The Roberts Court takes aim at the Establishment Clause

[NWRatCon]

I recognize that there are other threads about the separation of church and state, but this is a specific piece about the current Court:

The Roberts Court takes aim at the Establishment Clause (Hill, Opinion)​

"The irony here is that at a time of growing secularism in American society, the current conservative majority on the court is becoming even more pro-religion, reversing decades-old precedents. Under Chief Justice John Roberts, the court has moved away from using the Establishment Clause to enforce a “high wall of separation” to protect non-Christians and non-believers; it now uses the Free Exercise Clause not simply to accommodate religion but to impose the religious views of a minority upon an emerging secular majority. Call this the “New Sectarianism.”"

What struck me particularly, was this statement: "Under the Roberts Court, there has not been a single case where claims of free exercise of religion have been rejected. The court has consistently defended the rights of an individual or minority to impose its religious views on a majority."

I went and looked, and the statement is correct. I could not find a single case refuting the claim, from Hobby Lobby forward. I think this should be of concern to everyone, religious or not. No one wins all of the time - except with this Supreme Court. Does the Establishment Clause still have meaning? Has the Supreme Choir simply written it out of the Constitution?

 

[noonereal]

I recognize that there are other threads about the separation of church and state, but this is a specific piece about the current Court:

The Roberts Court takes aim at the Establishment Clause (Hill, Opinion)​

"The irony here is that at a time of growing secularism in American society, the current conservative majority on the court is becoming even more pro-religion, reversing decades-old precedents. Under Chief Justice John Roberts, the court has moved away from using the Establishment Clause to enforce a “high wall of separation” to protect non-Christians and non-believers; it now uses the Free Exercise Clause not simply to accommodate religion but to impose the religious views of a minority upon an emerging secular majority. Call this the “New Sectarianism.”"

What struck me particularly, was this statement: "Under the Roberts Court, there has not been a single case where claims of free exercise of religion have been rejected. The court has consistently defended the rights of an individual or minority to impose its religious views on a majority."

I went and looked, and the statement is correct. I could not find a single case refuting the claim, from Hobby Lobby forward. I think this should be of concern to everyone, religious or not. No one wins all of the time - except with this Supreme Court. Does the Establishment Clause still have meaning? Has the Supreme Choir simply written it out of the Constitution?

The Constitution is in no small way a rag that should be desposed of.

That we think we should live as people though we should live 250 years ago is inane.
The document is so out of tough with life in 2023 that teh SCOTUS is nothing but the legislative branch of government today hell bent on retarding our position as a world leader.

 

[Fletch]

I recognize that there are other threads about the separation of church and state, but this is a specific piece about the current Court:

The Roberts Court takes aim at the Establishment Clause (Hill, Opinion)​

"The irony here is that at a time of growing secularism in American society, the current conservative majority on the court is becoming even more pro-religion, reversing decades-old precedents. Under Chief Justice John Roberts, the court has moved away from using the Establishment Clause to enforce a “high wall of separation” to protect non-Christians and non-believers; it now uses the Free Exercise Clause not simply to accommodate religion but to impose the religious views of a minority upon an emerging secular majority. Call this the “New Sectarianism.”"

What struck me particularly, was this statement: "Under the Roberts Court, there has not been a single case where claims of free exercise of religion have been rejected. The court has consistently defended the rights of an individual or minority to impose its religious views on a majority."

I went and looked, and the statement is correct. I could not find a single case refuting the claim, from Hobby Lobby forward. I think this should be of concern to everyone, religious or not. No one wins all of the time - except with this Supreme Court. Does the Establishment Clause still have meaning? Has the Supreme Choir simply written it out of the Constitution?

Give me an example of where an 'individual or minority has imposed its religious views on a majority.'

 

[Mr Person]

This is why 4-4-1 or 3-3-2 is needed. They lied and cheated to stack the Court with Federalist Society judges who've been groomed from law school on to put theocracy in law (in fact, the FS was created specifically to get judges on the bench who would overturn Roe no matter what). And now, The Court is doing as intended.

The idea that law was some esoteric and high-minded objective analysis was always a farce. This is far worse than a farce.

 

[j brown's body]

Give me an example of where an 'individual or minority has imposed its religious views on a majority.'

The repeal of Roe v Wade and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc..

 

[Ginger Ale]

If you look at the courts make up right now, and their prior held beliefs you'll see that having a Christian Nation has been on their agenda for quite some time. It's also the agenda of half the new GOP committees right now. It's also the agenda of these conservative states governments.

We really should be careful, and we should be addressing this risk because it's real, it's planned, and it's being executed in broad daylight. You can lie, steal, and sneak around the truth for your God. That's their defense. Its scary indeed!

 

[Ginger Ale]

This is why 4-4-1 or 3-3-2 is needed. They lied and cheated to stack the Court with Federalist Society judges who've been groomed from law school on to put theocracy in law (in fact, the FS was created specifically to get judges on the bench who would overturn Roe no matter what). And now, The Court is doing as intended.

The idea that law was some esoteric and high-minded objective analysis was always a farce. This is far worse than a farce.

Well said!

 

[NWRatCon]

The repeal of Roe v Wade and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc..

Don't feed the trolls.

 

[Mycroft]

The repeal of Roe v Wade and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc..

RvW didn't impose a religious view on any majority. It left the abortion question to the states.

BvHL didn't impose a religious view on any majority. It affirmed that a private corporation is exempt from a regulation it's owners religiously objected to.

 

[Fletch]

The repeal of Roe v Wade and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc..

Lol, no. Neither of those are examples of that. Repeal of Roe had nothing to do with religion and the Hobby Lobby ruling only affected those who worked there and in fact, lifted government controls.

 

[NWRatCon]

As most of you know, I'm a firm believer in the separation of church and state, just as the founders were. The establishment clause was there to protect the churches, particularly minority ones, as much as the government. It bothers me greatly when the Court deliberately ignores important safeguards to promote an agenda, like the Establishment Clause, the militia clauses, and the 9th Amendment.

Unlike friend Mr Person, I believe in "esoteric and high-minded objective analysis". Assuredly, "this ain't that."

 

[Fletch]

Don't feed the trolls.

A lame and cowardly post considering no one here is trolling. You are simply exposing the fact that you have no ability to debate an issue with those who disagree. This is a debate site after all, so its a mystery as to why you would post here with an attitude like that.

 

[j brown's body]

RvW didn't impose a religious view on any majority. It left the abortion question to the states.

BvHL didn't impose a religious view on any majority. It affirmed that a private corporation is exempt from a regulation it's owners religiously objected to.

Most people support abortion, the decsion allows the Christian minority to deprive women of it.

Most people support contraceptives, the decision allows the Christian minority to deprive women of it.

 

[Mycroft]

Most people support abortion, the decsion allows the Christian minority to deprive women of it.

Nobody is deprived of an abortion. Any woman is able to travel to a state that allows abortion.

Most people support contraceptives, the decision allows the Christian minority to deprive women of it.

Nobody is deprived of a contraceptive. Any woman is able to travel to a state that allows contraceptives.

State laws only apply to the state that passes the laws.

 

[mrjurrs]

I recognize that there are other threads about the separation of church and state, but this is a specific piece about the current Court:

The Roberts Court takes aim at the Establishment Clause (Hill, Opinion)​

"The irony here is that at a time of growing secularism in American society, the current conservative majority on the court is becoming even more pro-religion, reversing decades-old precedents. Under Chief Justice John Roberts, the court has moved away from using the Establishment Clause to enforce a “high wall of separation” to protect non-Christians and non-believers; it now uses the Free Exercise Clause not simply to accommodate religion but to impose the religious views of a minority upon an emerging secular majority. Call this the “New Sectarianism.”"

What struck me particularly, was this statement: "Under the Roberts Court, there has not been a single case where claims of free exercise of religion have been rejected. The court has consistently defended the rights of an individual or minority to impose its religious views on a majority."

I went and looked, and the statement is correct. I could not find a single case refuting the claim, from Hobby Lobby forward. I think this should be of concern to everyone, religious or not. No one wins all of the time - except with this Supreme Court. Does the Establishment Clause still have meaning? Has the Supreme Choir simply written it out of the Constitution?

SCOTUS is abetting organized religions intrusion on my life. I didn't go to their churches or ask to hear their dogma. They are forcing their world view on me and this courts is complicit.

 

[Bok Tuklo]

Give me an example of where an 'individual or minority has imposed its religious views on a majority.'

Carson v Makin

 

[Credence]

I recognize that there are other threads about the separation of church and state, but this is a specific piece about the current Court:

The Roberts Court takes aim at the Establishment Clause (Hill, Opinion)​

"The irony here is that at a time of growing secularism in American society, the current conservative majority on the court is becoming even more pro-religion, reversing decades-old precedents. Under Chief Justice John Roberts, the court has moved away from using the Establishment Clause to enforce a “high wall of separation” to protect non-Christians and non-believers; it now uses the Free Exercise Clause not simply to accommodate religion but to impose the religious views of a minority upon an emerging secular majority. Call this the “New Sectarianism.”"

What struck me particularly, was this statement: "Under the Roberts Court, there has not been a single case where claims of free exercise of religion have been rejected. The court has consistently defended the rights of an individual or minority to impose its religious views on a majority."

I went and looked, and the statement is correct. I could not find a single case refuting the claim, from Hobby Lobby forward. I think this should be of concern to everyone, religious or not. No one wins all of the time - except with this Supreme Court. Does the Establishment Clause still have meaning? Has the Supreme Choir simply written it out of the Constitution?

We are going backwards on a fast track and this is just part of it. History is being totally revised and the Constitution being attacked even by SCOTUS

 

[Fletch]

SCOTUS is abetting organized religions intrusion on my life. I didn't go to their churches or ask to hear their dogma. They are forcing their world view on me and this courts is complicit.

Oh you poor thing. Please give me an example of how you have been so put upon by religious dogma.

 

[Bok Tuklo]

Oh you poor thing. Please give me an example of how you have been so put upon by religious dogma.

Espinoza v Montana

 

[Fletch]

Espinoza v Montana

You are going to have to more than that if you want to make a point here. Just writing Douche v Bag is not an argument.

 

[Bok Tuklo]

You are going to have to more than that if you want to make a point here. Just writing Douche v Bag is not an argument.

It was a Supreme Court decision. You asked for an example. I gave you one.

But you are raging again. Your absolute anger at the world will eat you alive, Fletch. Turn off whatever media you are consuming. It will be the death of you.

 

[Fletch]

It was a Supreme Court decision. You asked for an example. I gave you one.

But you are raging again. Your absolute anger at the world will eat you alive, Fletch. Turn off whatever media you are consuming. It will be the death of you.

Im not raging at all. Im not even remotely upset. Seems you just cant focus on the topic so you try and make it about me.

 

[Bok Tuklo]

Im not raging at all. Im not even remotely upset.

You are absolutely freaking out as usual. Maybe you have grown accustomed to this level of personal anger and hostility. That's not good.

Seems you just cant focus on the topic so you try and make it about me.

A Supreme Court decision that weakens the Establishment Clause is not on topic in a thread about the Supreme Court taking aim at the Establishment Clause?

 

[Lursa]

You are going to have to more than that if you want to make a point here. Just writing Douche v Bag is not an argument.

I read the link...it's a valid example of what was requested. Why are you rejecting it?

 

[Fletch]

You are absolutely freaking out as usual. Maybe you have grown accustomed to this level of personal anger and hostility. That's not good.

You are imagining things.

A Supreme Court decision that weakens the Establishment Clause is not on topic in a thread about the Supreme Court taking aim at the Establishment Clause?

i never said that. More evidence you are just imagining things.