the public square, begin to talk of removing Jews from that same forum. After all, given the way this is plahing out, it wouldn't be bizarre for Christians to perceive this ACLU action, not as purely secular lunacy interpreted by bewildered municipalities, but as an attempt to promote Judaism at Christianity's expense. (Call it the law of unintended consequences.)