Supreme Court Destroying Mythical Separation Of Church And State Or Something

There are just so, so, so many hot takes on abortion, they keep coming and coming, like

Abortion returns to the states, but states can’t make gun decisions? This is the Trump Court.

Abortion doesn’t appear in the Constitution; guns do. While the 1st Amendment was meant to apply to the federal congress, meaning that states could, in fact, limit what is mentioned in the 1st, the other 9 original Amendments applied to the entire Republic. Anyhow, here’s a hot take on religion rulings

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

Bill Of RightsThe 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.

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.

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.

Too bad there’s not a law that people have to read and understand the U.S. Constitution before opining on it. There is no separation of church and state. That derives from a letter from President Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, and what he meant was that government should not be promoting one specific branch of Christianity over another. Jefferson remembered the influence of the Church of England on the British government, which is where the “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” part comes from. It’s the very first thing the Bill of Rights says. Meaning government shall not take sides in religion, and shall not pick one over another (back then it was about Christian denominations). Nor will it declare one as the true one over others.

If they wanted to provide taxpayer money to religious schools, it would be fine, as long as it made it available to all. And Maine’s Constitution is similar. If they are going to make this money available, and the parents want to send their kids to those schools, there should be no problem. The government is not endorsing religion, they are not establishing it.

The very next part of the 1st Amendment states “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”. Meaning, government cannot interfere, and it doesn’t matter if the person in question is a public employee on government land. The coach was not forcing players to pray, and the players who did participate did so voluntarily and willingly, as they stated in court. Interestingly, though, the Washington Constitution may actually preclude what the coach did, stating

SECTION 11 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. Absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief and worship, shall be guaranteed to every individual, and no one shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state. No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise or instruction, or the support of any religious establishment: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, That this article shall not be so construed as to forbid the employment by the state of a chaplain for such of the state custodial, correctional, and mental institutions, or by a county’s or public hospital district’s hospital, health care facility, or hospice, as in the discretion of the legislature may seem justified. No religious qualification shall be required for any public office or employment, nor shall any person be incompetent as a witness or juror, in consequence of his opinion on matters of religion, nor be questioned in any court of justice touching his religious belief to affect the weight of his testimony. [AMENDMENT 88, 1993 House Joint Resolution No. 4200, p 3062. Approved November 2, 1993.]

A direct reading could mean that there are no prayers on public property. But, no one seems to argue what the state constitutions say.

As for the flag, if Boston city hall is going to allow some flags, they really have to allow all. Flying the LGBTwhatever flag? Nothing wrong with the religion flag. If someone wants to fly an Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, etc flag, sure. Perhaps the city should simply not allow flags other than the American, state, and city ones. Just stay neutral. Easy peasey.

In Monday’s ruling, conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that the court’s aim was to prevent public officials from being hostile to religion as they navigate the establishment clause. Gorsuch said that “in no world may a government entity’s concerns about phantom violations justify actual violations of an individuals First Amendment rights.”

And therein lies the problem, leftist government being hostile to 1st Amendment rights.

It was President Thomas Jefferson who famously said in an 1802 letter that the establishment clause should represent a “wall of separation” between church and state. The provision prevents the government from establishing a state religion and prohibits it from favoring one faith over another.

In the three recent rulings, the court decided that government actions intended to maintain a separation of church and state had instead infringed separate rights to free speech or the free exercise of religion also protected by the First Amendment.

This Reuters news piece actually is better than normal reporting, as it actually delves into details, not just a one sided view

But, as liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the Maine case, such an approach “leads us to a place where separation of church and state becomes a constitutional violation.”

She’s read the Constitution, right? The U.S. one, not those of other nations.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

22 Responses to “Supreme Court Destroying Mythical Separation Of Church And State Or Something”

  1. alanstorm says:

    Liberals getting everything backwards and upside down?


    Say it ain’t so!

  2. The catholic but not Catholic Elwood P. Dowd says:

    Dammit ta hell, we’re a Christian nation! Separation of Christianity and State is a myth!
    Time for all these minority Jews, Muslims, agnostics, atheists, Hindus, Buddhists need to realize this.

    Christianity in America is losing members and needs government assistance now. Fortunately, churches don’t have to pay taxes, so there’s that benefit separating the Christian church and State. If taxpayers sued to make churches pay taxes would the SCROTUS take up that case, LOL?

    The courts now allow taxpayer monies to support parents who choose to send their children to Christian schools. And now gov’t teachers/coaches can lead their charges in Muslim, Jewish and even Christian prayers and “chants”.

  3. The catholic but not Catholic Elwood P. Dowd says:

    Amendment I

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    It seems the authors created the Amendments to be open to interpretation, hence the need for the Supreme Court.

    Do you think “no law respecting an establishment of religion” means we can’t discriminate against non-christian religions?

  4. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    In NC a residential service and repair company fired an atheist employee for refusing to take part in mandatory christian prayer sessions.

    Can a private business force its religious beliefs on employees? If you answer “yes” as the SCROTUS likely would, would you agree with an atheist CEO forcing his employees to NOT wear crosses or display any christian activities? What if a Muslim CEO forced her employers to attend Islamic services?

    • L.G.Brandon!, L.G.Brandon! says:

      What’s SCROTUS? Can private business force its political beliefs on employees? How about its environmental beliefs? Can they deny their employees the RTKABA?

      What do you think Herr Dowd?


      • Professor Hale says:

        According to previous courts, not only can private businesses force their religion on employees, one religion (LGTBQ) can even force non-employees to bake their damned cakes.

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        Herr Kye,

        SCROTUS is the acronym for Supreme Catholic Reactionaries of the US.

        Personally, I think a business should be able to discriminate based on religion. Anyone who believes in gods is out of touch with reality. Past Courts disagree with me, carving out special rules for religion.

        Any business can regulate the presence of firearms on their premises, don’t you agree?

    • david7134 says:

      Your story of the firing of an atheist smells. There is more to that than you are telling or know. It is a violation of civil rights for this guys religious attitude to be a factor in termination.

  5. Professor Hale says:

    More straw men from the straw party.

    All of those issues were already asked and answered. If the democratic party activists hadn’t tried to run everything to extremes, this case would never have gone to court.

    There will eventually be backlashes on LGBTQ and race issues too. Compromise, tolerance and balance are essential to divided societies living in peace. That fact that a 1% minority in this country has been allowed to flourish to the point where they hold nearly 50% of political power and 90% of cultural power in this country should be all the proof you need of how tolerant the 99% is.

    Just like if Democratic party activists hadn’t tried to make infanticide legal, ROE would still be standing.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      Sounds professorial bullshit. Can you give specific examples of Democratic party activists trying to legalize infanticide (the actual killing of born infants)?

      • Professor Hale says:

        Just go Google something yourself, then post a long cut-paste from Wiki and then ignore it yourself. Skip the middle man. You have nothing to say on any topic that I care about. You have never accepted anyone’s specific examples nor have you ever answered anyone else’s requests that you provide any evidence for the things you write. I have better things to do.

        • UnkleC says:

          As do I. I usually attempt to adhere with my ‘don’t argue with idiots policy’ [they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience], but occasionally the topic and conversation is too tempting.

      • CarolAnn says:

        That’s what you say. I say if you kill an infant after 24 weeks when they are considered viable you killed a baby. It’s not hard unless you’re a ghoul. Your abortion clinics murder viable babies daily. Yet if a guy were to stab a woman and kill her baby he’d be charged with murder. Can ya explain that? You don’t have to be “born” to be a baby”. When your wife was pregnant did you and she tell everyone you were having a baby or a fetus? WE are all well aware of the different stages of life and human development but it takes a certain sort to deny humanity to a baby one minute before he enters our world.

        • Professor Hale says:

          Wasting your keystrokes. In addition to absolutely nothing original being written on this topic since before the invention of the internet, Jeff is a typical intolerant bigot. There is no argument you could make that will convince him nor is there any argument he could make that would convince you. Thus… no point in dialog. Jeff either enjoys being angry, or enjoys making you angry. Either way, it’s a dehumanizing experience for you both for you to engage him. You can do as you like.

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:


          I agree with you! So what’s the argument about? Both Casey and Roe had “abortion on demand” but before 20 weeks or viability.

          Almost all abortions are performed before 12 weeks.

          I don’t think your understand the issue at all.

      • david7134 says:

        Several Dem activists have advocated for late term abortion. But you would not know that as you obviously are not up on current affairs. One prominent individual that desired killing children was the previous governor of Virginia in a TV interview and I think he was a pediatrician. But his statement even included children immediate post delivery. As the prof said, if the Dems had just accepted some reasonable compromise, then this issue would have been put to rest. Also as he said, there will be give and take and things will settle out. Here in Louisiana a judge has nullified the draconian measures of our elimination of abortion.

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          porter david,

          I don’t think you understand the stats on abortions.

          Few abortions are performed late in a pregnancy unless there’s a legit medical reason.

          Almost all abortions are performed inside of 12 weeks.

          • david7134 says:

            I think that of the two of us, I know considerably more about abortions than you, I have ordered them on women who would not live otherwise. But that is not what you asked, maybe you should check that out first, dumb shit.

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            david porter,

            Did you ever perform late term abortions other than to save the life of the woman?

  6. L.G.Brandon!, L.G.Brandon! says:

    “Here in Louisiana a judge has nullified the draconian measures of our elimination of abortion.’

    All that means is state judges are legislating from the bench. That’s how this all got started.

Pirate's Cove