A Slippery Slope Toward Theocracy: To Defend Church-State Separation, We Need To Go Back To The Basics.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
--First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Certain recent Supreme Court decisions have embraced high-priority political objectives of conservative, primarily Christian Right activists, justifying their opinions on "originalism" and questionable interpretations of the First Amendment.
These range from empowering individuals and organizations to circumvent laws most Americans must obey (notably, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission and Little Sister of the Poor v. Pennsylvania); providing religious schools access to public tax dollars (Carson v. Makin), and eliminating abortion rights protections (Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization).
Chillingly, more than one associate justice has openly signaled other unenumerated rights, currently enjoyed by and popular with millions of Americans, which are in conflict with Christian Nationalist agendas should be challenged - and would be warmly welcomed.
Christian Nationalists, together with the Oath Keepers, Proud Boys and other domestic extremist groups who parade around in pseudo-uniforms waving American, MAGA, Trump and QAnon flags and chanting "USA! USA!", represent a dangerous, anti-democratic movement whose ideology abhors the separation of church and state; they have no problem with undermining the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment or any other part of the Constitution, even through violence if necessary.
Their goal is nothing less than assault on individual rights and democratic self-government and institutions leading to a new order of religious authoritarianism. Their America would be a white, autocratic theocracy based on fundamentalist principles that would rewrite history, reject science and institutionalize discrimination against religious minorities, women, people who identify as LGBTQ+, immigrants, people of color and others they see as different or as a threat to their perceived security or societal status.
Sadly, some members of Congress, willing to ignore their oath to "support and defend the Constitution," have given voice to such radical ideologies.
Republican congresswoman and self-described Christian Rightist Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) proclaimed, "I'm tired of this separation of church and state junk." She added, "The church is supposed to direct the government."
In Georgia, U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene is arguing the Republicans Party needs, "to be the party of nationalism and I'm a Christian, and I say it proudly, we should be Christian Nationalists."
Boebert, Greene and their fellow travelers reject the original intent of the First Amendment, that government must not impose a state religion on the public, or place undue restrictions on religious practice, but must recognize the right of the people to believe and worship, or not, as their conscience dictates.
Collectively, Christian nationalists have lost sight of the America our Founders envisioned. They've forgotten that Christianity is a religious faith, not a political movement or party!
Those using Christianity as a cover for conservative political agendas seem to have forgotten:
* Our nation's Founding Fathers, not the Apostles, wrote the Constitution;
* They added a Bill of Rights, not the Ten Commandments;
* Despite most being Christians or deists, the Founders' clear intent was freedom of religion, not control by any religion;
* Nowhere in the Constitution is Christianity mentioned; and
* They created a pluralistic democracy, not a theocracy which many came to this country to escape.
All Americans have the inalienable right to worship according to their personal beliefs. However, no one has any right to impose beliefs on, discriminate against or interfere with the rights of others, nor should anyone be immune from obeying the laws of our nation.
To permit such actions can only lead to intolerance, oppression, lost liberties and the ultimate demise of our fragile constitutional republic.
Tags
Who is online
312 visitors
I guess that is why one of the first things Congress did was to establish a Congressional Chaplaincy and appoint a chaplain
Also do notice that it " freedom of religion not freedom from religion (and the Constitution says it also). There is a difference.
"Their America would be a white, autocratic theocracy based on fundamentalist principles that would rewrite history, reject science and institutionalize discrimination against religious minorities, women, people who identify as LGBTQ+, immigrants, people of color and others they see as different or as a threat to their perceived security or societal status"
Bald face lying exaggeration, with no supporting evidence. In addition, it is a sweeping generalization.
In your opinion, is America (The United States) a Christian nation?
No, but it was founded by people who were mostly deists or Christians.
.
You realize that deists and christians are to widely differing religions right?
In 1823, Jefferson wrote to John Adams, famously remarking:
This article is about the Americans who believe the United States is a Christian nation and should embrace Christian iconography, Biblical standards and cannon law as the law of the land. They would outlaw gay marriage, abortion and equal rights for other religions and especially for nonbelievers...
Would that apply as much to Muslims and Jews as it would to Christians?
Not different religions, but different types of belief....which the article clearly points out
Religions are nothing but beliefs. According to your statement, muslims and christians have the same religion, just different beliefs???
“Not different religions, but different types of belief...”
There’s your slippery slope.
Gay marriage is not necessary for any reason. Two gay people can live together if they so choose. They can enter into a civil contract that stipulates that they can make decisions ons for each other and that they have the other rights a married straight couple have.
Being against abortion is protecting the rights of a life prior to birth. An inborn baby has the right to life as any human does.
Do give examples of anyone outlawing other religions or non believers. The only people I see doing that sort of thing are nonbelievers and progressives.
Thank you for illustrating my point so, um, poiniently...
So you can't dispute anything in my comment nor can you fullfil my request for proof so you, in typical liberal fashion just make an inane comment and go away.
WRONGO! marriage equality, reproductive freedom and equality under the law are not going away without a fight. Not even then...
Straight marriage is not necessary either. So what's your problem? You do not object to straight marriage so why object to same-sex marriage? Let same-sex couples get married just as we do with a man and a woman ... why deny them the right?
Depends on where one draws the line between a potential human being and an actual human being (a person). For example, those who claim that abortion should be denied upon conception are being emotional, irrational and have a poor understanding of biology. On the flip side, those who hold that abortion should be freely allowed on a whim once the fetus is viable do not seem to have a strong supporting argument. My view is to leave abortion as a decision between a woman and her physician up to the point of viability in which case the question of fetal rights becomes valid (IMO).
Depends on what you mean. There are all sorts of laws that restrict religious practices. Basically, religions are free but they must abide by the law of society (so, no honor killings, etc.)
Marriage is not necessary for any reason. Two people can live together if they so choose. They can enter into a civil contract that stipulates that they can make decisions for each other and that they have the other rights a married couple have.
Dispute anything in this updated version of your statement. Why do you feel that people should be treated differently based on who they are attracted to? Here's another variant you cannot dispute...
Interracial marriage is not necessary for any reason. Two people can live together if they so choose. They can enter into a civil contract that stipulates that they can make decisions for each other and that they have the other rights a white couple have.
Are you starting to understand the problem with your claim?
Provide links to a scientific consensus of when "life" begins.
Under Iranian law, apostasy from Shia faith is punishable by death. Non-religious Iranians are officially unrecognized by the government, and one must declare oneself as a member of one of the four recognized faiths in order to avail oneself of many of the rights of citizenship.
He does that a lot. He's made my point for me before too.
It's just a progressive's wet dream of what they imagine they are fighting against. The prosaic reality isn't heroic enough for them, so they have to resort to invention. A party of Jussie Smolletts.
. Its pretty much explains every Joe Biden speech since he's been elected.
[deleted]
Americans United for Separation of Church and State is mainstream!
Bullshit
The article speaks for itself. It's little more than hysterical paranoia.
speaking of deep ends, [deleted]
Let's just bask in this article freaking out about Christian nationalists taking over the country the same week Congress codifies gay marriage.
And mere months after SCOTUS eliminated Roe v Wade (for religious reasons), and commented on removing protections for same sex marriage (again for religious reasons). AND where SCOTUS will soon decide if religious discrimination is allowed.
Really? What were they? Please cite the specific part of the decision. you are referencing
ommented on removing protections for same sex marriage (again for religious reasons).
Lol. At least try and maintain some contact with reality.
Neither one was for religious reasons.
I am not referencing the decision I am referencing the reason behind the decision. There is no scientific basis for disallowing abortion rights, however there are tons of imagined religious reasons.
Oh. the secret reasons you "know" exist. I'll admit, when you just claim to read minds and have access to imaginary reasoning that no one else does, it's hard to respond. Conspiracy theorists always claim the secret or hidden evidence to explain why they can't actually prove their argument. I feel obligated to follow the English language and reality when I post here. Not all do.
here is no scientific basis for disallowing abortion
I must have forgotten we are governed by "science" and not a Constitution. Here I thought we lived in a democratic republic governed by the rule of law and a Constitution. Nope. It's "science!"
There are no scientific reasons to allow them either.
There is no good reason to limit abortion rights at all
So you don't believe in the right to life.
For those already alive
Must be the dumbest response I have ever read.
I do suppose you have a good scientific reason that abortion for convenience should be legal.
And you are right comment 4.1.9 is the dumbest response ever.
A baby in the womb is alive. It moves it has a heartbeat.
And prior to having a heart, is that a baby?
When an egg is fertilized and has not yet implanted in the uterus, do you object to the woman flushing it from her system?
Yes
Yes it is. It has all that DNA instructions to be a human being.
So basically, in your mind, the instant a sperm fertilizes an egg we have a "baby".
There is thus no reasoning with you on this.
and that is only potential not a finished person
and what if the instructions get messed up and it does not develop properly?
So. And a newborn is only a potential unfinished person to. Do you think those should be killed too?
Then it dies or is born with defects.
Do you let unwanted people stay in your house?
A cancer cell is also alive.
... and contains the full complement of DNA.
and it will grow and is unwanted
No but I never invite them into my house in the first place.
Comparing a human baby to cancer I absolutely vile and disgusting. You should be ashamed.
You should be ashamed also
That goes back to lack of understanding of biology. A cancer cell contains human DNA and is substantially more complex than a zygote. There is no comparing a baby to a cancer cell and there is no comparing a baby to a zygote.
You would prevent a woman from aborting a zygote immediately after sex claiming that she would be killing a baby.
I understand biology very well.
This is from a Princeton University report
Clearly you do not since you deem a zygote to be a baby.
A zygote is a cell. It is not a baby. It is not a human being. It is at the beginning of a very long, complicated process that will, if all works, result in a human being. By the same token, a sperm is part of the process that creates a zygote. A sperm (as with the egg) is part of a long, complicated process that will, if all works, result in a zygote which will, if all works, result in a human being.
These are simply biological processes. There is nothing magical about a fertilized egg. And a fertilized egg (zygote) is not a baby.
So you think you know more than those people at Princeton. Ho arrogant of you.
It isn't going to be an artichoke.
A zygote is not a baby. A zygote is also not a human being.
Finding a quote where a PhD claims a zygote is a human being does not change biology and does not change the very well understood biological process I noted to you. There are all sorts of people to quote who will make religious / ideological claims.
A zygote is a potential human being; it is not a human being — it is a single cell. Just like a seed is a potential tree, not a tree.
"going to be" is the essence of what I wrote to you. There is a profound difference between an early biological form and the end result of a biological process. There is a profound difference between a fertilized chicken egg and a chicken or a seed and a tree. Seed ≠ tree.
A single cell zygote is not a human being; it is the initial biological substance at the beginning of a long, complex biological process to produce a human being.
And, going back to your original claim, a zygote is not a baby.
and just a true
Overpopulation is also like a cancer that can kill the whole population if allowed to continually grow unchecked
So do you propose we just kill all the surplus population? Way to go Ebenezer
Why do you leap to the worst possible intent of his comment?
I suspect most everyone took his comment to mean that we need to slow down our rate of reproduction .... not to go out and kill people.
Because they have to use the most extreme wording possible to rile up the rest of their compatriots.
I am using higher resources than you and I will believe them way before I take your word for it and right now that is all you got
You quote mined as part of confirmation bias which causes you to understand biology as you wish it to be in spite of reality.
Per your distortion of biology, a seed would be a tree.
Seems to me your distortion of biology would lead to a zygote could become anything but human. It was, is and always will be a human being in development. It will never be anything else. If you think it will please tell me what it else it could be.
Then you are not paying attention to the most fundamental theme of my comments: a zygote is a single cell that is at the beginning of the process for developing a human being — it is a potential human being. Just like a seed is at the beginning of the development process for a tree — a seed is a potential tree.
A seed is not a tree and a zygote is not a human being.
You say it is the process for developing what? A human being you say? The it is a human cell and therefore is human.
Who denies that a human zygote is a human cell? The claim is that a human zygote is not a human being just like an Oak tree seed is not an Oak tree.
And back to your original utter nonsense, a human zygote is not a baby.
Lol.. A 10 year old is still developing. Is a 10 year old a potential human being too?
What magic takes place to transform a developing human into a real human?
A 10 year old human being is already a human being. It is not developing into a human being. You could legitimately state that a 10 year old human being is developing into an adult human being.
Your 'point' is confused.
Is an Oak seed an Oak tree? ( the answer is no )
Is an Oak sapling an Oak tree? ( the answer is yes )
Think of an Oak sapling as a young Oak tree. As it continues development it will still be an Oak tree. Just like a 10 year old human being will continue to be a human being as it develops.
Your 'point' is confused.
not at all. The ten year old is the same human organism at ten years or ten weeks after conception. There is no magical occurrence that turns a human organism into a human being. That's magical thinking.
Just be honest. You, and others like you, ignore the science and just make arbitrary distinctions to justify taking human life without having to feel bad for it. They are just comforting lies you tell yourself.
As Justice Blackmun noted when trying to distinguish at which point developmental point abortion would be protected, "You will observe that I have concluded that the end of the first trimester is critical. This is arbitrary, but perhaps any other selected point, such as quickening or viability, is equally arbitrary."
Then you must think that an oak tree seed is an oak tree because, after all, it is the 'same organism'.
Is an oak tree seed an oak tree?
Further, "ten weeks after conception" is off the mark. We are talking about a zygote ... that would be t=conception to 5 or 6 days. And, technically, we have been talking about a single-cell zygote which is at that state for mere hours. Arkpdx claims a zygote is a baby. Are you going to make that foolish claim too?
This is a little off topic here and might sound a little strange but I had a dream where we were all part of everything. The trees, the grass, the soil.
Down to we are all atoms that can be interchangeable.
This has been another edition of strange thoughts. Brought to you by Ender.
very much so!
Heard Neil deGrasse Tyson say the very same thing.
Well. for starters, its 2022 so don't you believe it could be a dinosaur or a potato? Whatever that acorn wants to be, it magically is.
Of course its a tree at its earliest developmental stage. But you are getting caught up in silly semantic games. A rose by any other name is still a rose. It doesn't matter what lay people call it, it's still the same organism. IF everyone started calling a baby a puppy tomorrow, does that change the nature what a baby is?
Focus on the science, not the semantics.
Focus on both science and the proper meaning of words.
A seed is not a tree, it is the instructions for making a tree. Just as a zygote (a single cell) is not a human being but rather the instructions for making a human being. A zygote (a single cell the size of a pin tip) will split and develop into more sophisticated biological mechanisms that will use resources provided by the woman to generate the various cells that make up a human body. Eventually, if all goes well, these developed parts will form systems with the aggregate system being a viable human fetus.
Zygote = instructions (and initial rudimentary mechanisms) to develop a human fetus. Zygote ≠ human being.
That is the science.
Equate a zygote with a baby and you illustrate a profound lack of understanding of human biology and misuse of a common English word (baby).
My. How melodramatic.
The slippery slope is when government begins imposing morality onto society. Social activists are using government to force their beliefs upon society at large. And that social activism enforced by government isn't any different than a theocracy.
Godless religion is still religion. Playing semantics won't change that.
Rightwing conservative Christians don't interpret the establishment clause as stopping them from injecting their religion into every facet of American life, they see it as a law protecting them from the government and any other religions or non-religious factions attempting to limit their actions. They don't necessarily want to replace the government with a theocracy, they just want the government we have to be run by white conservative Christians and American society to cater to white conservative Christian needs.
I think many rightwing conservative Christians don't want a theocracy but there is a small faction working to do just that. I know you've heard of the Domionists and they have heavily infiltrated the Air Force Academy...which makes sense if you want to take over the country. Get Air Power superiority and everything is yours
I will fight a christian autocracy just as strongly as I would fight a socialist one.... the only difference between them is the name they go under...
By 'socialism' it seems you mean 'benevolent Big government controlling people's lives via social programs' as opposed to an economic system where the people (not government, not capitalist owners) collectively control the means of production and distribution.
I get so sick of hearing “the founders were Christian”. Even if it were universally true, which it is not, who the fuck cares? What the hell does that have to do with anything about this era? They are all dead as fuck and completely irrelevant to modern humanity so quit using their uninformed ignorance about science and nature as your crutch to force self serving religious wish thinking down the throat of everyone who doesn’t think like you.
And she is not run out of town for making such a mindlessly stupid statement.
I bet she got Fs in Civics
Instead we have people denying what they are saying...
Never happen in the USA but it won’t be because of people of no faith. It will be because of people of faith. Most of whom are more accepting of other belief systems.
Not so with many folks of no faith.
American christians are envious of the Islamic theocracies. The absolute power of it all and not a shred of responsibility of it all either. Christian Taliban are real. Prepare.
Absolutely, there are so many Christians that I’ve talked to envious of the Taliban, I’m sure that is your experience as well.
Rank and file christians are one thing. Those with the private planes and access to government power are quite another.
More ridiculous hyperbole from the left.
Yawn!