Christian Nationalists Got The President They Wanted - But Most Oppose That Belief

 

The charts above are from a survey done by the Public Religion Research Institute between March and December of 2023. They surveyed 22,465 adults nationwide, and the survey has an 0.82 point margin of error.

The founders of our democracy did not want an official religion. They saw how that had resulted in discrimination, violence, and even wars in other countries. That's why they included freedom of religion in the Constitution's Bill of Rights. They wanted all citizens to be free to worship in any religion they want (or to not be a part of any religion).

But there is a small minority in this country that don't like that. They think the freedom of religion should only apply to their version of the christian religion. And they wanted all laws passed by the government to be based on their religious beliefs - not the Constitution. They are "christian nationalists".

For them, the outcome of the election was a huge success. They got the president they wanted. Trump is friendly to the christian nationalists - even to the point of telling them the country would be better off if they were in charge.

We can only hope that Trump was just pandering to them and just lying to get their votes, and doesn't really want to give them the power they are seeking. 

Most Americans agree with the nation's founders. They do not want any religion in charge of the government.

Louisiana GOP Violates The Constitution With New Mandate

 From Dan Rather:

Just when you think the audacity meter has reached its zenith, along comes the Republican-dominated Louisiana state legislature. This week it passed — and the state’s far-right governor signed — a law requiring all public classrooms to display the Ten Commandments. 

 

Governor Jeff Landry argued that the Commandments are not simply religious treatise but “foundational documents of our state and national government,” perhaps trying to circumvent the inevitable hue and cry from just about everyone.

I’ll get to the hue and cry in a moment. First, if one wants to talk about foundational documents of our government, I think the Constitution is a better place to start. The First Amendment guarantees the separation of church and state. Full stop. Requiring the displaying of the Ten Commandments violates the constitutional principle of religious neutrality. 

Honoring Supreme Court precedent is another foundational tenet of our democracy. Yes, this has happened before. In 1980’s Stone v. Graham, the Supreme Court struck down a Kentucky law that also required the display of the Ten Commandments in schools. The court found that the law violated the First Amendment’s establishment clause. In its opinion, the court wrote that the Ten Commandments are “undeniably a sacred text in the Jewish and Christian faiths” and displaying them “serves no ... educational function.”

One could argue that Louisiana should be more concerned with the quality of the education in those classrooms than what is on their walls. The state ranks near the bottom nationally for education and 50th for overall quality of life. Perhaps instead of this political stunt, Louisiana lawmakers should think about raising teacher pay, among the lowest in the nation. Or maybe try to keep kids in school? The state ranks 48th in graduation rate.

 

Putting an 11-by-14-inch poster “in a large easy to read font” in every classroom from kindergarten through graduate school will cost money. Don’t worry — it will be paid for by private donations. But who will pay for the inevitable and orchestrated legal fight to come? Louisiana taxpayers. 

After eight years of a Democratic governor, the Republican- controlled state legislature is making up for what it sees as lost time. It recently turned down federal aid for summer food assistance, claiming it wants Louisiana families to be self-sufficient. Those same families suffer from a higher rate of food insecurity than most of the country. And Louisiana is the first state to advance a measure designating abortion pills as dangerous controlled substances.

  

Now to the hue and cry. It was loud and it was immediate, coming from, among others, the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Southern Poverty Law Center, which jointly stated that the law “violates students’ and families’ fundamental right to religious freedom.”

So why would Louisiana bother with what seems to be a cut-and-dried case of unconstitutionality?  

“I can’t wait to be sued,” Governor Landry said at a Republican fundraiser in Nashville, according to The Tennessean. Good thing, because the ACLU has already filed suit.

All this is part of a larger national plan by a minority of  Christians to inject expressions of their faith into everyday life, whether we like it or not. With a highly politicized and far-right majority on the Supreme Court at the ready, these groups believe they will get a friendlier reception from the court and could ultimately be successful.  

They have reason to be hopeful. In 2022, the court sided with a high school football coach who argued he had the right to pray on the 50-yard line after games. The increasingly porous boundary between church and state seems to be eroding faster than a snowball in July. Even so, legal experts think this one is a real stretch.

Charles C. Haynes, an expert in religious liberty and civil discourse, told The New York Times that he believes the state is “overreaching,” adding that “even this court will have a hard time justifying” what Louisiana lawmakers came up with. 

But perhaps most interesting is how do parents and lawmakers square the behavior of their revered MAGA leader with the Ten Commandments? 

 

Democratic strategist David Axelrod on X had this recommendation: “Here’s a suggested quiz for the schoolchildren of Louisiana: ‘Look at the poster on the wall of the Ten Commandments and write down the total number Donald Trump has broken.’”

We could quibble about the total number, but let no one be mistaken: This new Louisiana law is a dangerous development for our country. Donald Trump champions a national movement to eliminate the separation between church and state.  

Christian Nationalism - Anti-American And Unconstitutional

 

Throughout history, religion has been used to justify violence - both between countries and inside countries. Those convinced they are members of God's "true" religion have felt justified to vilify, attack, and even kill those who disagreed with them. Even different sects of the same religion have been guilty of this bigotry. And the result has been centuries of violence and death.

Our Founding Fathers were well aware of this, and they did not want their new nation to fall into that trap of religious violence. So they created a secular nation that would stay out of religious issues. They made sure of this by including their wishes in the Constitution. They included three things in that Constitution:

* The government would not establish a religion or show favoritism toward one.

* The government would not keep any citizen from freely exercising the religion of his/her choice.

* There would be no religious test for holding government office.

For the last couple of centuries, that secular nation has survived, and those three rules have allowed the nation to avoid the worst religious strife and violence. Every American citizen has been free to engage in any religion they wish (or no religion), and members of different religions and sects within a religion (or no religion) continue to serve in government positions.

Because this system of keeping the government out of religion has worked so well, one might assume that Americans would wish to keep that system intact. And most Americans do. Poll after poll has shown that most Americans want to keep their religion and their government separate. But there is a minority that disagrees.

The Christian Nationalists don't believe in secular government or the constitutional protections it offers. They want to force all Americans to abide by their own religious beliefs, even though they are only a tiny minority of Americans. They would subjugate Americans of other religions, other christian sects that disagrees with their views, and those who prefer to engage in no religion at all.

They claim the United States was created as a christian nation. It wasn't. The Founders were clear to not do that. They intentionally created a secular government that would honor all religions. And even at the founding go this nation, there were citizens of many religions (and no religion).

They claim the Founders were all christians. Also untrue. While many were christian, others were deists, and some had no religious beliefs. What they all agreed on was that the secular government they created would stay out of religion.

They want all government laws to be based on their own particular view of the Bible, and would reject multiculturalism and equality. And they want all government officials to be christian.

Their views are blatantly unconstitutional, anti-democracy, and anti-American. We must fight hard against their pernicious views of America.

The GOP Whines About Religious Freedom But Opposes It

Our Founding Fathers did not want a religious state. That's why they created a constitutional amendment that guaranteed religious freedom. They wanted every American to have the right to worship any religion - or no religion at all. Today's Republican Party whines a lot about religious freedom, but their actions show they don't support true religious freedom. Instead, they want the right to force a particular religion (christianity) on all U.S. citizens. That's a clear violation of the Constitution!

Here is what Robert Reich has to say about the GOP and their effort to deny religious freedom:

On June 30, the six Republican appointees to the Supreme Court ruled that a graphic artist who designs wedding websites can refuse to design a website for same-sex weddings, despite a Colorado law that bars discrimination based on sexual orientation, race, gender, and other characteristics. They said that forcing her to create the website would violate her free speech rights under the First Amendment.

But where and how to draw the line between protected expression and illegal discrimination? What about wedding planners, photographers, florists, caterers, decorators, musicians, or dressmakers who consider their work to be artistic expressions and also believe that forcing them to offer their services to gay couples violates their free speech rights? 

The point is, there is no clear line. Instead, the Supreme Court’s Republican majority is prioritizing religious beliefs over all other values. 

Over the past three years, the court has sided with a public school football coach who insisted on praying at midfield after games, on some accounts causing students to feel pressure to participate. A religious foster-care agency that refused to certify same-sex couples as foster parents. Religious schools in Maine that sought public subsidies. A religious group that wished to fly a Christian flag over Boston’s City Hall. Religious organizations that challenged early Covid restrictions on gathering in large groups. And, of course, those who oppose abortions, largely because of their religion, which they prioritize over the rights of women to control their bodies. 

Unlike the court’s older important religious freedom rulings that protected members of minority religions from discrimination, the recent cases have protected practitioners of mainstream Christianity. 

It is not just the court. All over America, the wall separating church and state is getting hit with a Republican battering ram. 

A few weeks ago, Oklahoma Republicans approved the nation’s first religious charter school — St. Isidore — offering Catholic religious instruction and financed by taxpayers. They claimed that excluding religious schools from charter funding would violate the First Amendment’s protection of religious freedom.

Texas lawmakers have pushed bills requiring the Ten Commandments be posted in every classroom in the state, allowing chaplains to replace counselors in schools, and letting school districts set time for staff and students to pray and read religious texts.

Montana’s House recently passed a requirement that schools accept “without question” a “conscience exemption” for immunizations for school attendance — thereby doing away with required vaccinations for measles, rubella, mumps, diphtheria, whooping cough, tetanus, and influenza type B.

 

Idaho and Kentucky have signed into law measures allowing teachers and public school employees to pray in front of and with students while on duty.

Republican state lawmakers are falling over themselves to pass book bans, abortion prohibitions, and anti-trans laws — and justify them with scripture.

“Put on the full armor of God. Stand firm against the left’s schemes,” Florida governor and Republican presidential candidate Ron DeSantis proclaimed at the Christian Hillsdale College (substituting “left’s schemes” for the “devil’s schemes” of Ephesians 6:11).

And it’s not just any religion. It’s Christianity. As former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn (whom Trump has promised to bring back for a second Trump term) put it at a recent ReAwaken America event, “If we are going to have one nation under God, which we must, we have to have one religion.”

The paradox is that religious observance has shown a steep decline over the past quarter century. In 1999, Gallup found that 70 percent of Americans belonged to a church, a synagogue, or a mosque. In 2020, the number was 47 percent. For the first time in nearly a century of polling, worshippers were the minority in America. 

Does this precipitous decline help explain the militance of white Christian nationalism? A fierce minority religious movement has taken over the Republican Party — giving the GOP fervor and purpose that are now being championed by Republican appointees to the Supreme Court, Republican state legislators, and Ron DeSantis and Donald Trump.

The "Religious Exemption" To COVID-19 Vaccine Is A Farce

As most readers of this blog will know, I am an atheist. But I was raised in a fundamentalist / evangelical church, and I attended two religious universities to get my Bachelor's Degree -- Harding University (Church of Christ) and Texas Wesleyan University (Methodist). So, I am very familiar with christianity and the Bible. 

That's why I am puzzled by so many christians (especially evangelicals) who are claiming a religious exemption to avoid taking the COVID-19 vaccine. It is not against the christian religion to get a vaccination, and many who are claiming this exemption regularly get vaccinated against other diseases. I believe this is just right-wing politics disguised as religion.

The following is part of an op-ed by Curtis Chang (a consulting faculty member at Duke Divinity School) in The New York Times:

Religious exemptions to employer mandates are a precious right in our democracy. This is why it is especially important not to offer such exemptions to coronavirus vaccine mandates. They make a mockery of Christianity and religious liberty.

Now that the Food and Drug Administration has fully approved the Pfizer-BioNTech coronavirus vaccine, government agencies, universities and businesses are instituting vaccination requirements. This has prompted a wave of requests from individuals to opt out of such requirements by claiming a religious exemption.

The legal basis of this request is Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which requires American employers to accommodate employees’ religious beliefs. One evangelical church near Sacramento has reportedly issued more than 3,000 letters requesting exemptions, and a pastor in Brooklyn told The New York Daily News that 60 percent of his congregation has asked for them. Given that evangelicals account for a substantial portion of people refusing vaccination, especially in the Delta-ravaged Bible Belt, the road to ending the pandemic may very well now run through the religious exemption issue.

According to the Civil Rights Act, these exemptions are meant to apply to people with “sincerely held religious beliefs,” and on both counts — religious belief and sincerity — the exemption demand fails when it comes to coronavirus vaccine mandates for Christians.

First, there is no actual religious basis for exemptions from vaccine mandates in any established stream of Christianity. Within both Catholicism and all the major Protestant denominations, no creed or Scripture in any way prohibits Christians from getting the vaccine. Even the sect of Christian Scientists, which historically has abstained from medical treatment, has expressed openness to vaccines for the sake of the wider community. The consensus of mainstream Christian leaders — from Pope Francis to Franklin Graham — is that vaccination is consistent with biblical Christian faith. . . .

My plea to my fellow Christians: If you insist on refusing the vaccine, that is your right. But please do not bring God into it. Doing so is the very definition of violating the Third Commandment, “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.”. . .

Exemption requests also likely fail on the grounds of sincere belief. We naturally look for consistency of a belief as a test of sincerity; it’s common sense. We would doubt the sincerity of a receptionist who demands vegetarian options at a workplace cafeteria when he frequently eats steak at restaurants. Any institution considering religious exemptions should require applicants to demonstrate that they have consistently refused other immunizations for religious reasons.

Vaccine hesitancy has never been a core religious belief of evangelical Christians. The vast majority of evangelicals have historically chosen to be immunized against polio, measles, tetanus and other diseases. As a child, I attended evangelical summer camps that required vaccinations, and as an adult, I worked for ministries with similar mandates. Some conservative evangelicals just don’t like the political taste of this particular vaccine on the menu.

Even if we grant that individual Christians sincerely (though mistakenly) believe that their religious faith prohibits a coronavirus vaccination, that still does not justify an exemption. “Sincerity” does not justify putting others at risk. I can sincerely (though mistakenly) believe I should sacrifice a burnt offering to God. All the sincerity in my heart does not justify my setting my neighbor’s house on fire in the process. . . .

But even with legitimate religious claims sincerely held, the law allows companies to forgo offering exemptions if doing so places an “undue hardship” on the employer. Increasing the risk of bringing an infectious disease into the workplace certainly qualifies. For jobs that involve exposure to vulnerable populations, minimizing that risk via immunization is clearly an appropriate job requirement. Religious freedom for a teacher who opposes vaccines does not mean having the right to jeopardize children by being unvaccinated. Religious freedom means that if she doesn’t wish to fulfill her employer’s job requirement, she is free to find another job.

All employers should eliminate any religious exemptions for coronavirus vaccines for Christians, period. New York State has removed its religious exemption option for health care workers, and other institutions should follow suit.

Similarly, religious leaders will need to join with secular institutions in opposing exemptions. Pastors are already being inundated with requests for letters supporting exemptions. As a former pastor of an evangelical church, I know it will be difficult to say “no.” But my colleagues should do the right thing and refuse such requests. Refuse to mislead our secular neighbors. Refuse to abuse our precious religious liberty. Refuse to be complicit in putting our neighbors at risk. . . .

The vaccine effort has been plagued by falsehoods of all kinds. The religious exemption from vaccine mandates for Christians is the latest lie. All of us should stand together for the truth.

Domestic Racial Terrorist Is Apprehended In Louisiana

This booking photo is of Holden Matthews -- the 21 year-old son of a deputy sheriff in St. Landry Parish, Louisiana. He is the person responsible for the burning of three Black churches in that parish.

He is a violent criminal and a terrorist that was very likely motivated by racial hatred. And he is a prime example of a dangerous and growing problem in the United States -- domestic terrorism.

Recently, the Trump administration disbanded an investigative group within the Department of Homeland Security -- a group that focused on domestic terrorism (including that done by white supremacists and nationalists). This was not surprising, since Trump has refused to condemn (or separate himself) the white supremacists and white nationalists -- calling them "good people".

This was just the opposite of what should have been done. White domestic terrorists pose a far greater threat to this country and its citizens than any foreign terrorists -- and that threat is growing. Our government needs to focus more on these domestic hate terrorists -- not less.

Matthews faces a possible 15 year prison sentence. If convicted, he will deserve every day of that sentence.

NOTE -- Regular readers of this blog will know that I am an atheist. But I am also a strong believer in the U.S. Constitution that guarantees freedom of religion. That gives every American the right to believe in and practice the religion of his/her choice (or not believe in any religion). Criminal acts against religious people for their beliefs is wrong -- just as wrong as trying to force your religious beliefs on others, or using your religion to discriminate against others.

SCOTUS - Religious Freedom Or Christian Superiority?

(Photo is by Sarah Silbiger in The New York Times.)

The Constitution of the United States, in its First Amendment, guarantees freedom of religion. It has been taken to mean that the government (which our Founding Fathers said was secular) should not favor one religion over any other religion, or demand a citizen adhere to any religion.

But that has not been the case in the past. It is fairly commonplace in this country for religious displays (Ten Commandments, Christmas displays, etc.) to be placed on government property with the blessings of that government -- in spite of the fact that such displays clearly favors one religion (christianity) over others, giving at least the appearance that christianity is the government-favored religion.

A case was argued before the Supreme Court last week that involved this very phenomenon -- the placing of christian symbols on government property. The case involves a 40-foot cross placed on government property by the American Legion that purports to honor World War I soldiers (see picture above). It is clearly a christian symbol, even though not all those soldiers were christian.

Does that cross violate the United States Constitution? I believe it does. We'll find out this summer what the Supreme Court thinks. Sadly, I expect they will allow the cross to remain on government property -- making a hollow joke of the First Amendment's religious freedom clause.

Here is part of what the editorial board of The New York Times had to say:

This week’s hearing, in American Legion v. American Humanist Association, involved a 40-foot cross in Bladensburg, Md., that was erected 93 years ago to honor fallen World War I soldiers. The question before the court: Is Maryland in violation of the First Amendment because the memorial is on public property and maintained with public funds?

Over the years, the justices have tried to come up with rules to assess all kinds of religious emblems and practices carrying the government’s imprimatur — sectarian prayers in legislative sessions, war memorials, Ten Commandments and Christmas displays, and mottos on seals or currency.

Lower court judges are confused about how to apply the Supreme Court’s dictates in this area of the law, so more clarity from the high court — if not a definitive, bright-line rule — is in order.

Alas, such clarity doesn’t seem to be on the horizon. After Wednesday’s hearing, the court seems poised to allow the cross — which otherwise bears no religious inscriptions — to stay. But the justices don’t appear to be any closer to consensus on this issue than they’ve ever been.

“I mean, it is the foremost symbol of Christianity, isn’t it?” Justice Elena Kagan asked at Wednesday’s session. “It invokes the central theological claim of Christianity, that Jesus Christ, the son of God, died on the cross for humanity’s sins and that he rose from the dead. This is why Christians use crosses as a way to memorialize the dead.”

Justice Stephen Breyer, who in the past has wrestled with the Constitution’s religion clauses, pondered whether “history counts” when assessing a monument’s legality. Maybe older displays, erected when the nation wasn’t nearly as religiously diverse, should be allowed, he suggested. “We’re a different country,” Justice Breyer said. “We are a different country now, and there are 50 more different religions.”

The Trump administration, which isn’t a party in the case, has nonetheless weighed in, participating in oral arguments in support of the Maryland monument and other memorial crosses on federal property that could be similarly challenged. In the administration’s view, the Maryland cross is secular in context and not an endorsement of any particular faith, and only displays that “coerce” religious belief or adherence ought to be considered unconstitutional. Taking offense at a passive display is not enough.

Arlington National Cemetery provides a good example of the kind of nondiscrimination the government should be aiming for: Federal rules allow for a wide array of religious and nonreligious symbols on headstones. “That’s the way this sort of thing is being handled today in a pluralistic society in which ordinary people … are not at each other’s throats about religious divisions,” Justice Samuel Alito said of Arlington on Wednesday.

That’s fair enough. But with its recent rulings, the Supreme Court has only muddied the separation between church and state by taking seriously religious objections to contraception, civil rights laws and the allocation of public funds. It is hard to fathom the justices being nearly as accommodating with a publicly funded monument to atheism or a Wiccan pentagram. And last month, the court couldn’t even agree that a Muslim death-row prisoner from Alabama deserved the same rightsas Christians in his final moments.

However the justices resolve this the dispute, they would be wise to not sow more confusion in this area of the law and feed the perception that only certain religions and practices get a fair shake in public life.

Some Facts About Muslims In The United States

There is a movement in this country to demonize muslims, led by the Republican in the White House (and many in his political party). That is clearly an un-American movement. Our Founding Fathers made it clear that they were trying to establish a secular democracy -- one that would allow all religions to flourish (and allow citizens to choose to have no religion at all). They thought this was so important that they included it in the First Amendment to our Constitution.

There are currently about 3.35 million muslims in the United States, and that figure is only going to grow in the future. They are good citizens, and love this country as much as any non-muslims. Just as racism, misogyny, and homophobic are evils that this country must get rid of, so is the bigotry against muslims (and other non-christians).

I found the charts above from the Pew Research Center interesting, and thought you might also.

Appeals Court Upholds Block Of Trump's Travel Ban

Donald Trump has lost another round in the courts over his executive order banning muslims from certain countries from entering the United States.

After his first executive order travel ban was tossed by the courts, he made some small revisions and issued a second executive order travel ban. That was almost immediately blocked by U.S. District Judges in Maryland and Hawaii.

The Trump administration appealed the rulings of those courts to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals -- asking that appeals court to overturn the lower court rulings and allow the ban to be instituted.

On Thursday, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its ruling (a 205 page ruling which you can read here). They refused to unblock Trump's ban on travel to this country by a vote of 10 to 3.

And they were unequivocal in their distaste for Trump's attempt to subvert the First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom, saying the travel ban "drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination".

It should be no surprise that Trump's bigoted toady in the Attorney General's office didn't like the ruling of the appeals court. Sessions, who has shown in the past that he thinks discrimination against groups is just fine, now extends that feeling toward religious groups. He says he will appeal the ruling to the United States Supreme Court.

What will the Supreme Court do? Will they uphold the First Amendment of the Constitution and rule that the Trump administration cannot discriminate against any religious group, or will they trash the First Amendment and decide that religious freedom is no longer protected? Sadly, with the current court, it could go either way.