February 24, 1993, in the U.S. Supreme Court. The case: Lamb’s Chapel and John Steigerwald v. Center Moriches Union Free School District. A group of Christians wanted to show a film after hours in a public facility. Apparently, religious hostility has reached the point in this nation where, because the content of that film was deemed “religious” by the State of N.Y., it posed a perceived danger sufficient to warrant spending tax dollars to litigate a case of this nature all the way to the highest court of the land.
Mr. Justice Scalia questioned the attorney for the school board:
Question: you are here representing both respondents [the school board and the state of N.Y.]... in this argument, and the Attorney General of N.Y., in his brief defending the N.Y. rule says that...’Religious advocacy serves the community only in the eyes of its adherent and yields a benefit only to those who already believe.’
Does New York State—I grew up in New York State and in those days they used to have a tax exemption for religious property. Is that still there?
Counsel: Yes, your Honor it still is.
Question: But they’ve changed their view, apparently, that—
Counsel: Well, your Honor—
Question: You see—it used to be thought that religion—it didn’t matter what religion, but it—some code of morality always went with it and was thought that...what was called a God-fearing person might be less likely to mug me and rape my sister. That apparently is not the view of New York anymore.
Counsel: Well I’m not sure that that’s —
Question: Has this new regime worked very well?
Quoted in Religious Cleansing in the American Republic, Keith A. Fournier, American Center for Law and Justice.