SCOTUS Is Fighting To Make America A Christian Theocracy
Thomas Jefferson said, Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. In 1983, (Marsh v Chambers) the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the practice of beginning a legislative session with a prayer delivered by a publicly funded chaplain. This set an unfortunate precedent for the current SCOTUS, deemed most conservative in years and they ruled, once again, in favor of sectarian prayer (in a government setting) in this week’s Town of Greece v Galloway decision. When an Alabama judge recently asserted the First Amendment only applies to Christianity, the metamorphosis of our government from a non-secular democracy into a theocracy is now a reality.
Ronald Reagan and both President(s) Bush appointed five of the nine Supreme Court Justices so there is definitely a major shift to the right on most of their decisions. Scalia and Alito are essentially evangelical Catholics. Kennedy, Thomas and Roberts are not as vocal about their belief in the supernatural but are still very sympathetic to the whims of the religious right. It’s frightening to think the people who call themselves Republican are SEVENTY-FIVE PERCENT certain their belief in “the Second Coming of Jesus Christ” is a fact. It’s quite chilling a group of people so committed to faith over science also wield such enormous power.
The Corporatists of the Supreme Court
When the Supreme Court essentially appointed George W. Bush, it installed the first true Seven Mountains Dominionist in the White House. In 2003, while trying to form a “Coalition of the Willing” (to help shoulder the burden of Iraqi occupation), Bush told then French Premier Jacques Chirac:
“Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East…. The biblical prophecies are being fulfilled…. This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people’s enemies before a New Age begins.”
Chirac, blown away by the mind-numbingly superficial and fantastical beliefs of the U.S. President, wanted no part of a Biblical war.
When the five conservative justices ruled in favor of unlimited campaign donations (Citizens United and McCutcheon), it erased any question of whom these men truly serve: The Koch Brothers, ALEC and the Heritage Foundation. Heritage repeatedly asserts the Christian faith is under attack, and they’ve furtively ensconced their religion into local governments, Red State by Red State.
In her dissent of the recent Town of Greece v Galloway, Justice Elana Kagan said, “…No one can fairly read the prayers from Greece’s Town meetings as anything other than explicitly Christian—constantly and exclusively so. From the time Greece established its prayer practice in 1999 until litigation loomed nine years later, all of its monthly chaplains were Christian clergy.” If private citizens of a town are not Christian, they have no choice but to participate in prayers or face undue scrutiny from their fellow citizens.
It is clear, Christian fundamentalists will fight longer and harder, with better organization and fervor than any other group. With limitless money, they are going after legal abortion, access to contraceptives and gay marriage. They insist upon the teaching of Creationism as science, and think it should be taught alongside evolution. They are fighting on all fronts to make America resemble the “Great Satan,” Iran. Only difference, this theocracy may soon be ruled by the Draconian Old Testament in place of the non-sectarian Constitution.
Click here for reuse options!Copyright 2014 Liberaland
By: VegasJessie
A resident of Las Vegas Nevada, a graduate of the University of Oklahoma as a Political Science major. Very motivated to get people to participate in the electoral process.
26 responses to SCOTUS Is Fighting To Make America A Christian Theocracy
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BanditBasheert May 7th, 2014 at 18:06
Well – that took care of all the pesky Jews, Buddhists and atheists. Like waving their little wands, the Catholic Church will return us to the days of the Inquisition.
Opening this door was dangerous.
Dwendt44 May 7th, 2014 at 18:53
Maybe, but most right wing nut jobs aren’t all that fond of Catholics either.
Many a conservative missionary goes to South and Central America to convert Catholics into ‘REAL’ Christians.
VegasJessie May 7th, 2014 at 21:36
Insanely dangerous, I couldn’t agree more.
BanditBasheert May 7th, 2014 at 18:06
Well – that took care of all the pesky Jews, Buddhists and atheists. Like waving their little wands, the Catholic Church will return us to the days of the Inquisition.
Opening this door was dangerous.
Dwendt44 May 7th, 2014 at 18:53
Maybe, but most right wing nut jobs aren’t all that fond of Catholics either.
Many a conservative missionary goes to South and Central America to convert Catholics into ‘REAL’ Christians.
Ronald Louis Ramsey May 7th, 2014 at 19:01
“I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority.”
–Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller.
Yes The SCOTUS is taking our government from a non-secular democracy into a theocracy and it is wrong
Dwendt44 May 8th, 2014 at 11:57
“Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves
and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights.”
Thomas Jefferson.
Ronald Louis Ramsey May 7th, 2014 at 19:01
“I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority.”
–Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller.
Yes The SCOTUS is taking our government from a non-secular democracy into a theocracy and it is wrong
Dwendt44 May 8th, 2014 at 11:57
“Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves
and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights.”
Thomas Jefferson.
fancypants May 7th, 2014 at 19:08
I see the judges have decided to be honest with us on who owns them
at least its a start
fancypants May 7th, 2014 at 19:08
I see the judges have decided to be honest with us on who owns them
at least its a start
Scopedog May 7th, 2014 at 21:29
This is why elections matter.
One of the biggest mistakes we made in 2000 was to brush off concerns about the Supreme Court and falling for the “both candidates are the same” codswallop that a certain candidate and most of the media were claiming.
If Al Gore had made it to the White House, think about it–no Roberts, no Alito, no Citizen’s United, none of the BS verdicts including this one. It would be a 6-3 court, in favor of progressive rulings.
Well, no such luck.
VegasJessie May 7th, 2014 at 21:38
Probably 9/11 would’ve been averted, with President Gore, global warming preventative measures would have been implemented….it’s depressing as hell remembering how I felt when Gore threw in the towel without a fight. Wonder if Rove’s henchmen threatened the lives of his family?
bahlers May 7th, 2014 at 23:23
But the “conservative” Court got the ACA ruling wrong then, right? If you are going to criticize the Court, you can’t cherry-pick the one’s you don’t agree with. The truth is, there is no such thing as a Constitutional rule of law stating the “separation of church and state”. If one were to read the text of the 1st Amendment, the clear interpretation would be the Federal govt and states cannot establish a national or state religion, which was common among the colonies. Also, you have the right to exercise which ever religion you choose, but no one has the right to be free FROM religion, much like no one has the right to not be offended.
VegasJessie May 7th, 2014 at 23:34
The ACA was decided by Roberts to fall under the Commerce Clause. Don’t forget the idea of a health insurance MANDATE was the brainchild of the Heritage Foundation, implemented by the Severely Conservative Governor Willard Romney. Not exactly a liberal victory. Single payer would have been a left-leaning solution to a problem only our nation has yet to figure out. And spare me your bullshit waiting list propaganda via ALEC commercials.
Dwendt44 May 8th, 2014 at 11:56
Totally wrong. The freedom from religion is part of the freedom of religion. You can opt out of any freedom you wish. Freedom of speech also means you don’t have to speak.
The ACA was correct is that the law was constitutional. Not sure about Robert’s reasoning though. The commerce clause was sufficient to make it constitutional.
The concept of Separation of Church and state has been chipped away at for decades now, we should be trying to build that wall back up.
bahlers May 8th, 2014 at 12:19
No SCOTUS jurisprudence has ever found the wall to be completely impermeable by the gov’t. So, would you contend that tax breaks to religious organizations is a violation of the Establishment Clause? “Not all entanglements, of course, have the effect of advancing or inhibiting religion. Interaction between church and state is inevitable, and we have always tolerated some level of involvement between the two. Entanglement must be ‘excessive’ before it runs afoul of the Establishment Clause” (Justice O’Connor writing for the Majority Opinion in Agostini v Felton 1997). By allowing prayers (Court never said, nor will they ever say, that only Christian prayers are to be allowed) to take place at different public entities, the history of religion on our society is being recognized. There is no coercion taking place during a prayer anywhere. No one knows if you don’t believe in a higher being, and it has no bearing on the course of action to come.
VegasJessie May 8th, 2014 at 12:24
I pray, as fervently as an atheist can, for Churches to pay at least property tax. Unless the church, temple, synagogue or mosque is actually a homeless shelter, they should be taxed. Especially since what they’re preaching most likely leads to discrimination and the marginalizing of a group(s) of people.
Scopedog May 7th, 2014 at 21:29
This is why elections matter.
One of the biggest mistakes we made in 2000 was to brush off concerns about the Supreme Court and falling for the “both candidates are the same” codswallop that a certain candidate and most of the media were claiming.
If Al Gore had made it to the White House, think about it–no Roberts, no Alito, no Citizen’s United, none of the BS verdicts including this one. It would be a 6-3 court, in favor of progressive rulings.
Well, no such luck.
bahlers May 7th, 2014 at 23:23
But the “conservative” Court got the ACA ruling wrong then, right? If you are going to criticize the Court, you can’t cherry-pick the one’s you don’t agree with. The truth is, there is no such thing as a Constitutional rule of law stating the “separation of church and state”. If one were to read the text of the 1st Amendment, the clear interpretation would be the Federal govt and states cannot establish a national or state religion, which was common among the colonies. Also, you have the right to exercise which ever religion you choose, but no one has the right to be free FROM religion, much like no one has the right to not be offended.
Dwendt44 May 8th, 2014 at 11:56
Totally wrong. The freedom from religion is part of the freedom of religion. You can opt out of any freedom you wish. Freedom of speech also means you don’t have to speak.
The ACA was correct is that the law was constitutional. Not sure about Robert’s reasoning though. The commerce clause was sufficient to make it constitutional.
The concept of Separation of Church and state has been chipped away at for decades now, we should be trying to build that wall back up.
bahlers May 8th, 2014 at 12:19
No SCOTUS jurisprudence has ever found the wall to be completely impermeable by the gov’t. So, would you contend that tax breaks to religious organizations is a violation of the Establishment Clause? “Not all entanglements, of course, have the effect of advancing or inhibiting religion. Interaction between church and state is inevitable, and we have always tolerated some level of involvement between the two. Entanglement must be ‘excessive’ before it runs afoul of the Establishment Clause” (Justice O’Connor writing for the Majority Opinion in Agostini v Felton 1997). By allowing prayers (Court never said, nor will they ever say, that only Christian prayers are to be allowed) to take place at different public entities, the history of religion on our society is being recognized. There is no coercion taking place during a prayer anywhere. No one knows if you don’t believe in a higher being, and it has no bearing on the course of action to come.
bahlers May 7th, 2014 at 23:28
So allowing the legislature to open with a prayer is some how making our nation a Christina Theocracy? I don’t buy that argument. The fact is, as O’Connor has stated in the Opinion of the Court in Agostini v Felton (1997) “not
all entanglements, of course, have the effect of advancing or inhibiting
religion. Interaction between church and
state is inevitable, and we have always tolerated some level of involvement
between the two. Entanglement must be
‘excessive’ before it runs afoul of the Establishment Clause”.
bahlers May 7th, 2014 at 23:28
So allowing the legislature to open with a prayer is some how making our nation a Christina Theocracy? I don’t buy that argument. The fact is, as O’Connor has stated in the Opinion of the Court in Agostini v Felton (1997) “not
all entanglements, of course, have the effect of advancing or inhibiting
religion. Interaction between church and
state is inevitable, and we have always tolerated some level of involvement
between the two. Entanglement must be
‘excessive’ before it runs afoul of the Establishment Clause”.
Santia Mitha March 11th, 2015 at 02:28
The Next Time I Read A Weblog, I Hope That It Doesnt Disappoint Me As A Lot As This One. I Imply, I Know It Was My Option To Learn, However I Really Thought Youd Have One Thing Interesting To Say. All I Hear Is A Bunch Of Whining About Something That You May Repair If You Happen To Werent Too Busy On The Lookout For Attention. adaptu
Santia Mitha March 11th, 2015 at 02:28
The Next Time I Read A Weblog, I Hope That It Doesnt Disappoint Me As A Lot As This One. I Imply, I Know It Was My Option To Learn, However I Really Thought Youd Have One Thing Interesting To Say. All I Hear Is A Bunch Of Whining About Something That You May Repair If You Happen To Werent Too Busy On The Lookout For Attention. adaptu