Supreme Court poves Tom Cruise is wrong

Last night I tuned into the unwatchable Keith Olbermann show which happened to be re-broadcasting an argument between well known psychiatry experts Matt Lauer and Tom Cruise. As I watched I started laughing to myself. Watching these two argue about the worth of psychiatric therapy and drugs, I had this visual of the dopey Joey character from Friends arguing with the equally dopey Kramer character from Seinfeld about the impact of nuclear medicine on cancer patients. Tom Cruise was adamant about the futility of psychiatric treatment and drug use to control depression or any other mental illness – you can trust Tom, he once played a Dr. in the movies. The most instructive part of the whole thing was when Olbermann came back, he disclosed that he’d been in therapy since the late 80s – apparently making little progress and boosting Cruise’s whole argument – and explaining a lot about Olbermann’s…uhmmmm…“condition.” That was all could stand and flipped the channel to something more educational, like Johnny Bravo.

Then the TV started going spazo with Supreme Court decisions on this and that. There were two decisions that I’m sure would have Tom Cruise re-thinking his position on the benefit of mind altering drugs. In what can only be called a fit of schizophrenia the SC handed down two decisions on the Ten Commandments that say the commandments can be outside the courthouse but not inside, can be displayed with other “historic documents” but not alone, can be on and in old buildings but not new ones, can be in the bible witnesses swear on in the courtroom but not on the courtroom wall, are OK if considered a work of art but not if the display is too kitsch. In short they decided nothing. They have said, “We’ll decide these things on a case by case basis.”

It’s hard for me to understand what is so mysterious about the words, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The clause clearly has the intent of keeping government out of religion not religion out of government. The key to the clause is that the government may not coerce one to any religious point of view. It is not a guarantee that one will never be confronted with religion. There is nothing in there or anywhere else in the constitution about “separation of church and state.” Now if 66 senators and 38 states think that the words “separation of church and state” belong somewhere in the constitution, they are free to purse an amendment to that affect. This issue points out the dilemma activist courts pose. It’s impossible for the legislative branch, which best reflects the will of the people, to amend the constitution every time some nutball former ambulance chaser decides that by golly the constitution does say that Mayor Dope can seize your property and give it to his cousin to open a McDonald’s.