Welcome To the Christian Theocracy Called The United States of America (1 Viewer)

[Huntn]

It’s just a matter of time …if certain people get their way:
Evidence from 2022:

U.S. Supreme Court takes aim at separation of church and state​

U.S. Supreme Court takes aim at separation of church and state

The conservative-majority U.S. Supreme Court has chipped away at the wall separating church and state in a series of new rulings, eroding American legal traditions intended to prevent government officials from promoting any particular faith.

www.reuters.com

WASHINGTON, June 28 (Reuters) - The conservative-majority U.S. Supreme Court has chipped away at the wall separating church and state in a series of new rulings, eroding American legal traditions intended to prevent government officials from promoting any particular faith.

In three decisions in the past eight weeks, the court has ruled against government officials whose policies and actions were taken to avoid violating the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment prohibition on governmental endorsement of religion - known as the "establishment clause."
The court on Monday backed a Washington state public high school football coach who was suspended by a local school district for refusing to stop leading Christian prayers with players on the field after games. read more
On June 21, it endorsed taxpayer money paying for students to attend religious schools under a Maine tuition assistance program in rural areas lacking nearby public high schools. read more
On May 2, it ruled in favor of a Christian group that sought to fly a flag emblazoned with a cross at Boston city hall under a program aimed at promoting diversity and tolerance among the city's different communities. read more

• Is seperation of church and state a real thing? YES, it is, the Establishment Clause and a famous statement from Thomas Jefferson that the Establishment Clause is the wall between Church and State.
• But then there are certain Christians who think that freedom of religion means freedom to shove your religion down other people’s throats. When it actually means freedom to practise your religion, not shoving it down other people’s throats, and for the other half, freedom from religion.

 

[Huntn]

This has already been proposed in Ohio, so be aware that Christian Nationalists are looking to replace guidance counselors in school. Further in the thread she highlights how ethical pastors are pushing back on this effort - kudos to them.

Hopefully the Pagans will swarm them.

 

[Booker]

Hopefully the Pagans will swarm them.

Druid Priestess? Hmmm…

 

[MT15]

This is certainly chilling. Christian Nationalists see a nation closer to Iran than our current US.

 

[MT15]

 

[fooferdoggie]

This is certainly chilling. Christian Nationalists see a nation closer to Iran than our current US.

the worst part it has nothing to do with christ.

 

[MT15]

More:

 

[MT15]

Article.

 

[superchuck500]

This is certainly chilling. Christian Nationalists see a nation closer to Iran than our current US.

Oh that pesky establishment clause

 

[MT15]

Oh that pesky establishment clause

How will that stop them? What’s the mechanism for it to stop them in a Trump Administration?

 

[brandon]

Oh that pesky establishment clause

Yea, because constitutional clauses have been so effective at protecting the country thus far.

 

[Booker]

Yea, because constitutional clauses have been so effective at protecting the country thus far.

Indeed, the Emoluments Clause, for example.

 

[coldseat]

Article.

It's almost like they had to create their own "DEEP STATE" to fight the imagined "liberal deep state" they've created and are so scared of.

 

[superchuck500]

Yea, because constitutional clauses have been so effective at protecting the country thus far.

Like which ones? Section 3 that has never been applied to a president, never reviewed by the Supreme Court, and only used eight times and only once since 1872?

The establishment clause (and its counterpart the Free exercise clause) has been applied hundreds of times to invalidate state action or law at the district and appellate level, and has been discussed at length by the Court in scores of cases.

 

[brandon]

Like which ones? Section 3 that has never been applied to a president, never reviewed by the Supreme Court, and only used eight times and only once since 1872?

Yes, exactly like that one.

The establishment clause (and its counterpart the Free exercise clause) has been applied hundreds of times to invalidate state action or law at the district and appellate level, and has been discussed at length by the Court in scores of cases.

Not with this court.

 

[MT15]

Sorry, Chuck. I’m not buying that this SCOTUS will protect our freedoms. They won’t. They will give them up. They’re already doing it.

They just totally made up a whole new procedure to avoid actually applying the Constitution as written. They will do so again.

 

[superchuck500]

Not with this court.

Sure it has.

"To be sure, this Court has long held that government may not, consistent with a historically sensitive understanding of the Establishment Clause, 'make a religious observance compulsory.' [citation omitted]. Government 'may not coerce anyone to attend church,' ibid., nor may it force citizens to engage in 'a formal religious exercise,' [citation omitted]. No doubt, too, coercion along these lines was among the foremost hallmarks of religious establishments the framers sought to prohibit when they adopted the First Amendment . . . . But in this case [the appellant's] private religious exercise did not come close to crossing any line one might imagine separating protected private expression from impermissible government coercion."

. . .

In addition, a government official may not use the right to free exercise of religion as an end-run around the establishment clause: "Our cases offer some helpful guidance for resolving this question. In Garcetti, the Court concluded that a prosecutor’s internal memorandum to a supervisor was made 'pursuant to [his] official duties,' and thus ineligible for First Amendment protection. [citation ommitted]. In reaching this conclusion, the Court relied on the fact that the prosecutor’s speech 'fulfill[ed] a responsibility to advise his supervisor about how best to proceed with a pending case.' Ibid. In other words, the prosecutor’s memorandum was government speech because it was speech the government 'itself ha[d] commissioned or created' and speech the employee was expected to deliver in the course of carrying out his job. [citation ommitted]".

Where a government employee is engaging in personal/private speech, the employee has First Amendment rights, but where the speech or action is in the direct performance of the official's government duties, it is thus on behalf of the government and does not enjoy First Amendment free speech protection. And where the speech or action is coercive in its effect to impose or endorse religion, in a manner that is consistent with the Court's and nation's history in marking the boundary between personal/private religion and coercive government endorsement, it violates the establishment clause.

Kennedy v. Bremberton School Dist., 142 S. Ct. 2407 (2022)(Gorsuch).

 

[MT15]

They’re just waiting on the right case to rise to them, just like Roe. Just like the baker in CO. This court is hopelessly compromised, IMO.

 

[superchuck500]

They’re just waiting on the right case to rise to them, just like Roe. Just like the baker in CO. This court is hopelessly compromised, IMO.

If you go back and read academic legal discussion of Roe v. Wade over the 40 years leading up to Dobbs, there was always significant question as to the rationale. Yes, a majority supported it and as an expression of the individual rights of women to be just as free as men in the American life, it seemed not only appropriate but necessary. But the constitutional framework of the decision was always precarious - there is no express right to an abortion in the Constitution, there is no express right to privacy in the Constitution, and substantive due process has its questions. Even the most ardent supporters of the decision recognize that certain result-oriented leaps had to be made. And certainly the Court can do that and has done that in various contexts, but it also means that those precedents are easier to overturn.

There are no such gaps in the origin, purpose, history, and effect of the establishment clause - which was the product of an experience as fundamental as any in the foundation of America, the rejection of the European model of state-sponsored religion as the backbone of tyranny. Thomas Jefferson said there must be a "a wall of separation" between religious leaders and governance. James Madison wrote at length about how the fundamental purpose of "exempting" religion from government is to prohibit the "spiritual tyranny" of a majority religion upon the "ruins of civil society."

The express language forbids the establishment of religion in government. Yes, the conservative Court of the past 20 years has taken a new tack with respect to expressions of religion in the context of government settings (e.g. schools and town meetings) but those cases invariably involve the free exercise clause - and the Court's view that the establishment clause had become the dominant force in the series of three rights contained in the amendment . . . and had basically eaten the other two whenever it was in play. Instead, the Court has held that individual, non-official expressions (exercises of religion) cannot be suppressed in the name of the establishment clause.

But there has been no dilution of the idea that official government acts and policies cannot compel religion or be founded principally in religion to the result of coercing the public to that end. There may be weak spots where things like an individual's prayer, or a passive message become allowed in the name of free exercise over establishment. And a policy that draws much support from religious viewpoint isn't necessarily a coercive religious doctrine when it can it can just as easily be expressed in secular, legal forms (such as the debate about "life").

But this idea that there will be a form of formalized Christian law imposed on Americans is impossible to reconcile with the establishment clause and all of the force that goes along with it.