You raise an interesting question/concept. To what degree does one's religious beliefs/doctrines influence one's world view and decision-making process? My position is that religious beliefs should influence one's decision-making otherwise that religion is irrelevant and has no intrinsic value to the individual.
One has to exercise due caution in criticizing the religious beliefs of government officials otherwise one risks running afoul of Article VI of the Constitution which says in part "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
Numerous SCOTUS rulings (with many pre-dating the Court's current composition) have sided with churches and religious bodies in resolving conflicts over alleged civil rights violations.
The usual conflict occurs at the intersection of the "Free Exercise" clause and the "Establishment" clause of the First Amendment. This website gives a summary of the various SCOTUS rulings on these issues::
It’s something we must reestablish as Americans since this court is destroying the guardrails established by 247 years of precedence. I was more reflective until the abortion decision and the recent on siding with religion over constitutional rights.
Then there is the matter of Madison’s scholarship regarding states rights subservient to federal authority. This trend flies directly in the face of one of Madison’s most prescient concerns and the primary reason that the Articles of Confederation failed.
What needs to be reestablished? You raise so many different points in your most recent reply I do not know to which one you are referring that needs to be reestablished.
You do realize that freedom of religion is a constitutional right?
BTW, as an aside, legal precedent or stare decisis to use the Latin terminology is not inviolate otherwise Dred Scott would still be the law of the land. Surely you not suggesting something that extreme.
This is an important discussion and “reestablishment” refers to your points which I don’t entire concur with regarding the line between religion and our secular state. In fact, it is not legitimate challengers like me that are currently critical of AJs that are precisely imposing their religious beliefs on an entire nation. You may recall that it was AJ Alito who based his writing for the majority opinion regarding abortion. Much of his ruling was based on the religious doctrine on his mid 17th century English interpretation of Christianity. The Judge in question is most famous or rather infamous for legalizing marital rape and laying the legal foundation for burning Salem’s witches at the stake. If this ruling doesn’t cross the line regarding “separation of church and state,” nothing does. Also, to your point regarding, “My position is that religious beliefs should influence one's decision-making otherwise that religion is irrelevant and has no intrinsic value to the individual” , what is your position should an atheist or agnostic sit on the bench?
We must remember here and for this discussion, that Scottish Enlightenment, in colonial times was considered radical progressive thought. In fact, the Father of our Constitution and POTUS, had opportunity to attend any college he wished, especially as common at the time, Harvard. Instead, he chose the College of New Jersey, now Princeton. It was at the College of New Jersey, the hotbed of revolutionary thinking and deeply embedded in the Scottish Enlightenment that he both acknowledged religious freedom but concurrently, the separation of church and state. Between his college education at a radically progressive institution of higher learning and his globally recognized scholarship on Ancient and Modern confederacies, he came to his explicit warnings about the role of religion as advocated for by the state. This coupled with his admonitions against States with more or equivalent power with the Federal Government that have kept us safe and seen us through many challenges, including the Civil War grounded in the narratives of religious doctrine on both sides. The Confederacy’s version was the mid-19th century version of Christian Nationalism, which in most respects are closely parallels the same Christian Nationalist narrative of the MAGA crowd. All fears for our still relatively nascent republic, are well grounded in the worst fears of our founders, especially Madison’s, Washington’s and Jefferson’s. We probably should pay far more attention to these remarkable founders. They alone knew the intent of our new republic. AJ Clarence Thomas’ actions betray a failure to be a strict “originalist” interpreter of our Constitution, as he claims to be. Along with Gorsuch’s, Alito’s, Comey Barrett’s, Kavanaugh and now CJ John Roberts disgraceful refutation of our founder’s intentions, we can now see with the naked eye that not one of them give a damn about our founding principles. They literally have elevated select religious beliefs to supremacy over that of our true republic.
To sum things up my friend, I very much appreciated your well-informed debate. To bring this full circle to where this long response began, it’s now time to reestablish a less threatening Separation interpretation of our founders true intentions, not the bought and paid for interpretations of the current SCOTUS.
You raise an interesting question/concept. To what degree does one's religious beliefs/doctrines influence one's world view and decision-making process? My position is that religious beliefs should influence one's decision-making otherwise that religion is irrelevant and has no intrinsic value to the individual.
One has to exercise due caution in criticizing the religious beliefs of government officials otherwise one risks running afoul of Article VI of the Constitution which says in part "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
Numerous SCOTUS rulings (with many pre-dating the Court's current composition) have sided with churches and religious bodies in resolving conflicts over alleged civil rights violations.
The usual conflict occurs at the intersection of the "Free Exercise" clause and the "Establishment" clause of the First Amendment. This website gives a summary of the various SCOTUS rulings on these issues::
https://supreme.justia.com/cases-by-topic/religion/
The most recent ruling involved a postal worker, Gerald Groff, and the USPS with the Court ruling in favor of Mr. Groff by a unanimous 9-0 margin.
It’s something we must reestablish as Americans since this court is destroying the guardrails established by 247 years of precedence. I was more reflective until the abortion decision and the recent on siding with religion over constitutional rights.
Then there is the matter of Madison’s scholarship regarding states rights subservient to federal authority. This trend flies directly in the face of one of Madison’s most prescient concerns and the primary reason that the Articles of Confederation failed.
What needs to be reestablished? You raise so many different points in your most recent reply I do not know to which one you are referring that needs to be reestablished.
You do realize that freedom of religion is a constitutional right?
BTW, as an aside, legal precedent or stare decisis to use the Latin terminology is not inviolate otherwise Dred Scott would still be the law of the land. Surely you not suggesting something that extreme.
This is an important discussion and “reestablishment” refers to your points which I don’t entire concur with regarding the line between religion and our secular state. In fact, it is not legitimate challengers like me that are currently critical of AJs that are precisely imposing their religious beliefs on an entire nation. You may recall that it was AJ Alito who based his writing for the majority opinion regarding abortion. Much of his ruling was based on the religious doctrine on his mid 17th century English interpretation of Christianity. The Judge in question is most famous or rather infamous for legalizing marital rape and laying the legal foundation for burning Salem’s witches at the stake. If this ruling doesn’t cross the line regarding “separation of church and state,” nothing does. Also, to your point regarding, “My position is that religious beliefs should influence one's decision-making otherwise that religion is irrelevant and has no intrinsic value to the individual” , what is your position should an atheist or agnostic sit on the bench?
We must remember here and for this discussion, that Scottish Enlightenment, in colonial times was considered radical progressive thought. In fact, the Father of our Constitution and POTUS, had opportunity to attend any college he wished, especially as common at the time, Harvard. Instead, he chose the College of New Jersey, now Princeton. It was at the College of New Jersey, the hotbed of revolutionary thinking and deeply embedded in the Scottish Enlightenment that he both acknowledged religious freedom but concurrently, the separation of church and state. Between his college education at a radically progressive institution of higher learning and his globally recognized scholarship on Ancient and Modern confederacies, he came to his explicit warnings about the role of religion as advocated for by the state. This coupled with his admonitions against States with more or equivalent power with the Federal Government that have kept us safe and seen us through many challenges, including the Civil War grounded in the narratives of religious doctrine on both sides. The Confederacy’s version was the mid-19th century version of Christian Nationalism, which in most respects are closely parallels the same Christian Nationalist narrative of the MAGA crowd. All fears for our still relatively nascent republic, are well grounded in the worst fears of our founders, especially Madison’s, Washington’s and Jefferson’s. We probably should pay far more attention to these remarkable founders. They alone knew the intent of our new republic. AJ Clarence Thomas’ actions betray a failure to be a strict “originalist” interpreter of our Constitution, as he claims to be. Along with Gorsuch’s, Alito’s, Comey Barrett’s, Kavanaugh and now CJ John Roberts disgraceful refutation of our founder’s intentions, we can now see with the naked eye that not one of them give a damn about our founding principles. They literally have elevated select religious beliefs to supremacy over that of our true republic.
To sum things up my friend, I very much appreciated your well-informed debate. To bring this full circle to where this long response began, it’s now time to reestablish a less threatening Separation interpretation of our founders true intentions, not the bought and paid for interpretations of the current SCOTUS.
Cheers,
Paul