Judge Gray Miller dealt the Freedom from Religion Foundation yet another setback by declaring that just because you are a politician, doesn't mean the entire 1st Amendment doesn't apply to you. As usual, the FRF was trying to impose its values through censorship and oppression of all religion by filing a lawsuit against Governor Rick Perry, who later plans on attending a prayer and fasting service. This is the same group that tried - and failed - to file a lawsuit stopping President Obama from attending the National Day of Prayer.
Basically, these are the folks who act like the kid who insists everyone play his game, and when they won't, screams, hollers, yells, cries, and pulls his hair. Fortunately, it looks like some of the courts might be waking up to the fact that groups like these are not trying to promote liberty and freedom for all, but are attempting to find loopholes in the existing interpretation of the Constitution in order to strip away the Constitutional rights of all those who don't believe and think they way they demand they should.
Elsewhere, Secularists for a Totalitarian State were dealt another blow when a judge in, of all places, California actually decided that they can't allow a measure on the ballot that would ban circumcision. This drew the ire of folks, especially when pro-ban forces published materials reminding one of 1930s anti-Semitic propaganda. Now this could be because of the atmosphere in California right now. After all, gay rights groups have been screaming about Prop 8 since it passed, saying just because you have enough votes is no reason to strip away people's rights (even if the Constitution is vague on the actual issue of gay marriage). It then would be difficult to imagine turning around and pushing for an initiative that would more or less ban the freedom of religion based upon the same idea of majority rule. Of course the majority may have voted against it. But I can see that tipping the double-standard scale against those protesting Prop 8.
Of course the Judge in this case said that the state, not the city, has the right to do such things. And also mentioned that pesky 1st Amendment again, that a growing number of post-modern ignoramuses believes says Congress shall impose separation of church and state in order to establish a secular nation. When in fact it says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF. Though things look bleak for America's future, it is nice to know there are folks who read the Constitution and realize yeah, before we give rights to people based on what the Constitution never said, we should at least make sure we are protecting the rights of people based on what it clearly said in black and white.