The Slate article nicely sums up why the arguments in favor of the program are baloney:
- it's constitutional--in fact, it isn't clear that the Supreme Court precedent really would protect this program, particularly in light of more recent cases and the current makeup of the court;
- it's religious persecution to prohibit it--now a favorite argument of the Christian right, the fact is that adhering to the principle of religious neutrality is the height of NON-persecution, of Christians and everyone else;
- the majority want it--except that the "constitution is subject to neither majority rule nor to popular recall [of elected officials." Slate goes on: "programs can be popular and still be unconstitutional."
- it's nondenominational--well, no it's not; it's Christian, and furthermore it's Protestant;
- it's noncoercive--this is the one that the conservatives just don't get, because they are just incapable of seeing any issue from anyone else's perspective; "it's naive to believe that indoctrination [of one group] doesn't affect the outsiders."
Note: This post is closed to further comment because of inappropriate anonymous remarks. To "Anonymous"--either summon the courage to sign your name to your comments or feel free to start your own blog.