Bill of Rights, Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Last November, New Yorker Andrea Skoros noted that her kids' schools had quite a collection of holiday religious symbolism on display: The Muslim crescent and star, the Jewish Menorah, Christmas trees. She thought something was clearly missing:

I just think that if you're going to put up religious symbols, then you have to respect all religions. If you have Jewish and Muslim symbols, then it's not enough for Catholics to have a Christmas tree. We should be able to display the Nativity scene, too.

Not so fast, responded her local school, you can't put a nativity scene on display. That would be religious! So, like a good American, Ms. Skoros took it to court.

The school system's response was at once original, telling, tragic, and hilarious. According to the Thomas Moore Law Center, who is handling the case:

The historical fact of the birth of Jesus was denied by the New York School system in pleadings filed with a federal court to justify their total ban on Christmas Nativity displays in New York’s public schools. New York’s legal briefs disputed the claim that the Nativity scene depicts a historical event, and that this event is the basis for the celebration of Christmas.

So New York City schools are therefore sure, by implication, the Jewish temple lamp did remain miraculously aflame, that the angel Gabriel did, in fact, tell Mohammad that Jews and Christians alter and corrupt their scriptures as needed, and that Jesus was never born?

Since when was it NY public schools role to decide the veracity of events alleged by different religions? And, if so, with a ban on display as the penalty (so they allege, after the fact), why was only Christianity singled out as false? By doing such, the school systems took an official position on which religions, and religious symbols, were acceptable.

The other argument offered by NY public schools is that the Menorah and Crescent and Star were, somehow, "secular" symbols.

Well, goodness, if these symbols are "secular" then why on earth did they just happen to be displayed to commemorate the holidays (from "holy days") of Hanukkah and Ramadhan? Why not display a Nike shoe or Mount Rushmore? Those are "secular" too.

Well, now Judge Sifton has ruled:

A New York Federal Judge ruled Wednesday that it is constitutionally permissible for the New York City Department of Education to ban the display of the Christian Nativity during Christmas, while permitting the display of the Jewish Menorah and the Islamic Star and Crescent during Hanukkah and Ramadan.

And, oh, what a creative bit of reasoning we have, apparently with a bit of personal invective tossed in. First, it appears he agreed with NY public schools as to which symbols were secular.

Secondly, and most interestingly, he has apparently alleged this is constitutional because the state has an interest in promoting certain religions over others!

The judge held it was constitutionally permissible for the City to promote non-Christian displays over Christian ones as a way to reduce what he perceived to be a dominance of Christian images during the winter holiday season. According to the opinion, the holiday displays in question were to be reviewed as perceived by children, “but not one hyper-sensitive Catholic child.”

The judge noted that this country “is still by and large Christian.” Therefore, he stated, “Without a diversity policy a winter holiday display in New York City’s public schools would be dominated by images representative of Christmas, as is true in most residential and commercial areas of the City. Efforts to inject variety into the winter holiday season have had the beneficial consequence of making both Chanukah and Ramadan more familiar to the public. . . . It is clear that the [City’s] policy is simply an attempt to diversify the season and provide non-Christian holidays with parity in the school-sponsored holiday displays.”

Why is my jaw spending so much time on the floor these days?

Since when, again, was it the role of the Federal government to decide how many people should be a member of each religion, and thus allow or prohibit expression from or free exercise of each in order to achieve "parity"?

Where was that in the constitution again, Judge Sifton?

Good heavens, next thing you know the Federal Courts will be funding or otherwise promoting Scientology and Islam, by name, because they don't yet claim "enough" adherants.

According to Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, “This federal judge has explicitly stated what Christians have feared for a long time: courts consider discrimination against Christians as legitimate because they are in the majority. Thus, in the name of ‘diversity,’ and ‘parity’ for non-Christian religions, judges find it constitutionally permissible to discriminate against Christians. Our Founding Fathers would no doubt be surprised by this conclusion.”

A stunning piece of legal reasoning. If a judge like this can kiss this portion of the Bill of Rights goodbye, based on his religious "feelings", then which part goes next?

In truth, they don't need the others ones to go. The first ammendment is the only one that ever really mattered. The others are mere formalities.