Friday, June 26, 2015

Obergefell v. Hodges

Today the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that ham has a constitutional right to be kosher.
Any business that refuses to confess that ham is kosher can now be shut down by the government, and the owner will lose everything she has worked for her entire life.

Every single person who signed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and every single person who was present in the state Constitutional ratifying conventions, believed that homosexuality was contrary to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." No agency of the federal government should say that two men can be "married." No state government or agency should be compelled by the Federal Government to confess that a homosexual relationship is a "marriage."

In centuries of Anglo-American common law history, up until 2003, courts have unanimously acknowledged that marriage is an institution created by God, not by government. In 1913, the Texas Supreme Court reflected the views of the Founding Fathers when it declared: "Marriage was not originated by human law."

Choosing the Path of Coercion
The Court could have ruled that every federal agency is free to acknowledge as "married" anyone who claims to be "married" even without any license from any state to that effect. This would have been a "libertarian" solution to the conflict. Instead, the Court decided to use coercion to compel states to confess that two men can be "married," contrary to the democratic will of the People expressed through referenda and legislatures, contrary to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," and contrary to the Constitution, which without doubt by any sane and educated person, did not give the U.S. Supreme Court authority to compel states to confess that two men can be "married."

I admit I have not yet read the Court's full opinion:

Nor have I read Justice Scalia's dissent:

I'll probably enjoy the latter more than the former.
Here are a few notable quotes from the Court Syllabus:

"A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. See, e.g., Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples." p.3

The Court claims that a cultural revolution has occurred, such that same-sex "marriage" is now recognized culturally, and the Court should give its imprimatur to the new cultural consensus. But here the Court says that unless it compels states to legally bless popular trends, children hijacked into same-sex "marriages" will suffer a "stigma." This is contradictory. The Court has already said that people don't think this way any more. That's how people thought back when America was a Christian nation. The Court is actually trying to compel a cultural consensus.

"The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs." p.2
" the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy." p.3
Marriage is not about "personal" or "individual autonomy."
Marriage is not about love.
Marriage is not about sex. Marriage is about God' creating human beings "male and female," as Jesus said (Matthew 19).
Marriage is about commitment to God's order.
"The Fourteenth Amendment requires States to recognize same sex marriages validly performed out of State. Since same-sex couples may now exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States, there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character. Pp. 27–28."
Not a single person alive in America when the 14th Amendment was proposed, debated and allegedly ratified, believed that the 14th Amendment conferred or was intended to confer upon the federal judiciary the authority to order states to repudiate God's institution of Marriage.
Dissenting Justice Clarence Thomas and wife Virginia Thomas

Thursday, June 18, 2015

Anarcho-Capitalism and Abortion

The biggest issue in the 2016 Presidential race will be whether the forces of smaller government can unite behind a single candidate to run against the candidate of the forces of bigger government.

"The forces of smaller government" are:

  1. Conservative Christians, a.k.a. "the religious right."
    • Believe abortion and homosexuality (etc.) must be eradicated.
  2. Secular libertarians -- I'll call them "anarcho-capitalists"
    • Don't care about, or even endorse, abortion and homosexuality (etc.).

Christian conservatives say they want smaller government, but they want a government big enough to fight abortionists, homosexuals, and Muslims.

Secular libertarians want smaller government, but they don't seem to care if mothers kill their own children, two (or more?) people of the same sex get "married," and don't realize that their secular worldview is no match for Islam.

Can these two groups agree on a candidate to run against the Big Government candidate?

If they don't, then the Republican candidate will either displease conservative Christians, who will stay at home rather than vote for another Mitt Romney who does not oppose abortion and homosexuality, or the Republican candidate will please social conservatives, but neo-conservatives (who despise conservative Christian morality) will vote for a hawk like Hillary, and secular libertarians will vote for Gary Johnson. Hillary will be crowned.

As it stands right now, I don't think Christians and libertarians can agree, and the reason is that conservatives -- even "Christian" conservatives -- do not really support smaller government.

Socially conservative Christians must become libertarians on the social issues: abortion, homosexuality, drugs, divorce, you name the "hot-button" issue. Only by moving toward the "anarchist" side of the political spectrum can these sins be eradicated.

In every case, Christian conservatives look to the government for solutions, forgetting that the government caused the problems in the first place, and will only make the problems worse.

Abortion is an interesting example. Millions of dollars have been spent by conservative Christians seeking government solutions to abortion. There is good reason to believe that the decline in abortion over the last decade does not represent an upsurge of Christian morality, but a decline in the "stigma" attached to out-of-wedlock births (which are now nearly "fashionable"), allowing single mothers to get support for the children they might otherwise have killed for convenience. This in turn suggests that Christians -- instead of giving loving support to unwed mothers -- gave them "stigma," and directed massive resources (which they might have employed in supporting unwed mothers and giving a Christian upbringing to their illegitimate children) to political lobbyists, to get laws passed which would, I suppose, put in prison mothers who kill their kids, or maybe have them executed. After they kill their kid.

Why is it that the mothers of 55 million babies since 1973 found the greedy, bloodthirsty abortion industry more attractive than Christians opening their heart, homes and wallets to support those children?

On this issue and issues like immigration, Christians have failed to follow the dictates of their religion, and have lobbied for bigger government.

Christian conservatives also tend to support the "war on terror," which is really a Big Government Program to suppress Islam -- unless the "war on terror" has nothing whatsoever to do with Islamic terrorists, but is solely about expanding U.S. corporate hegemony and propping up the Dollar as an international reserve currency. The size of our military and its anti-Christian character would have astounded America's Founders. Even if the architects of U.S. foreign policy are concerned about the spread of false religions, using government to aid in "The Great Commission" is unChristian. And destroying the true religion using the military is even worse. If the Biblical prophets spoke truth, we should expect God to do to us what we did to Iraq.

America is no longer a "City upon a Hill," as Jesus used that phrase. The United States is an imperialist war-monger state.

"Obamacare" is God's judgment on Christians, who have failed to carry out the "works of mercy" which are supposed to characterize Christians. Hospitals were built by Christians with Christian money. Modern Christians wanted government Medicare subsidies for their aging parents. Christians have given liberals an excuse to step in and give glory to the State. Christians alone could eliminate all health and welfare problems -- not only for other Americans, but for all the poor of the world. Prof. Ronald J. Sider notes;

If American Christians simply gave a tithe rather than the current one-quarter of a tithe, there would be enough private Christian dollars to provide basic health care and education to all the poor of the earth. And we would still have an extra $60-70 billion left over for evangelism around the world.”
Book Review: The Scandal Of The Evangelical Conscience - Acton Institute PowerBlog

But American Christians prefer a Frappuccino® and comfortable entertainment in their mega-churches. Let the government take care of the poor folks and the old folks.

Again, had Christians taken their responsibilities (and their financial power) seriously, advocates of "Obamacare" could never have gotten a foothold.

Further, the importance of providing education for all the poor of the earth should not be overlooked. Education is the foundation of Christian civilization. Global Christian education has staggering foreign policy implications. See the concept outlined on our Iraq page. Some Muslims understand this better than most Christians. See this extraordinary admission by Muslim leaders:

Do We Need to Go to War to Stop the Advance of Islam?

Sure, it's not easy to assume the financial responsibilities that come with obeying Christ when Caesar is working 24/7 to empty your pockets of everything you worked to earn. But the Bible says God sends Caesar and Pharaoh and Bush-Obama against the people that will not put God and His commandments first.

In every case, the institution we call "the State" or "civil government" eventually destroys Christian civilization.

  • The State has destroyed education (which was originally created to make sure everyone could read the Bible),
  • and healthcare,
  • the Military is at war with the family (causing divorce and suicide)
  • and tears the fabric of life at home and abroad
    • 675,000 veterans of these wars have been granted disability
    • More than 2 million American children have coped with a parent going to these wars
    • As many as one half million of those children may have become clinically depressed
    • The VA only began tracking war veteran suicides in 2008 even though rates now appear significantly higher than among comparable civilians
    • Unemployment rates have been two percentage points higher among war veterans than civilians
    • The military has increasingly off-loaded the burden of care for service members’ health onto their families, and mainly onto women
    • Sex crimes by active duty soldiers have tripled since 2003
    • The Army’s use of the determination that a soldier has a “pre-existing condition” has saved it over $12.5 billion
    • Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are 75 percent more likely to die in car crashes than comparable civilians
    • The United States destroyed the largest Christian community in the Arab world, overthrew a government that permitted open, public evangelism by Christians, and replaced it with an Islamic theocracy under Shariah law, and left millions of dollars in military hardware for ISIS.
  • The State is at war against Christian virtues.
  • Washington D.C. promotes and imposes abortion and homosexuality around the world.
  • The government is a model of violence as a solution to personal and social problems.
  • Christians err grievously by voting for the "lesser of two evils," which is each and every candidate who does not trumpet the truth that "power corrupts," and legalized violence is the cause of every problem and the solution to none.
From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?
In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.
-- President Ronald Reagan, First Inaugural Address

In no case is the government a better solution to social problems than Christians families, businesses, charities, and an army of voluntary associations, working outside the State, and sometimes against the State.

Christians need to realize that Radical libertarianism is the best way to advance socially conservative morality.

If you give the State an inch to do the work of the People of God, you give the State a mile to undercut it. Libertarians who do not oppose abortion and homosexuality -- but who actually oppose bigger government in practice -- do more to help Christians be "salt" and "light" and a "City upon a Hill," and therefore do more to end abortion and homosexuality than neo-conservative Republicans who solicit funds from the Christian Right with empty talk about "values." Christians should be libertarian with respect to political power; willing to endure accusations of trying to "impose a Theocracy" because we uphold a strong and clear moral standard. And above all, characterized by self-sacrificing love, which trusts in the Holy Spirit to change hearts.

Without a commitment to personal obedience and responsibility, it is all too likely that Christians in 2016 will once again vote for an Establishment Republican who promises government solutions to problems that can only be cured by Christians.

Please leave a comment if you can think of a social problem which is better solved (and was never caused in the first place) by the State, rather than by "the Church," that is, by Christians of every denomination who function as the Body of Christ.

How To Become a Christian Anarchist

We are not Christian anarchists because we do not want to obey God's Commandments. We are Christian anarchists because "archists" invented "the State" to evade God's Commandments.

The Conscience of an Anarchist [pdf] | Gary Chartier

Private Governance: Creating Order in Economic and Social Life | Edward Peter Stringham | anarchist blueprint newly published by Oxford University Press.

Monday, June 15, 2015

Your Magna Carta Reader

Today (June 15) is the 800th Anniversary of the signing of the "Magna Carta" in 1215.

If you went to a school approved by the government, you know next to nothing about this document.

Probably the main reason the government doesn't want you to know about it is that the document is an explicitly Christian document.

It is proof that "Western Civilization" is really "Christian Civilization."

Take an hour out to read up on history.

Magna Carta -- The text of the document

Why We Celebrate the Magna Carta --

The Forgotten Clauses of the Magna Carta - The American Vision

Free Association: "Magna Carta"

Happy 800th Birthday - Paul Craig Roberts

Legitimizing the State - The problem with a Charter (making an agreement) with the State

Here's a discussion I had on The Magna Carta and Christian Civilization with a Secular Humanist back in 1998:

The Liberty Window
At its initial meeting in September 1774 Congress invited the Reverend Jacob Duché (1738-1798), rector of Christ Church, Philadelphia, to open its sessions with prayer. Duché ministered to Congress in an unofficial capacity until he was elected the body's first chaplain on July 9, 1776. He defected to the British the next year. Pictured here in the bottom stained-glass panel is the first prayer in Congress, delivered by Duché. The top part of this extraordinary stained glass window depicts the role of churchmen in compelling King John to sign the Magna Carta in 1215.

The Prayer in the First Congress, A.D. 1774
Stained glass and lead, from The Liberty Window, Christ Church, Philadelphia, after a painting by Harrison Tompkins Matteson, c. 1848
Courtesy of the Rector, Church Wardens and Vestrymen of Christ Church, Philadelphia (101)

From The Library of Congress
"Religion and the Founding of the American Republic"

Subject: Re: Supreme Ct. and TenCommandments
Date: 05 Apr 1998 19:24:49 EDT

In article <>, (EDarr1776) writes:

>I pointed out that, contrary to Kevin's assertion, the Supreme Court did not
>say that the mere posting of the 10 Commandments on a school wall is
>forbidden, but rather that government officials may not order the posting for
>religious purposes.
>Kevin said: 
>>So are you saying that it is constitutional for a school to
>post copies
>of the 10 commandments? Have you read Stone v. Graham, 449 US 39?
>Sure doesn't sound like it.
>If a school were to post a series of codes that are illustrative of the
>heritage of U.S. law, and those codes were to include the 10 Commandments,
>the Court would probably let it stand.  The Court itself has such an
>historical display in the bas reliefs in its chambers.  If you include the
>Code of Hammurabi, the Koran, the Code Napoleonic, the works of Maimonides,
>the works of Solon -- sure, the Court would allow the Ten Commandments to be
>posted.  I
>have been in many schools that feature the American Legions "documents of
>freedom," including the Ten Commandments.  In context, it makes a lot of

Only if you're a Secular Humanist, who wants to deny the authority of the Christian religion. These codes contradict each other. Students are taught the lesson that they must make up their own religion as they go along. The Founders did not give equal weight to all religions. Some were "false," as Madison declared. The Constitution absolutely and unequivocally does not prohibit the states from teaching students that the Bible is the Word of God and other "writings" are not.

The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code. . . Vain indeed would be the search among the writings of profane antiquity . . . to find so broad, so complete, and so solid a basis for morality as this decalogue lays down.
John Quincy Adams, Letters of JQA to His Son on the Bible and its Teachings, (1850), pp. 70-71

Let divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots, unite their endeavors to renovate the age, by impressing the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls, of inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity. . . and, in subordination to these great principles, the love of their country. . . . In short, of leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system.
-- Sam Adams 1790 [To John Adams, who wrote back:
"You and I agree."]

One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is that Christianity is part of the Common Law. . . . There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying at its foundations. . . . I verily believe Christianity necessary to the support of civil society.
-- US Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story,
Founder of Harvard Law School

[T]he Holy Scriptures . . . can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability, and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase our penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses.
(James McHenry, Signer of Constitution, Sec'y of War)

>I haven't looked at Stone v. Graham for a few months -- but I don't
>think you will find anywhere the Court saying that posting such a code is, by
>itself, offensive.  

That is PRECISELY what the Court said. As you correctly surmised above, only by reducing God's Law to the same level as other "false" religions would the Court let the posting stand. The mind of man must be exalted above the Word of God, according to the Court.

>What is repugnant to the Constitution is the order that
>the Ten Commandments alone be posted, to illustrate the way kids should

How much better to have kids gunning each other down, as in Jonesboro, Ark.!! This thinking is repugnant to everything the Founders fought for. They would repudiate this thinking. They would consider your argument a danger to the Republic, just as Franklin urged Thomas Paine not to publish his scurrilous *Age of Reason.*

>I said earlier:  >It DID say that the state legislature may not order any
>>version of the Ten Commandments to be posted in every classroom of the
>>in order to promote Christianity.  <<
>Kevin said:  >>
Was it the purpose of Kentucky to "promote Christianity," or
>to make
>students aware of the foundations of Western Civilization? 
>     [T]he legislature required the following notation in small print at the
>     bottom of each display of the Ten Commandments: "The secular 
>     application of the Ten Commandments is clearly seen in its adoption 
>     as the fundamental legal code of Western Civilization and the Common 
>     Law of the United States." 1978 Ky. Acts, ch. 436, 1 (effective June 17, 
>     1978), Ky. Rev. Stat. 158.178 (1980).<<<
>It's always been curious to me why Kentucky refused to acknowledge the
>influence of the Magna Carta on U.S. law, 

The Magna Charta? Do you even know the basic issue behind the Magna Charta?

>claiming that the 10 Commandments
>was essentially the only influence.  

"Only?" No such claim was made. It clearly was the "fundamental" influence in Western Law. Not Buddha, not Solon. Why is this so difficult for you infidels to understand? KY did not "refuse" to acknowledge the Magna Charta. But if you had limited wall space in a classroom, would you post the Ten Commandments, or the Magna Charta? Well, fortunately, Kentucky didn't ask you. But even if they had, the result would have been "unconstitutional":

Harvard Prof. Harold Berman:

In 1208 Pope Innocent III placed all England under interdict and excommunicated King John, threatening to depose him and give his crown to Philip Augustus of France. The reason was John's refusal to accept the pope's nominee as Archbishop of Caterbury. "England groaned under the interdict." Churches remained closed for years. King John counterattacked by putting his own men in clerical offices, but he ultimately submitted; in fact he gave England to the pope and received it back as a feif, swearing an oath of vassalage and agreeing to send a yearly tribute to Rome. In 1215 King John, in the very first provision of Magna Carta, declared quod ecclesia Anglicana libera sit -- "that the English Church be free" -- which meant, of course, free under the papacy from control by kings or barons. Law and Revolution, pp. 262-63

The right and duty to disobey the divinely appointed king-autocrat when he violates fundamental law was based on the belief that that fundamental law was itself divinely instituted. Popes and kings made laws, but they did so as deputies of God; not they themselves but "God is the source of all law." Thus the concept of the rule of law was supported by the prevailing religious ideology. 
Law & Revolution, p. 293

Now, as I see it, the basic debate on this board is this: I say that the civil government has a duty to conform to Biblical/Christian principles. You say the state has an obligation to be secular. The Magna Charta is CLEARLY not on your side, but on the side of Kentucky and the Ten Commandments.

Shall we read the document?

THE MAGNA CARTA (The Great Charter):

John, by the grace of God,

Ooops, fails the Lemon Test already

king of England, lord of Ireland, duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and count of Anjou, to the archbishop, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justiciaries, foresters, sheriffs, stewards, servants, and to all his bailiffs and liege subjects, greetings. Know that, having regard to God and for the salvation of our soul,

oh dear . . .

and those of all our ancestors and heirs, and unto the honor of God and the advancement of his holy Church

how embarrassing . . .

and for the rectifying of our realm, we have granted as underwritten by advice of our venerable fathers, [names withheld] of Master Pandulf, subdeacon and member of the household of our lord the Pope . . . .

1. In the first place we have granted to God, and by this our present charter confirmed for us and our heirs forever that the English Church shall be free, and shall have her rights entire, and her liberties inviolate; and we will that it be thus observed; which is apparent from this that the freedom of elections, which is reckoned most important and very essential to the English Church, we, of our pure and unconstrained will, did grant, and did by our charter confirm and did obtain the ratification of the same from our lord, Pope Innocent III, before the quarrel arose between us and our barons: and this we will observe, and our will is that it be observed in good faith by our heirs forever. We have also granted to all freemen of our kingdom, for us and our heirs forever, all the underwritten liberties, to be had and held by them and their heirs, of us and our heirs forever.

All the rights subsequently guaranteed are stated in order to establish the proper church and ensure that God's Law is followed.

Some of the rights are curious:

10. If one who has borrowed from the Jews any sum, great or small, die before that loan be repaid, the debt shall not bear interest while the heir is under age, of whomsoever he may hold; and if the debt fall into our hands, we will not take anything except the principal sum contained in the bond.
11. And if anyone die indebted to the Jews, his wife shall have her dower and pay nothing of that debt; and if any children of the deceased are left under age, necessaries shall be provided for them in keeping with the holding of the deceased; and out of the residue the debt shall be paid, reserving, however, service due to feudal lords; in like manner let it be done touching debts due to others than Jews.

But properly understood, they are not secular.

27. If any freeman shall die intestate, his chattels shall be distributed by the hands of his nearest kinsfolk and friends, under supervision of the Church, saving to every one the debts which the deceased owed to him.

45. We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or bailiffs only such as know the law of the realm and mean to observe it well.
46. All barons who have founded abbeys, concerning which they hold charters from the kings of England, or of which they have long continued possession, shall have the wardship of them, when vacant, as they ought to have.
48. All evil customs connected with forests and warrens, foresters and warreners, sheriffs and their officers, river banks and their wardens, shall immediately by inquired into in each county by twelve sworn knights of the same county chosen by the honest men of the same county, and shall, within forty days of the said inquest, be utterly abolished, so as never to be restored, provided always that we previously have intimation thereof, or our justiciar, if we should not be in England.

"Chosen by honest men" is a Scriptural concept.

54. No one shall be arrested or imprisoned upon the appeal of a woman, for the death of any other than her husband.

61. Since, moveover, for God and the amendment of our kingdom and for the better allaying of the quarrel that has arisen between us and our barons, we have granted all these concessions, desirous that they should enjoy them in complete and firm endurance forever, we give and grant to them the underwritten security,

62. And all the will, hatreds, and bitterness that have arisen between us and our men, clergy and lay, from the date of the quarrel, we have completely remitted and pardoned to everyone. Moreover, all trespasses occasioned by the said quarrel, from Easter in the sixteenth year of our reign till the restoration of peace, we have fully remitted to all, both clergy and laymen, and completely forgiven, as far as pertains to us. And on this head, we have caused to be made for them letters testimonial patent of the lord Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, of the lord Henry, archbishop of Dublin, of the bishops aforesaid, and of Master Pandulf as touching this security and the concessions aforesaid.
63. Wherefore we will and firmly order that the English Church be free, and that the men in our kingdom have and hold all the aforesaid liberties, rights, and concessions, well and peaceably, freely and quietly, fully and wholly, for themselves and their heirs, of us and our heirs, in all respects and in all places forever, as is aforesaid. An oath, moreover, has been taken, as well on our part as on the art of the barons, that all these conditions aforesaid shall be kept in good faith and without evil intent. Given under our hand - the above named and many others being witnesses - in the meadow which is called Runnymede, between Windsor and Staines, on the fifteenth day of June, in the seventeenth year of our reign.

>That's a silly position that not even
>you would defend, Kevin.  And it didn't wash with the Court.  Kentucky did
>not intend to make a secular display, as evidenced by their erroneous
>statement of history, and their completely ignoring other more relevant

No document is more relevant to "the fundamental legal code of Western Civilization and the Common Law of the United States."

>What about the Declaration of Independence?  What about the

Neither of those documents establishes whether and why killing, stealing, and raping are immoral and should be illegal.

>Kentucky's position was silly and indefensible, though I admit
>they wasted a lot of taxpayers' money trying to defend it.  

Words of a fool. The collapse of Western Civilization can be laid at your feet.

>Kevin said:  >>But of course, no matter what the state says its motivations
>are, the omniscient Sup Ct will impute evil motivations and say, "Oh, no,
>you're just doing that to  promote Christianity. BAD BOY!"<<<
>As with most of these cases, the conspiracy to put forth a phony set of
>motivations always fails.  If the legislature were concerned with the
>heritage of U.S. common law, why didn't they order a high school course in
>common law?  Their argument that third grade students needed to know the
>heritage of common law is guffaw-worthy.
>Do you seriously believe the legislature was worried about Western
>Civilization, Kevin?  

Western Civilization has pretty much been trashed by Secular Humanism. At this point, the biggest worry of Kentucky teachers is that some student who thinks he is god is going to gun them and a few students down. But the Legislature SAID they were worried about "Western Civilization," that's what the plaque below the Ten Commandments said (not "the Word of God" or anything religious), and it is outrageous that the Humanists on the Supreme Court imposed their religion on the schools of Kentucky.
The Constitution is dead meat, thanks to Secular Humanists.