Funny, but had just read an essay in the FFRF "Freethought Today' about the Supreme Court. [nytimes.com] The author is a FFRF member. In the report Scalia, the one real christian villain, was touted and shown as making decisions that actually supported our cause. "But to say that a nondiscriminatory religious practice exemption is permitted, or even that it is desirable, is not to say that it is constitutionally required, and that the appropriate occasions for its creation can be discerned by the courts. It may fairly be said that leaving accommodation to the political process will place at a relative disadvantage those religious practices that are not widely engaged in; but that unavoidable consequence of democratic government must be preferred to a system in which each conscience is a law unto itself or in which judges weigh the social importance of all laws against the centrality of all religious beliefs.”."..I thought Justice Scalia had it right 29 years ago, and I think his opinion is even more relevant today, when claims for conscience-based carve-outs from legal requirements are rampant and are being granted by the courts and the executive branch with little regard for the harm these exemptions cause to third parties." In other words the impact on the many has to be preferred to the impact on the few.

Point being Scalia became more radical and his catholic fundamentalism grew as he aged. Age and conservatism seem to go hand-in-hand.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to include this on the site. I was wondering how I could do it.

Your conversation with your dad, especially his reply, "those who didn't would be sent to hell." reminds me of this meme (this is me trying to find humour in a tough situation).

I’m shook… Stay strong, for your child.

Very sad when it's family have the same thing