The Holy Morality of the Supreme Court’s Most Sympathetic Plaintiffs
April 27, 2022 7:22 PM Subscribe
The current Supreme Court’s “tiered” system of constitutional rights He didn’t just bow his head. He got on a knee at the very center of the field. I don’t know of any other religion that requires you to get at the 50-yard line
I live in a lot of fear of this new era of SCOTUS. Any and all of the changes in my quality of life when I first came out in 1990 and now in 2022 could be undone by this court, and I am entirely helpless to do anything about it.
This new fascism is moving in, and it won't stop with abortion or LGBTQ issues. They'll take on birth control and divorce. The right already announced that during the last supreme court nomination hearings.
So... here we go. Wheee.
posted by hippybear at 7:41 PM on April 27, 2022 [38 favorites]
This new fascism is moving in, and it won't stop with abortion or LGBTQ issues. They'll take on birth control and divorce. The right already announced that during the last supreme court nomination hearings.
So... here we go. Wheee.
posted by hippybear at 7:41 PM on April 27, 2022 [38 favorites]
So how do they feel about Satanic prayers, or those of any non-Christian religion? I know the Supremes have been compromised, but are they really going to say "well we can establish ONE state religion, as a treat."
The fact that I can't say "pshaw, of course not!" with confidence is a real mood-ruiner.
posted by emjaybee at 7:49 PM on April 27, 2022 [10 favorites]
The fact that I can't say "pshaw, of course not!" with confidence is a real mood-ruiner.
posted by emjaybee at 7:49 PM on April 27, 2022 [10 favorites]
I know the Supremes have been compromised
Diana Ross will CUT you!
posted by hippybear at 7:51 PM on April 27, 2022 [19 favorites]
Diana Ross will CUT you!
posted by hippybear at 7:51 PM on April 27, 2022 [19 favorites]
I'm really hoping performative Christianity eats its own tail soon.
posted by JoeZydeco at 7:52 PM on April 27, 2022 [10 favorites]
posted by JoeZydeco at 7:52 PM on April 27, 2022 [10 favorites]
For those not following this, the Slate article does a good job explaining it. This has been presented to the media, most assuredly by conservative factions pushing an agenda, of a coach quietly praying on the sidelines after each game. This evoked the image of someone silently bowing their head to say grace. If this made it to the Supreme Court I bet there's all sort of nuance that lawyers laymen will miss.
In any case the short version is that the entire team gathered around the coach in a prayer circle with the coach and/or others encouraging players to even get the other team on this prayer action. What Kavanaugh hit pretty hard and fast: will there be a perception among impressionable teens and parents that they did not get a chance to play if they did pray? Or that they got a chance to play because they prayed? These are all valid points and hits the borderline players the most. As the kid in the article stated, he got to play because they needed him. It sets a horrible precedence.
There's going to be personal biases in team sports, adding prayer as another one is horrible.
posted by geoff. at 7:54 PM on April 27, 2022 [15 favorites]
In any case the short version is that the entire team gathered around the coach in a prayer circle with the coach and/or others encouraging players to even get the other team on this prayer action. What Kavanaugh hit pretty hard and fast: will there be a perception among impressionable teens and parents that they did not get a chance to play if they did pray? Or that they got a chance to play because they prayed? These are all valid points and hits the borderline players the most. As the kid in the article stated, he got to play because they needed him. It sets a horrible precedence.
There's going to be personal biases in team sports, adding prayer as another one is horrible.
posted by geoff. at 7:54 PM on April 27, 2022 [15 favorites]
When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.--Matthew 6:5-6, NIV
posted by Rhaomi at 7:59 PM on April 27, 2022 [8 favorites]
So how do they feel about Satanic prayers, or those of any non-Christian religion?
A sincere Islamic coach would be a great way to jog some justice’s memories about the establishment clause.
posted by condour75 at 8:08 PM on April 27, 2022 [26 favorites]
A sincere Islamic coach would be a great way to jog some justice’s memories about the establishment clause.
posted by condour75 at 8:08 PM on April 27, 2022 [26 favorites]
I recently had a class (I'm a student at a Catholic university) where we were assigned groups to work in for the semester. The very first activity as a group was to describe our religious beliefs on a scale from 1 (none) to 6 (a lot religious). Nobody wanted to take the lead so I went first as a 1. Everyone else was a 5 or 6.
Ultimately we worked together fine but it really sucked to start that way. With very religious people I always end up having to do some linguistic dance to make it clear that I don't care that they are religious and I'm not going to insult their religion and expect them to defend it... that is the whole point. I don't really care. Do your thing. I much prefer people get to know me first so they aren't watching to find out what terribly immoral characteristics I have or whatever.
Every kid that isn't religious, or just doesn't want to pray with their dumbass coach and his media people, has to choose to reject their COACH's preference and try not to feel weird about it and try not to have other people feel weird about it. I mean that is the whole point, to make us all publicly Christians.
posted by Emmy Rae at 8:15 PM on April 27, 2022 [23 favorites]
Ultimately we worked together fine but it really sucked to start that way. With very religious people I always end up having to do some linguistic dance to make it clear that I don't care that they are religious and I'm not going to insult their religion and expect them to defend it... that is the whole point. I don't really care. Do your thing. I much prefer people get to know me first so they aren't watching to find out what terribly immoral characteristics I have or whatever.
Every kid that isn't religious, or just doesn't want to pray with their dumbass coach and his media people, has to choose to reject their COACH's preference and try not to feel weird about it and try not to have other people feel weird about it. I mean that is the whole point, to make us all publicly Christians.
posted by Emmy Rae at 8:15 PM on April 27, 2022 [23 favorites]
Constant surprises. Ah, well.
posted by firstdaffodils at 8:28 PM on April 27, 2022
posted by firstdaffodils at 8:28 PM on April 27, 2022
A sincere Islamic coach would be a great way to jog some justice’s memories about the establishment clause.
You overestimate at least three, and maybe five SCOTUS Justices' sense of actually giving a shit. They'd vote for Evangelicalism to be the de facto established religion in the US every day of the week, and twice on Sunday. The only thing they'd throw out is an actual law passed by congress formalizing a de jure establishment.
posted by tclark at 8:28 PM on April 27, 2022 [16 favorites]
You overestimate at least three, and maybe five SCOTUS Justices' sense of actually giving a shit. They'd vote for Evangelicalism to be the de facto established religion in the US every day of the week, and twice on Sunday. The only thing they'd throw out is an actual law passed by congress formalizing a de jure establishment.
posted by tclark at 8:28 PM on April 27, 2022 [16 favorites]
The very first activity as a group was to describe our religious beliefs on a scale from 1 (none) to 6 (a lot religious). Nobody wanted to take the lead so I went first as a 1. Everyone else was a 5 or 6.
This reminds me of one of my parents’ favorite anecdotes of my going through K-12 in Alabama.
I had a 5th grade science teacher who had just moved from California. We got to a unit on evolution, and our homework assignment was to ask our parents whether they believed evolution was true. (I’m sure he wanted he anecdote about a room packed full of Evangelical 10-year-olds in his new town.) As the slacker I was, I neglected to do this, instead guessing (correctly) at my nonreligious parents’ response. No one raised their hands when he polled us the next day, so I did, matter-of-factly stating (again, not having asked them) that of course they believed in evolution. Why would they disagree with facts in science textbooks, after all?
That was just the thing to open the floodgates of disagreement with me. No one else spoke up to agree. I distinctly remember one girl stating just as matter-of-factly, “Boy, you going to hell.” My mom was livid at this guy for (completely unintentionally I’m sure) adding yet another facet to my weirdness and outsider-ness among my classmates.
Anyway, I’m pretty sure that’s what turned me into a preteen dogmatic atheist, loudly angry at and contemptuous of every display of religiosity in my public school. (It was a college town, so definitely on the milder end of that for Alabama.) I learned that sermon on the mount quote about hypocritical evangelizers by heart quite quickly.
posted by supercres at 8:44 PM on April 27, 2022 [39 favorites]
This reminds me of one of my parents’ favorite anecdotes of my going through K-12 in Alabama.
I had a 5th grade science teacher who had just moved from California. We got to a unit on evolution, and our homework assignment was to ask our parents whether they believed evolution was true. (I’m sure he wanted he anecdote about a room packed full of Evangelical 10-year-olds in his new town.) As the slacker I was, I neglected to do this, instead guessing (correctly) at my nonreligious parents’ response. No one raised their hands when he polled us the next day, so I did, matter-of-factly stating (again, not having asked them) that of course they believed in evolution. Why would they disagree with facts in science textbooks, after all?
That was just the thing to open the floodgates of disagreement with me. No one else spoke up to agree. I distinctly remember one girl stating just as matter-of-factly, “Boy, you going to hell.” My mom was livid at this guy for (completely unintentionally I’m sure) adding yet another facet to my weirdness and outsider-ness among my classmates.
Anyway, I’m pretty sure that’s what turned me into a preteen dogmatic atheist, loudly angry at and contemptuous of every display of religiosity in my public school. (It was a college town, so definitely on the milder end of that for Alabama.) I learned that sermon on the mount quote about hypocritical evangelizers by heart quite quickly.
posted by supercres at 8:44 PM on April 27, 2022 [39 favorites]
This issue has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with a specific faith (Christianity), but it's not really even about that. It's about people wanting to impose their own views on others - it's about their egos, not their faith (I'm pretty dubious about the actual faith of those who seek to make this a big issue to begin with). Christianity does not require public displays of anything, much less require that prayer be conducted in such a public way, as others have pointed out. The coach in question can pray much more effectively in private than in the middle of a packed stadium - prayer is a private conversation between a person and their god, not entertainment.
As a Christian, I consider those that seek to grandstand their faith in front of a crowd other than in a church and insist on their right to do so to be the worst kind of hypocrites, especially when they are in a (real or perceived) position of influence. Every person has the right to follow their own faith and to make their own decisions to follow that faith or none at all. They do not have the right to act as if those of another or no faith are lesser and this is really what makes me angry - the thinly-veiled suggestion that Christians have more rights than others. The right to be free from religion is just as important as the right to believe.
posted by dg at 9:16 PM on April 27, 2022 [36 favorites]
As a Christian, I consider those that seek to grandstand their faith in front of a crowd other than in a church and insist on their right to do so to be the worst kind of hypocrites, especially when they are in a (real or perceived) position of influence. Every person has the right to follow their own faith and to make their own decisions to follow that faith or none at all. They do not have the right to act as if those of another or no faith are lesser and this is really what makes me angry - the thinly-veiled suggestion that Christians have more rights than others. The right to be free from religion is just as important as the right to believe.
posted by dg at 9:16 PM on April 27, 2022 [36 favorites]
And yet I'm sure these are the very same pricks who loudly say things like, "We need to preserve the electoral college in order to protect the interests of the minority from being trampled by the majority, that's what the founders intended!"
posted by lock robster at 12:08 AM on April 28, 2022 [8 favorites]
posted by lock robster at 12:08 AM on April 28, 2022 [8 favorites]
Quasi-relevant anecdote: my childhood was in a small village in England, back when Thatcher was still Prime Minister. As such, well, there wasn't exactly the separation of church and state, nor a prohibition on corporal punishment. And so, at my primary school, every morning, the headmaster would march us across the street to the Church, and there the vicar would lead us in prayer.
One morning, I didn't feel like it. Not out of any particular irreligiousity, mind you; I think I wanted to read, or possibly even get some sums done. No matter. I refused to pray; I didn't want to pray that day.
Headmaster thrashed my arms with a ruler. And I spent that morning, thinking to myself "what kind of God is so small that he needs an old man to beat a young child, just to hear a daily prayer?"
And that is how my Christianity died and I became an atheist, at the tender age of seven.
To tie it in to this topic, just like that headmaster, nobody will be forcing any pupil, officially, to do anything. They'll just lead, and the children, will follow. And those who fall out of line- well, a headmaster doesn't really have to beat somebody, as long as there are headboys and prefects who can carry out the beating, now can't they?
And in such a way can millions be traumatized again, just as God has always demanded of man: suffer, the little children.
posted by LeRoienJaune at 2:15 AM on April 28, 2022 [43 favorites]
One morning, I didn't feel like it. Not out of any particular irreligiousity, mind you; I think I wanted to read, or possibly even get some sums done. No matter. I refused to pray; I didn't want to pray that day.
Headmaster thrashed my arms with a ruler. And I spent that morning, thinking to myself "what kind of God is so small that he needs an old man to beat a young child, just to hear a daily prayer?"
And that is how my Christianity died and I became an atheist, at the tender age of seven.
To tie it in to this topic, just like that headmaster, nobody will be forcing any pupil, officially, to do anything. They'll just lead, and the children, will follow. And those who fall out of line- well, a headmaster doesn't really have to beat somebody, as long as there are headboys and prefects who can carry out the beating, now can't they?
And in such a way can millions be traumatized again, just as God has always demanded of man: suffer, the little children.
posted by LeRoienJaune at 2:15 AM on April 28, 2022 [43 favorites]
The Court is taking a direction more historical than novel. Before the 1960s, the Establishment Clause was not understood to prohibit Protestant religious demonstration or even instruction, but to prevent the state from selecting a particular Protestant denomination for the sweeping preferred status that the Anglican church had in England and Ireland and the Presbyterian church had in Scotland, or to prohibit open practice of Catholicism or dissenting Protestant faiths. Of important note, this why the Catholic Church was both motivated to establish the Catholic school system (to spare Catholic children instruction and prayer in generic Protestantism) and could not be legally suppressed from doing so.
Where the Framers were (for the first 175 years, at least) understood to be more powerfully protecting other-than-Protestant people were in the Test Clause and in provisions that officeholders could enter office by affirmation rather than oath if they wished. It was those provisions which in English and Scottish law were used to deprive Catholics, dissenters and Jews of participatory civil rights.
posted by MattD at 4:52 AM on April 28, 2022 [12 favorites]
Where the Framers were (for the first 175 years, at least) understood to be more powerfully protecting other-than-Protestant people were in the Test Clause and in provisions that officeholders could enter office by affirmation rather than oath if they wished. It was those provisions which in English and Scottish law were used to deprive Catholics, dissenters and Jews of participatory civil rights.
posted by MattD at 4:52 AM on April 28, 2022 [12 favorites]
The 1960’s were 60 years ago so that seems fairly “historical” at this point?
But what of it? Historically people believed slavery was OK. If the court somehow construed that slavery was OK again would saying “This wasn’t novel, it’s just reverting to the historical ideas of the founders” really be all that insightful or even relevant?
A court being informed by history is one thing. You don’t have to be novel to be just. But if the court is unjust, then appealing to history is just one more cover story.
posted by delicious-luncheon at 5:22 AM on April 28, 2022 [5 favorites]
But what of it? Historically people believed slavery was OK. If the court somehow construed that slavery was OK again would saying “This wasn’t novel, it’s just reverting to the historical ideas of the founders” really be all that insightful or even relevant?
A court being informed by history is one thing. You don’t have to be novel to be just. But if the court is unjust, then appealing to history is just one more cover story.
posted by delicious-luncheon at 5:22 AM on April 28, 2022 [5 favorites]
I haven’t looked to see if there’s polling on this, but I suspect a lot of “nones” in polls will identify as evangelical Christians in the public sphere. They just don’t belong to a congregation. Other than the Church of Tucker.
Though I should look at the polls.
posted by zenzenobia at 6:01 AM on April 28, 2022 [1 favorite]
Though I should look at the polls.
posted by zenzenobia at 6:01 AM on April 28, 2022 [1 favorite]
Separation of church and plate...
posted by IndelibleUnderpants at 6:01 AM on April 28, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by IndelibleUnderpants at 6:01 AM on April 28, 2022 [1 favorite]
I'm really curious about the connection between sports and prayer. I can't think of any other public, secular events where people pray like that. You don't hear about orchestra teachers praying before the big concert, but maybe that's different because it's not a competition. Do debate teams pray before competition? Do members of the chess club pray before games? (I'm separating public prayer from private prayer here. I'm old enough to remember teacher-led prayers in public schools, and when people were up in arms about "not allowing prayer," it was pointed out that there would always be prayer in public schools as long as there were tests.)
A few years ago, I was at Mass when the priest, who was the football team's chaplain, in response to something members of the opposing team had said (my memory's a bit hazy), said he'd better not hear any of our team members thanking God for a football victory.
posted by FencingGal at 6:59 AM on April 28, 2022 [8 favorites]
A few years ago, I was at Mass when the priest, who was the football team's chaplain, in response to something members of the opposing team had said (my memory's a bit hazy), said he'd better not hear any of our team members thanking God for a football victory.
posted by FencingGal at 6:59 AM on April 28, 2022 [8 favorites]
I suspect a lot of “nones” in polls will identify as evangelical Christians in the public sphere. They just don’t belong to a congregation.
A lot depends on how they ask, but those nondenominational-evangelical folks should be more likely to identify as generically protestant.
In the 2020 CCES, the religiosity of people who said "nothing in particular" broke down like this:
A lot depends on how they ask, but those nondenominational-evangelical folks should be more likely to identify as generically protestant.
In the 2020 CCES, the religiosity of people who said "nothing in particular" broke down like this:
. tab pew_religimp if religpew==11
Importance of |
religion (Pew |
version) | Freq. Percent Cum.
---------------------+-----------------------------------
Very important | 1,576 11.53 11.53
Somewhat important | 2,893 21.16 32.69
Not too important | 3,482 25.47 58.17
Not at all important | 5,718 41.83 100.00
---------------------+-----------------------------------
Total | 13,669 100.00
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 7:39 AM on April 28, 2022 [1 favorite] For reference, the people who said "atheist" broke down like this
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 7:40 AM on April 28, 2022 [8 favorites]
Importance of |
religion (Pew |
version) | Freq. Percent Cum.
---------------------+-----------------------------------
Very important | 25 0.54 0.54
Somewhat important | 52 1.12 1.66
Not too important | 169 3.64 5.30
Not at all important | 4,395 94.70 100.00
And the people who said "protestant" broke down like this
Importance of |
religion (Pew |
version) | Freq. Percent Cum.
---------------------+-----------------------------------
Very important | 11,671 60.51 60.51
Somewhat important | 5,388 27.93 88.44
Not too important | 1,748 9.06 97.51
Not at all important | 481 2.49 100.00
So the "nothing in particular" folks are way closer to atheists than to protestantsposted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 7:40 AM on April 28, 2022 [8 favorites]
I'm really curious about the connection between sports and prayer. I can't think of any other public, secular events where people pray like that.
A snark might note that the proper prayer for high school football ought to be "Lord, please let none of these kids suffer horrible, debilitating injuries on the field -- no paralysis, no torn ligaments, nothing like that, Lord -- and may their cumulative head trauma from on-field collisions not impair them too greatly in later life. And please let this weird tradition continue."
One might also marvel at Bremerton Memorial Stadium, which has artificial turf that was part of a $1.2 million upgrade and has a capacity of 6,000 spectators. It's high school sports, one might think. Surely, if you add up all the players and the cheerleaders and the band members and add in their parents and some siblings and classmates, you're far short of 6,000, aren't you?
But in my mind, the high school megastadium and the megachurch (another odd-but-growing why-is-it-so-LARGE? American tradition) serve a similar purpose. Both are driven by demand; they wouldn't be there in their current format if their seats were 80% empty. But they also reinforce the idea that these particular pastimes are normal, they are expected, they are tradition. Almost everyone goes. And if you're not going... well, why not? What's wrong with you? is what attendees may wonder about you.
A substantial chunk of America feels backed into a corner and lashing out defensively, because they have a particular mindset and belief set and way of life that's all about tradition -- this is how things are, they've always been this way, and that makes them right -- and they resist anything that tells them that, no, people with different beliefs or different ways are perfectly good citizens and have the same rights and privileges that THEY do. "The Other are Real Americans, too" gets a strong, sometimes silent response: "NO, they are NOT."
Sometimes it's not so silent. Sometimes it's a visible protest against the idea that other beliefs matter. Sometimes you just have to go out to the middle of the field in front of thousands of people and declare that yours matter and theirs do not.
And sometimes SCOTUS justices nod their heads in agreement.
posted by delfin at 8:37 AM on April 28, 2022 [5 favorites]
A snark might note that the proper prayer for high school football ought to be "Lord, please let none of these kids suffer horrible, debilitating injuries on the field -- no paralysis, no torn ligaments, nothing like that, Lord -- and may their cumulative head trauma from on-field collisions not impair them too greatly in later life. And please let this weird tradition continue."
One might also marvel at Bremerton Memorial Stadium, which has artificial turf that was part of a $1.2 million upgrade and has a capacity of 6,000 spectators. It's high school sports, one might think. Surely, if you add up all the players and the cheerleaders and the band members and add in their parents and some siblings and classmates, you're far short of 6,000, aren't you?
But in my mind, the high school megastadium and the megachurch (another odd-but-growing why-is-it-so-LARGE? American tradition) serve a similar purpose. Both are driven by demand; they wouldn't be there in their current format if their seats were 80% empty. But they also reinforce the idea that these particular pastimes are normal, they are expected, they are tradition. Almost everyone goes. And if you're not going... well, why not? What's wrong with you? is what attendees may wonder about you.
A substantial chunk of America feels backed into a corner and lashing out defensively, because they have a particular mindset and belief set and way of life that's all about tradition -- this is how things are, they've always been this way, and that makes them right -- and they resist anything that tells them that, no, people with different beliefs or different ways are perfectly good citizens and have the same rights and privileges that THEY do. "The Other are Real Americans, too" gets a strong, sometimes silent response: "NO, they are NOT."
Sometimes it's not so silent. Sometimes it's a visible protest against the idea that other beliefs matter. Sometimes you just have to go out to the middle of the field in front of thousands of people and declare that yours matter and theirs do not.
And sometimes SCOTUS justices nod their heads in agreement.
posted by delfin at 8:37 AM on April 28, 2022 [5 favorites]
There's a big debate community in Christian private-schoolers and home-schooler clubs, and their teams definitely pray before tournaments and the winners thank God at the mic when accepting their prizes. When it's a Christian-sponsored debate tournament, all kinds of invocations and other religious content.
posted by MattD at 8:41 AM on April 28, 2022 [3 favorites]
posted by MattD at 8:41 AM on April 28, 2022 [3 favorites]
Oh man, I grew up in the Bible Belt and EVERYONE prayed before everything school-related. We specifically had an issue similar to what went up to the Supreme Court: A born-again Evangelical soccer coach holding a prayer at the center-field mark before game. I don't think he realized that half his team were Catholic, athiests, or agnostics. But boy, did we all get sidelined from our last two years of soccer once we all complained to the superintendent.
That's ignoring the number of times Baptists tried to save me on the school bus headed to sports events. I just laughed and explained that I was already Christian. "But you are Catholic!" "Yeah, I know. We came before you."
posted by gwydapllew at 9:10 AM on April 28, 2022 [6 favorites]
That's ignoring the number of times Baptists tried to save me on the school bus headed to sports events. I just laughed and explained that I was already Christian. "But you are Catholic!" "Yeah, I know. We came before you."
posted by gwydapllew at 9:10 AM on April 28, 2022 [6 favorites]
@delfin
... because they have a particular mindset and belief set and way of life that's all about tradition -- this is how things are, they've always been this way, and that makes them right...
Except that the people who have this mindset are overwhelmingly almost utterly ignorant of history and some of the things they insist "have always been this way" were in fact never that way.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 9:24 AM on April 28, 2022 [2 favorites]
... because they have a particular mindset and belief set and way of life that's all about tradition -- this is how things are, they've always been this way, and that makes them right...
Except that the people who have this mindset are overwhelmingly almost utterly ignorant of history and some of the things they insist "have always been this way" were in fact never that way.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 9:24 AM on April 28, 2022 [2 favorites]
Before the 1960s, the Establishment Clause was not understood to prohibit Protestant religious demonstration or even instruction, but to prevent the state from selecting a particular Protestant denomination for the sweeping preferred status that the Anglican church had in England and Ireland and the Presbyterian church had in Scotland
Most of the American colonies had official established religions. Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts were Congregational; Virginia and most of the Southern colonies were Anglican. Your taxes supported the state church regardless of your personal beliefs. Delaware, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island didn't have established religions. Most of the colonies/states disestablished the official religions shortly after the Constitution was ratified in 1787.
So when the Constitution was written, the Founders had the current example of official religions in the colonies, but didn't try to establish a national church. (Ironically, Baptists, who are prominent in trying to force Christianity on government today, were persecuted in colonial Virginia and were among the strongest advocates for separation of church and state.)
Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli (1796) says, "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." This was less than 10 years after the Constitution was ratified, and the treaty was unanimously ratified by the United States Senate, many of whom were Founders. Per the Supremacy Clause, treaties are part of "the supreme Law of the Land" along with the Constitution and federal laws.
I know there have been bullshit handwavy dismissals of the clear, plan meaning of the Treaty of Tripoli, which is part of why people hate lawyers. The guys (sorry, ladies) who founded the country explicitly and unanimously said the US wasn't founded as a Christian country.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:26 AM on April 28, 2022 [4 favorites]
Most of the American colonies had official established religions. Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts were Congregational; Virginia and most of the Southern colonies were Anglican. Your taxes supported the state church regardless of your personal beliefs. Delaware, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island didn't have established religions. Most of the colonies/states disestablished the official religions shortly after the Constitution was ratified in 1787.
So when the Constitution was written, the Founders had the current example of official religions in the colonies, but didn't try to establish a national church. (Ironically, Baptists, who are prominent in trying to force Christianity on government today, were persecuted in colonial Virginia and were among the strongest advocates for separation of church and state.)
Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli (1796) says, "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." This was less than 10 years after the Constitution was ratified, and the treaty was unanimously ratified by the United States Senate, many of whom were Founders. Per the Supremacy Clause, treaties are part of "the supreme Law of the Land" along with the Constitution and federal laws.
I know there have been bullshit handwavy dismissals of the clear, plan meaning of the Treaty of Tripoli, which is part of why people hate lawyers. The guys (sorry, ladies) who founded the country explicitly and unanimously said the US wasn't founded as a Christian country.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:26 AM on April 28, 2022 [4 favorites]
OK, I read TFA and I'm going to go completely off-topic1 and respond to it. The thing being argued is this
The current situation, where every right is held to be second-class next to religious rights, is nothing of the kind. It is a situation contingent on a particular set of people being in a particular set of places, and other people not being willing to call them out on their BS. And it is BS. The "religious liberty" complaints of the right are not calls for religious liberty but for special privileges for one religious tradition and it is something of an accident of circumstance that the people making those claims are getting away with them. It is in no way an inescapable consequence of the Establishment Clause.
1By comparison with almost all of the responses in this thread, which are not bothering to engage it.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 9:35 AM on April 28, 2022 [3 favorites]
So long as the public morality around democratic institutions is cast in terms of pencil pushers and rules, there will never again be a public health, education, child welfare, or other mandate that cannot be brushed aside with the argument that a lone person of faith is suffering under its heartless, bureaucratic strictures.Which conclusion is reached by some tortured appeals to the fact the religion is mentioned in the Constitution but health, education, and child welfare are not. I say "bullshit."
The current situation, where every right is held to be second-class next to religious rights, is nothing of the kind. It is a situation contingent on a particular set of people being in a particular set of places, and other people not being willing to call them out on their BS. And it is BS. The "religious liberty" complaints of the right are not calls for religious liberty but for special privileges for one religious tradition and it is something of an accident of circumstance that the people making those claims are getting away with them. It is in no way an inescapable consequence of the Establishment Clause.
1By comparison with almost all of the responses in this thread, which are not bothering to engage it.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 9:35 AM on April 28, 2022 [3 favorites]
I'm really curious about the connection between sports and prayer. I can't think of any other public, secular events where people pray like that.
It's not public per se, but my understanding is that you do see this kind of thing in the military. American football as a warlike activity actually goes back to the very beginning of the sport, shortly after the Civil War. This connection is fairly well studied.
I absolutely hold these schmucks in the battle-rattle LARP bucket (not against LARP in general, just specific applications of it). They're trying to achieve a conquering, and feeling like they can summon God's help in order tosurvive win a game. And to get those win notches on their belts, coaches invoke life-or-death imagery in Christian terms, the religion whose chief innovation was to invent a debt that cannot be repaid, a debt perfect for filling with obligations to your coach, God, and team (and maybe family), in that order.
posted by rhizome at 9:36 AM on April 28, 2022 [2 favorites]
It's not public per se, but my understanding is that you do see this kind of thing in the military. American football as a warlike activity actually goes back to the very beginning of the sport, shortly after the Civil War. This connection is fairly well studied.
I absolutely hold these schmucks in the battle-rattle LARP bucket (not against LARP in general, just specific applications of it). They're trying to achieve a conquering, and feeling like they can summon God's help in order to
posted by rhizome at 9:36 AM on April 28, 2022 [2 favorites]
Except that the people who have this mindset are overwhelmingly almost utterly ignorant of history and some of the things they insist "have always been this way" were in fact never that way.
Indeed. But history begins when they believe it does, and only their selected historians' accounts matter to them. The winning side writes and selects the textbooks, after all.
I get a chuckle out of the modern insistence on Originalist judges from our right wing, the notion that our judges should view the Constitution as set-in-stone and base their rulings on how Washington and Jefferson and such viewed the world. Setting aside the concept of an "amendment," let's think about that for a moment.
America has about 240 years under its belt as a sovereign nation; that's a pretty good sample size. And for at least four-fifths of that period, people who were not of the "correct" racial heritage, skin tone, religious belief system, sexual identity, sexual preference, gender itself et cetera were second-class citizens at best -- often far worse than that, including periods where they were essentially property. One could be told that they could not work, sleep, live, marry, learn, participate in public activities, use a water fountain, vote, or just about anything else if they did not pass a highly arbitrary standard of who was permitted to do so in many parts of America.
And that was How Things Have Always Been Here. And that is what that chunk of America, those who prospered from being on the right side of that standard, wants to return to.
The "religious liberty" complaints of the right are not calls for religious liberty but for special privileges for one religious tradition and it is something of an accident of circumstance that the people making those claims are getting away with them. It is in no way an inescapable consequence of the Establishment Clause.
One thousand percent correct.
Same-sex marriage comes to mind. The outcry against it always boiled down to the same two principles:
1) It's not okay because Jesus says so. (For one, show me where he said so. For another, that is not any kind of basis for secular law.)
2) It's not okay because marriage has always been this way. And again, not to put too fine a point upon it, why should that matter? If it is inequitable, why should that not be corrected?
Because it was an example of that particular religious tradition and its churches holding sway over an institution that directly affects almost all Americans, and a kneejerk response to the rights of _other_ religious traditions (or lack of traditions) being recognized. Kim Davis and her lawyers argued that she should not have to process same-sex marriage licenses because her religious beliefs were more important than the office to which she'd been elected... and that the answer to that was not "you should resign the office to which you were elected," but "you should be able to apply your religious standard INSTEAD OF THE LAW to your secular office."
Which is, in a word, indeed bullshit. But if SCOTUS is populated with people who like the smell of bullshit, and millions will happily vote for those who sling that bullshit, we're in for an offensively aromatic future.
posted by delfin at 9:52 AM on April 28, 2022 [8 favorites]
Indeed. But history begins when they believe it does, and only their selected historians' accounts matter to them. The winning side writes and selects the textbooks, after all.
I get a chuckle out of the modern insistence on Originalist judges from our right wing, the notion that our judges should view the Constitution as set-in-stone and base their rulings on how Washington and Jefferson and such viewed the world. Setting aside the concept of an "amendment," let's think about that for a moment.
America has about 240 years under its belt as a sovereign nation; that's a pretty good sample size. And for at least four-fifths of that period, people who were not of the "correct" racial heritage, skin tone, religious belief system, sexual identity, sexual preference, gender itself et cetera were second-class citizens at best -- often far worse than that, including periods where they were essentially property. One could be told that they could not work, sleep, live, marry, learn, participate in public activities, use a water fountain, vote, or just about anything else if they did not pass a highly arbitrary standard of who was permitted to do so in many parts of America.
And that was How Things Have Always Been Here. And that is what that chunk of America, those who prospered from being on the right side of that standard, wants to return to.
The "religious liberty" complaints of the right are not calls for religious liberty but for special privileges for one religious tradition and it is something of an accident of circumstance that the people making those claims are getting away with them. It is in no way an inescapable consequence of the Establishment Clause.
One thousand percent correct.
Same-sex marriage comes to mind. The outcry against it always boiled down to the same two principles:
1) It's not okay because Jesus says so. (For one, show me where he said so. For another, that is not any kind of basis for secular law.)
2) It's not okay because marriage has always been this way. And again, not to put too fine a point upon it, why should that matter? If it is inequitable, why should that not be corrected?
Because it was an example of that particular religious tradition and its churches holding sway over an institution that directly affects almost all Americans, and a kneejerk response to the rights of _other_ religious traditions (or lack of traditions) being recognized. Kim Davis and her lawyers argued that she should not have to process same-sex marriage licenses because her religious beliefs were more important than the office to which she'd been elected... and that the answer to that was not "you should resign the office to which you were elected," but "you should be able to apply your religious standard INSTEAD OF THE LAW to your secular office."
Which is, in a word, indeed bullshit. But if SCOTUS is populated with people who like the smell of bullshit, and millions will happily vote for those who sling that bullshit, we're in for an offensively aromatic future.
posted by delfin at 9:52 AM on April 28, 2022 [8 favorites]
They'd vote for Evangelicalism to be the de facto established religion in the US every day of the week, and twice on Sunday.
Arent a majority of the Justices Catholic?
posted by Billiken at 10:04 AM on April 28, 2022 [5 favorites]
Arent a majority of the Justices Catholic?
posted by Billiken at 10:04 AM on April 28, 2022 [5 favorites]
We use the word "marriage" to mean two different things: an often religious personal commitment to another person, and a legally binding relationship with that person with legal benefits and consequences. The Equal Protection Clause makes it unconstitutional to deny anyone the right to legally marry someone of the same gender.
I see two possible resolutions:
posted by kirkaracha at 10:14 AM on April 28, 2022 [1 favorite]
I see two possible resolutions:
- Replace every instance of the word "marriage" in every local, state, and federal law with "civil union" or some other legal term
- Use the word "mawage" for the religious/spiritual bit
posted by kirkaracha at 10:14 AM on April 28, 2022 [1 favorite]
The push to remake American law in accordance with a narrow, conservative religious interpretation doesn't stop on the football field, of course. I happened to read this article today and laughed until I didn't.
Mother Jones: The Man Behind the Texas Abortion Ban Now Has an Even More Radical Plan to Reshape American Law
The tl;dr is that Jonathan Mitchell, the article's subject is arguing that courts do not actually have the power to strike down laws that they judge to be unconstitutional; rather, they can only shelve them temporarily and the laws remain in force. If a future Court reverses that judgment, unrepealed laws spring back into force and, in his view, should be applied retroactively as well.
This is, of course, insane.
But no less insane than the "bounty hunter" S.B. 8 Texas abortion ban that Mitchell helped craft, which passed votes and is now winging its way through the court system. No less insane than the notion that state legislatures can and should simply discard the votes of future elections and select a winner themselves if they disagree that the outcome is legitimate, on any grounds. Not insane enough to keep a Texas state representative from issuing cease-and-desist letters to abortion funds across Texas, claiming that they are “criminal organizations” under the pre-Roe statutes and that their employees face two to five years behind bars for breaking those laws.
"Mitchell’s ideas could have vast repercussions for more than reproductive rights, legal experts warn. The notion that old laws don’t go away and can be resuscitated is “awfully curious in a country where old law legalized segregation, slavery, sexual abuse and rape of wives,” said Michele Goodwin, a legal scholar at the University of California, Irvine, who focuses on issues at the intersection of gender and race. Many of these old laws, she pointed out, “subordinated people who were not white males.” If Mitchell and his allies were to succeed, she said, the result would be to resurrect a version of the country as it existed 200 years ago, when “White men controlled every branch of government in every state.”"
Which is, of course, beyond insane. But we are living in a state of flux right now where we are trusting that judges (including Trump's appointees, many of whom waltzed into courtrooms with little or no endorsement or scrutiny, much less opposition from Democratic Congresses) are fair and sane enough to judge the means, not the ends and rule accordingly. When the Krakens and other election-toppling cases came before courts in the fall of 2020 and beyond, we had a momentary gasp of relief that, as of yet, those judges were within sanity's range.
But a high court can topple many, many dominoes with the wrong ruling at the wrong time.
posted by delfin at 11:31 AM on April 28, 2022 [3 favorites]
Mother Jones: The Man Behind the Texas Abortion Ban Now Has an Even More Radical Plan to Reshape American Law
The tl;dr is that Jonathan Mitchell, the article's subject is arguing that courts do not actually have the power to strike down laws that they judge to be unconstitutional; rather, they can only shelve them temporarily and the laws remain in force. If a future Court reverses that judgment, unrepealed laws spring back into force and, in his view, should be applied retroactively as well.
This is, of course, insane.
But no less insane than the "bounty hunter" S.B. 8 Texas abortion ban that Mitchell helped craft, which passed votes and is now winging its way through the court system. No less insane than the notion that state legislatures can and should simply discard the votes of future elections and select a winner themselves if they disagree that the outcome is legitimate, on any grounds. Not insane enough to keep a Texas state representative from issuing cease-and-desist letters to abortion funds across Texas, claiming that they are “criminal organizations” under the pre-Roe statutes and that their employees face two to five years behind bars for breaking those laws.
"Mitchell’s ideas could have vast repercussions for more than reproductive rights, legal experts warn. The notion that old laws don’t go away and can be resuscitated is “awfully curious in a country where old law legalized segregation, slavery, sexual abuse and rape of wives,” said Michele Goodwin, a legal scholar at the University of California, Irvine, who focuses on issues at the intersection of gender and race. Many of these old laws, she pointed out, “subordinated people who were not white males.” If Mitchell and his allies were to succeed, she said, the result would be to resurrect a version of the country as it existed 200 years ago, when “White men controlled every branch of government in every state.”"
Which is, of course, beyond insane. But we are living in a state of flux right now where we are trusting that judges (including Trump's appointees, many of whom waltzed into courtrooms with little or no endorsement or scrutiny, much less opposition from Democratic Congresses) are fair and sane enough to judge the means, not the ends and rule accordingly. When the Krakens and other election-toppling cases came before courts in the fall of 2020 and beyond, we had a momentary gasp of relief that, as of yet, those judges were within sanity's range.
But a high court can topple many, many dominoes with the wrong ruling at the wrong time.
posted by delfin at 11:31 AM on April 28, 2022 [3 favorites]
With the effects of using named terms in the 1st and 2nd Amendments to inculcate Christianity and firearms as national priorities, we see there is no real defense to this. Yet another hole in the left's discourse. However, I was looking at the 9th Amendment this morning, refreshing my knowledge of the Bill of Rights, and this seems (IANAL) like it could provide temperance to the Christian Violence movement, among other regressive forces in the legislative world by forcing the concept of unspecified rights being trampled to have a voice in the matters. I wonder what the history of 9A cases is, if any. [Googles...]
posted by rhizome at 1:49 PM on April 28, 2022
posted by rhizome at 1:49 PM on April 28, 2022
Can someone please explain to me how Biden hasn't just added eight more justices to the supreme court please.
Also while we're at it where is my student loan debt forgiveness.
posted by nushustu at 2:03 PM on April 28, 2022 [3 favorites]
Also while we're at it where is my student loan debt forgiveness.
posted by nushustu at 2:03 PM on April 28, 2022 [3 favorites]
Because only Congress can do that, not the POTUS. Biden could direct Congress to expand it, but not executive-order it into existence or force them to bring it to a floor vote.
Because of the precedent being set that would encourage the next GOP Congress with a GOP POTUS to expand it by 25, 250 or 2.5E+08 more judges, all of whom would be Federalist Society drones.
Because of the reasonable possibility that either Manchin or Sinema would shake their head ruefully at this VILE BREACH OF DECORUM for POLITICAL GAIN and either vote against the expansion or allow it but then vote against every single nominee that would bring it above nine.
Because of doubt that they will control Congress in a year's time or the White House in three.
There are reasons to do it, certainly. But it's a nuclear blast tactics-wise, and once you drop that bomb you can't take it back off the playing field.
posted by delfin at 2:16 PM on April 28, 2022 [7 favorites]
Because of the precedent being set that would encourage the next GOP Congress with a GOP POTUS to expand it by 25, 250 or 2.5E+08 more judges, all of whom would be Federalist Society drones.
Because of the reasonable possibility that either Manchin or Sinema would shake their head ruefully at this VILE BREACH OF DECORUM for POLITICAL GAIN and either vote against the expansion or allow it but then vote against every single nominee that would bring it above nine.
Because of doubt that they will control Congress in a year's time or the White House in three.
There are reasons to do it, certainly. But it's a nuclear blast tactics-wise, and once you drop that bomb you can't take it back off the playing field.
posted by delfin at 2:16 PM on April 28, 2022 [7 favorites]
I've never heard a Christian reconcile Matthew 6:5-6 with their inexplicable, insatiable lust for praying in public. I've asked many times. It's ok, you just need Faith, I guess.
posted by Geckwoistmeinauto at 2:25 PM on April 28, 2022 [3 favorites]
posted by Geckwoistmeinauto at 2:25 PM on April 28, 2022 [3 favorites]
So how do they feel about Satanic prayers
Unsurprisingly, when this case was developing, the Satanic Temple of Seattle requested, and were denied, equal access to the 50 yard line for prayer. They were, however, invited to a football game by a coalition of atheist and agnostic students and it didn't go well:
This Slate article, How the Right Is Bringing Christian Prayer Back Into Public Schools, is worth reading to see how this entire case has been argued in bad faith. Kennedy's lawyers argue, essentially, "He just wanted a silent moment of prayer on the 50 yard line," is contradicted by the reported history of him leading up to 500 people in prayer and causing so much of a disturbance that he cause a "stampede" that resulted in multiple injuries and then hired a PR firm to facilitate a coast-to-coast media blitz to support his christian persecution complex.
He has admitted his desire to coach high school football was inspired by a desire to proselytize:
Also, for the record, my high school football coach was a total legend. Known as the Father of Atomic Energy, he's been called "the best, most successful football coach in Northern Virginia history". He required participation in pre-game prayer to bless the game and to prevent injury. We were required to form a circle and take a knee to recite the "Our Father" prayer; I was/am an lazy atheist asshole and taking a knee while other people pray wasn't nearly as bad a running sprints or doing pushups until I puked, so I never saw a reason to complain about participating in forced Christian prayer, so that's where I'm coming from.
posted by peeedro at 2:40 PM on April 28, 2022 [10 favorites]
Unsurprisingly, when this case was developing, the Satanic Temple of Seattle requested, and were denied, equal access to the 50 yard line for prayer. They were, however, invited to a football game by a coalition of atheist and agnostic students and it didn't go well:
About a dozen members of the Satanic Temple of Seattle, most dressed in hooded black robes and some masked, left Bremerton High School shortly after their arrival at a varsity-football game Thursday night. They came in response to the controversy surrounding coach Joe Kennedy, who was placed on leave this week for praying on the field after games but attended the game in the stands.Coach Kennedy, of course, saw their presence outside the stadium and the school's decision to keep the football field free of any prayer groups, as further proof that he was being persecuted: "It's funny that it was OK to pray where I was in the stands but not 100 feet from there," Kennedy told ABC News today. "I guess that the fence I was behind was the safe-to-pray place in America."
Students swarmed the fence where the Satanists stood outside. The group climbed the fence, shook it, held up crosses, threw liquid, and chanted “Jesus.” Some yelled at the Satanists to go away.
A few of the half-dozen students and teachers who invited the Satanists to attend the game in the spirit of free expression were allowed outside the fence, where they spoke with members of the atheist and agnostic group and thanked them for coming.
This Slate article, How the Right Is Bringing Christian Prayer Back Into Public Schools, is worth reading to see how this entire case has been argued in bad faith. Kennedy's lawyers argue, essentially, "He just wanted a silent moment of prayer on the 50 yard line," is contradicted by the reported history of him leading up to 500 people in prayer and causing so much of a disturbance that he cause a "stampede" that resulted in multiple injuries and then hired a PR firm to facilitate a coast-to-coast media blitz to support his christian persecution complex.
He has admitted his desire to coach high school football was inspired by a desire to proselytize:
He was still mulling the coaching offer when he came across the movie Facing the Giants, a Christian sports drama in which a downtrodden football team is lifted to the state championship after the coach decides to praise God on the field.So, really, fuck this guy and his legal and PR teams that have so dishonestly represented his motivations, and fuck the judges that have taken those bad faith arguments at face value.
Kennedy said the film left him in tears. "I was crying my eyes out," he said. "It was a clear sign that God was calling me to coach. I had never experienced that kind of effect in my entire life. I said, 'I'm all in, God. I will give you the glory after every game right there on the 50 where we fought our battles.'"
Also, for the record, my high school football coach was a total legend. Known as the Father of Atomic Energy, he's been called "the best, most successful football coach in Northern Virginia history". He required participation in pre-game prayer to bless the game and to prevent injury. We were required to form a circle and take a knee to recite the "Our Father" prayer; I was/am an lazy atheist asshole and taking a knee while other people pray wasn't nearly as bad a running sprints or doing pushups until I puked, so I never saw a reason to complain about participating in forced Christian prayer, so that's where I'm coming from.
posted by peeedro at 2:40 PM on April 28, 2022 [10 favorites]
“The philosophy is that religion is why an athlete is good at what he does. ‘My faith in God is what made me come back.’ Or ‘I knew Jesus was in my corner.’ Since no one ever has an article saying, ‘God didn’t help me’ or ‘It’s my muscles, not Jesus,’ kids pretty soon get the idea that Jesus helps all athletes… So I’ve been tempted sometimes to say into a microphone that I feel I won tonight because I don’t believe in God, just for the sake of balance, to let the kids know that belief in a deity or ‘Pitching for the Master’ is not one of the criteria for major-league success.”
--- the late great and dearly missed Jim Bouton
posted by delfin at 2:45 PM on April 28, 2022 [7 favorites]
--- the late great and dearly missed Jim Bouton
posted by delfin at 2:45 PM on April 28, 2022 [7 favorites]
I've never heard a Christian reconcile Matthew 6:5-6 with their inexplicable, insatiable lust for praying in public. I've asked many times. It's ok, you just need Faith, I guess.
Hopefully this isn't a derail, but I've discussed this with a born-again friend. You see, original sin means everybody's imperfect and nobody can follow the entire bible because it's all about Jesus' perfection. Since being just like Jesus is impossible to attain by definition, there's no problem if there's some parts of the bible you don't follow or even account for. You're imperfect, just praise Jesus and you'll get into heaven anyway. This also means it's OK for evangelicals to bend society to their personal preferences regardless of harm. They all wind up rejoicing in heaven eventually anyway, so why not?
posted by rhizome at 2:50 PM on April 28, 2022 [1 favorite]
Hopefully this isn't a derail, but I've discussed this with a born-again friend. You see, original sin means everybody's imperfect and nobody can follow the entire bible because it's all about Jesus' perfection. Since being just like Jesus is impossible to attain by definition, there's no problem if there's some parts of the bible you don't follow or even account for. You're imperfect, just praise Jesus and you'll get into heaven anyway. This also means it's OK for evangelicals to bend society to their personal preferences regardless of harm. They all wind up rejoicing in heaven eventually anyway, so why not?
posted by rhizome at 2:50 PM on April 28, 2022 [1 favorite]
We use the word "marriage" to mean two different things: an often religious personal commitment to another person, and a legally binding relationship with that person with legal benefits and consequences.
Thank you for saying this - it's exactly this that drives the 'war on marriage' bullshit (if there's a war, it's a war to embrace marriage and make it available to all) that some go on with. One of the things that lots of religious people (which is a different thing from being a Christian) conveniently forget is that being a Christian is not the law, it's a choice. When we have a secular society that clearly separates religion from the law, we must 'give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s' (Mat 22:21 NIV). So accepting that the law governs what legal marriage is and the Bible, or Quran etc, governs what marriage is before a god has to follow from that. Therefore, Christians have no more right to insist that marriage be defined by their beliefs than any person with different views.
But, if you take that position, I think there's some logic in the view that you have to accept it's OK for a church to refuse to undertake marriage ceremonies that genuinely conflict with well-founded beliefs. This really conflicts me, because I genuinely and strongly believe in equality and also in religion staying out of the law just as religion insists that the law not dictate to them, so I have trouble with the idea of a church or mosque or temple or whatever saying 'we won't marry you because your marriage is not in accordance with our beliefs'. But I also don't understand why someone would want to get married by a church etc that tells them 'we don't recognise that who you are is legitimate'.
Since being just like Jesus is impossible to attain by definition, there's no problem if there's some parts of the bible you don't follow or even account for.
This is just about the biggest piece of bullshit I've seen. Well, this week anyway.
On topic, any judge of any court or, for that matter, any public official anywhere, is free to follow whatever belief system they choose and to practice that in their personal life. They must, under no circumstance whatsoever, confuse that belief with the law of the land. Their job is to apply the law as it is written or, where the written word is not clear, apply it as their legal knowledge informs them of what the drafters intended. Their job is never to actually create the law - that is the right of parliament (or equivalent).
posted by dg at 3:35 PM on April 28, 2022
Thank you for saying this - it's exactly this that drives the 'war on marriage' bullshit (if there's a war, it's a war to embrace marriage and make it available to all) that some go on with. One of the things that lots of religious people (which is a different thing from being a Christian) conveniently forget is that being a Christian is not the law, it's a choice. When we have a secular society that clearly separates religion from the law, we must 'give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s' (Mat 22:21 NIV). So accepting that the law governs what legal marriage is and the Bible, or Quran etc, governs what marriage is before a god has to follow from that. Therefore, Christians have no more right to insist that marriage be defined by their beliefs than any person with different views.
But, if you take that position, I think there's some logic in the view that you have to accept it's OK for a church to refuse to undertake marriage ceremonies that genuinely conflict with well-founded beliefs. This really conflicts me, because I genuinely and strongly believe in equality and also in religion staying out of the law just as religion insists that the law not dictate to them, so I have trouble with the idea of a church or mosque or temple or whatever saying 'we won't marry you because your marriage is not in accordance with our beliefs'. But I also don't understand why someone would want to get married by a church etc that tells them 'we don't recognise that who you are is legitimate'.
Since being just like Jesus is impossible to attain by definition, there's no problem if there's some parts of the bible you don't follow or even account for.
This is just about the biggest piece of bullshit I've seen. Well, this week anyway.
On topic, any judge of any court or, for that matter, any public official anywhere, is free to follow whatever belief system they choose and to practice that in their personal life. They must, under no circumstance whatsoever, confuse that belief with the law of the land. Their job is to apply the law as it is written or, where the written word is not clear, apply it as their legal knowledge informs them of what the drafters intended. Their job is never to actually create the law - that is the right of parliament (or equivalent).
posted by dg at 3:35 PM on April 28, 2022
Yes, it is bullshit. That's my point in relaying the sentiment.
They must, under no circumstance whatsoever, confuse that belief with the law of the land.
But what if they do? If they see everything in this existence on earth as tools to express their faith until they go to Heaven, that Earth is essentially disposable where it doesn't comport with their take on the Bible, what are the consequences beyond increasing the glory of God?
I realize this is all extremely cynical, but frankly I'm not sure it's very far from the reality of the US evangelical movements. At any rate it's not a joke or a shitpost, and it's congruent with my conversations and observations.
posted by rhizome at 4:46 PM on April 28, 2022 [2 favorites]
They must, under no circumstance whatsoever, confuse that belief with the law of the land.
But what if they do? If they see everything in this existence on earth as tools to express their faith until they go to Heaven, that Earth is essentially disposable where it doesn't comport with their take on the Bible, what are the consequences beyond increasing the glory of God?
I realize this is all extremely cynical, but frankly I'm not sure it's very far from the reality of the US evangelical movements. At any rate it's not a joke or a shitpost, and it's congruent with my conversations and observations.
posted by rhizome at 4:46 PM on April 28, 2022 [2 favorites]
Sorry, didn't mean to suggest that your comment was bullshit, but that the idea you can pick and choose what parts of your faith you follow is bullshit. It's also congruent with my observations, not just with regard to Christians, but those of all faiths.
A public official that sees everything in terms of a 'tool to express their faith' isn't in and of itself a problem as long as they understand they are there to serve the public interest in their role and don't confuse that with their personal beliefs. Of course, this happens all the time and the 'what if they do' question is answered by 'well, nothing' because there's no consequence in reality. If you can't reconcile your job with your personal beliefs (religious or otherwise), then you have no place in the role. But people do that all the time - we all do things in our job that we don't agree with personally and mostly we shrug and move on. If you can't do that, the solution is to find another job, not to reconcile your conflict by trying to force others to align with your personal views. The more power you have to impact people's lives, the more important this is. In theory, the selection process for a role as powerful as a US Supreme Court judge should ensure that only those able to act impartially and in accordance with the letter and intent of the law are able to gain such office. But, you know, politics is never about impartiality or striving for the common good, so here you are.
posted by dg at 5:13 PM on April 28, 2022 [1 favorite]
A public official that sees everything in terms of a 'tool to express their faith' isn't in and of itself a problem as long as they understand they are there to serve the public interest in their role and don't confuse that with their personal beliefs. Of course, this happens all the time and the 'what if they do' question is answered by 'well, nothing' because there's no consequence in reality. If you can't reconcile your job with your personal beliefs (religious or otherwise), then you have no place in the role. But people do that all the time - we all do things in our job that we don't agree with personally and mostly we shrug and move on. If you can't do that, the solution is to find another job, not to reconcile your conflict by trying to force others to align with your personal views. The more power you have to impact people's lives, the more important this is. In theory, the selection process for a role as powerful as a US Supreme Court judge should ensure that only those able to act impartially and in accordance with the letter and intent of the law are able to gain such office. But, you know, politics is never about impartiality or striving for the common good, so here you are.
posted by dg at 5:13 PM on April 28, 2022 [1 favorite]
"They'd vote for Evangelicalism to be the de facto established religion in the US every day of the week, and twice on Sunday."
"Arent a majority of the Justices Catholic?"
(As per usual, a comment where I talk about religion turned out distressingly long, sorry. I bolded the justice names where I talk most about them so you can skip to them if you want.)
Six of them! Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, and Coney-Barrett. But Thomas, Alito, and Coney Barrett are a fairly American-Evangelically-inflected form of Catholic that marks a fairly striking disconnect from traditionally "mainstream" US Catholicism. (Sotomayor grew up in a Nuyorican Catholic tradition, and Kavanaugh seems like a more traditional GOP Catholic type that'd be recognizable to a Catholic Nixon voter, say.) Thomas and Alito are basically entirely Evangelicalized Catholics, in ways that would have been shocking to American Catholics in the 1950s and 1960s who were still fighting the vestiges of elite anti-Catholic (and anti-ethnicities-Catholics-came-from) sentiment. They cloak some of their opinions in traditionally-Catholic language ("natural law" sort of thing), but their beliefs are almost entirely from the right-wing political form of Evangelical Protestantism that started noticeably subsuming portions of the Catholic Church (like in surveys and things) in the 1980s-ish. ACB comes out of a more authentically-Catholic ultra-right-wing tradition, but it's still quite Evangelically-inflected.
This is sort-of hard to express with any clarity, but I've spent basically my entire adult life reading highly-educated American Catholics talking to each other about American Catholicism, and the language they choose to use when talking about religion and/or politics gives a lot of cues as to their underlying deal. But it's more "a thing I've been adjacent to my whole life" and less "a thing I have studied and can express clearly and concretely." But the way Alito and Thomas talk, they think like Evangelical Protestants, who happened to grow up attending Mass and who cloak those thoughts in Catholic terms. ACB thinks like an ultra-conservative American Catholic. Kavanaugh thinks like a Republican -- I suspect he's more culturally Catholic than deeply committed to his faith, except insofar as Republicans "have to" be religious these days.
Sotomayor comes out of a Latino Catholic, rather than Anglo Catholic, community, and while I know a fair amount about those communities, I don't have a feel for them the way I do for the Anglo-Catholic communities I grew up a part of. Anglo Catholic in this context is basically shorthand for "Catholic communities in the US that switched to English-language Mass after Vatican II," which means Irish, Italian, Polish, German -- basically "non-Hispanic whites" in demographic surveys, with some caveats.
I am aware Roberts is Catholic but all I can ever read in his opinions are his desperate attempts to cloak the obviously-GOP court in some kind of vestige of legitimacy (that his right-wing colleagues have totally abandoned, to his obvious irritation), without recognizing that he's sliding merrily down the slippery slope and if he ever decides to make a stand he will discover to his horror that it's far too late and he presided over the destruction of the legitimacy of the Supreme Court for a generation at least. I have almost literally no opinion on his Catholicism. Every now and then something pops up in one of his opinions where I'm like, "Oh, I know what Catholic thinker that's referencing," but not particularly more than I'll be like, "Oh, I recognize that appellate decision" or "oh, that economist again," and he's so institutionalist about the Court that that's really what stands out to me about his thinking. (Scalia had a lot in common with ACB; Kennedy thought he was Brennan but was not. If you read Kennedy's most infuriating opinions as if he's cosplaying being Brennan 20 years too late, they all make sense.)
A lot of American Catholics who grew up in the 50s and 60s who vote GOP look upon Alito and Thomas as kind-of outliers ... like they wouldn't say they're "not Catholic," but they wouldn't identify them as part of the mainstream of Catholicism, or as the sort of Catholic they recognize. And if you point out some of their more troubling views, people will say, "Well, but that's not what the Church actually teaches, you can't judge the Church by the outliers." Which ... I mean, fair to a point? No large group should defined by its most extreme members, especially when those members have no official religious authority? But also? THEY'RE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES, WE SHOULD ABSOLUTELY BE INTERROGATING THEIR RELIGIOUS FAITH WHEN THEY'RE MAKING DECISIONS WITH IT.
And also, dude, look at surveys about Catholic attitudes, "mainstream" Catholics of the 50s and 60s are going extinct; young people are looking at the Catholic Church of Thomas and Alito and either going "FUCK YEAH!" or quitting entirely. And like, it's not them, per se; it's this whole cadre of shitty-ass bishops (Jenky and Paprocki, I stink-eye you in particular because I must listen to your bullshit on the regular), and the de-ethnic-ization of American Catholicism that's led to a loss of certain kinds of cohesion in Catholic communities, and the sexual abuse by clergy, and the overwhelming media presence of Evangelical Christianity pushing out all other kinds of Christian thought from the public sphere in the US. But Thomas and Alito are symptoms and products of that. (For a very long time, I considered it an article of faith (heh) that American Catholicism, being a very big-tent form of Catholicism and the wallet of the Vatican, would never schism from Rome in my lifetime. Now I would honestly give it like 1 in 4 odds. Shit's crazy; American Catholicism has gotten deeply theologically bizarre. There's a part of me that says, "Won't happen; the pendulum swings back towards the center and these things tend to settle down, especially looking at multi-century timelines," but another part of me that says, "Won't happen but only because they're going to win.")
Anyway. My European Catholic colleagues and friends look at ACB and say, "Ultra-conservative and irritatingly American, but okay, this is a sort of Catholicism we at least recognize." But they look at Thomas and Alito and go, "WHAT KIND OF PROTESTANT-ASS CATHOLICS ARE YOU CHURNING OUT OVER THERE?"
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 10:22 PM on April 28, 2022 [24 favorites]
"Arent a majority of the Justices Catholic?"
(As per usual, a comment where I talk about religion turned out distressingly long, sorry. I bolded the justice names where I talk most about them so you can skip to them if you want.)
Six of them! Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, and Coney-Barrett. But Thomas, Alito, and Coney Barrett are a fairly American-Evangelically-inflected form of Catholic that marks a fairly striking disconnect from traditionally "mainstream" US Catholicism. (Sotomayor grew up in a Nuyorican Catholic tradition, and Kavanaugh seems like a more traditional GOP Catholic type that'd be recognizable to a Catholic Nixon voter, say.) Thomas and Alito are basically entirely Evangelicalized Catholics, in ways that would have been shocking to American Catholics in the 1950s and 1960s who were still fighting the vestiges of elite anti-Catholic (and anti-ethnicities-Catholics-came-from) sentiment. They cloak some of their opinions in traditionally-Catholic language ("natural law" sort of thing), but their beliefs are almost entirely from the right-wing political form of Evangelical Protestantism that started noticeably subsuming portions of the Catholic Church (like in surveys and things) in the 1980s-ish. ACB comes out of a more authentically-Catholic ultra-right-wing tradition, but it's still quite Evangelically-inflected.
This is sort-of hard to express with any clarity, but I've spent basically my entire adult life reading highly-educated American Catholics talking to each other about American Catholicism, and the language they choose to use when talking about religion and/or politics gives a lot of cues as to their underlying deal. But it's more "a thing I've been adjacent to my whole life" and less "a thing I have studied and can express clearly and concretely." But the way Alito and Thomas talk, they think like Evangelical Protestants, who happened to grow up attending Mass and who cloak those thoughts in Catholic terms. ACB thinks like an ultra-conservative American Catholic. Kavanaugh thinks like a Republican -- I suspect he's more culturally Catholic than deeply committed to his faith, except insofar as Republicans "have to" be religious these days.
Sotomayor comes out of a Latino Catholic, rather than Anglo Catholic, community, and while I know a fair amount about those communities, I don't have a feel for them the way I do for the Anglo-Catholic communities I grew up a part of. Anglo Catholic in this context is basically shorthand for "Catholic communities in the US that switched to English-language Mass after Vatican II," which means Irish, Italian, Polish, German -- basically "non-Hispanic whites" in demographic surveys, with some caveats.
I am aware Roberts is Catholic but all I can ever read in his opinions are his desperate attempts to cloak the obviously-GOP court in some kind of vestige of legitimacy (that his right-wing colleagues have totally abandoned, to his obvious irritation), without recognizing that he's sliding merrily down the slippery slope and if he ever decides to make a stand he will discover to his horror that it's far too late and he presided over the destruction of the legitimacy of the Supreme Court for a generation at least. I have almost literally no opinion on his Catholicism. Every now and then something pops up in one of his opinions where I'm like, "Oh, I know what Catholic thinker that's referencing," but not particularly more than I'll be like, "Oh, I recognize that appellate decision" or "oh, that economist again," and he's so institutionalist about the Court that that's really what stands out to me about his thinking. (Scalia had a lot in common with ACB; Kennedy thought he was Brennan but was not. If you read Kennedy's most infuriating opinions as if he's cosplaying being Brennan 20 years too late, they all make sense.)
A lot of American Catholics who grew up in the 50s and 60s who vote GOP look upon Alito and Thomas as kind-of outliers ... like they wouldn't say they're "not Catholic," but they wouldn't identify them as part of the mainstream of Catholicism, or as the sort of Catholic they recognize. And if you point out some of their more troubling views, people will say, "Well, but that's not what the Church actually teaches, you can't judge the Church by the outliers." Which ... I mean, fair to a point? No large group should defined by its most extreme members, especially when those members have no official religious authority? But also? THEY'RE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES, WE SHOULD ABSOLUTELY BE INTERROGATING THEIR RELIGIOUS FAITH WHEN THEY'RE MAKING DECISIONS WITH IT.
And also, dude, look at surveys about Catholic attitudes, "mainstream" Catholics of the 50s and 60s are going extinct; young people are looking at the Catholic Church of Thomas and Alito and either going "FUCK YEAH!" or quitting entirely. And like, it's not them, per se; it's this whole cadre of shitty-ass bishops (Jenky and Paprocki, I stink-eye you in particular because I must listen to your bullshit on the regular), and the de-ethnic-ization of American Catholicism that's led to a loss of certain kinds of cohesion in Catholic communities, and the sexual abuse by clergy, and the overwhelming media presence of Evangelical Christianity pushing out all other kinds of Christian thought from the public sphere in the US. But Thomas and Alito are symptoms and products of that. (For a very long time, I considered it an article of faith (heh) that American Catholicism, being a very big-tent form of Catholicism and the wallet of the Vatican, would never schism from Rome in my lifetime. Now I would honestly give it like 1 in 4 odds. Shit's crazy; American Catholicism has gotten deeply theologically bizarre. There's a part of me that says, "Won't happen; the pendulum swings back towards the center and these things tend to settle down, especially looking at multi-century timelines," but another part of me that says, "Won't happen but only because they're going to win.")
Anyway. My European Catholic colleagues and friends look at ACB and say, "Ultra-conservative and irritatingly American, but okay, this is a sort of Catholicism we at least recognize." But they look at Thomas and Alito and go, "WHAT KIND OF PROTESTANT-ASS CATHOLICS ARE YOU CHURNING OUT OVER THERE?"
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 10:22 PM on April 28, 2022 [24 favorites]
NPR had a pretty good legal analysis of the football prayer thing. The takeaway I got was "Probably the Supreme Court is going to say that the school can and should issue lots of disclaimers about this not being a school sponsored activity and that participation or lack thereof won't affect coaching decisions. And with those disclaimers, this guy's public prayer is fine." The only question, of course, is how to be sure that it's TRUE that participation doesn't affect playing time or position assignments or whatever.
As for the Catholic/evangelical politics of it all... there is quite the ongoing war within the Catholic church between the Steve Bannon types and, well, everyone else. I wrote a long comment with lots of links back in 2017. The latest front in that war is Marjorie Taylor Greene, who recently said in an interview that she believed Satan was controlling the Catholic Church. The Bannonites, who dislike Pope Francis anyway, will give her a pass, because they agree with her criticism. (Basically, she says that Catholic Charities as an organization is too nice to refugees, and that the pattern of sexual abuse by priests is a result of there being too many gay priests. This is the stuff she attributes to Satan. She's Marjorie Taylor Greene. What do you expect?)
So as you try to understand how the Court will feel about evangelical prayer, keep in mind that some Catholics are so much more attached to the culture war than they are to the Pope that they will side with the person saying the Church is led by Satan.
posted by OnceUponATime at 9:55 AM on April 29, 2022 [4 favorites]
As for the Catholic/evangelical politics of it all... there is quite the ongoing war within the Catholic church between the Steve Bannon types and, well, everyone else. I wrote a long comment with lots of links back in 2017. The latest front in that war is Marjorie Taylor Greene, who recently said in an interview that she believed Satan was controlling the Catholic Church. The Bannonites, who dislike Pope Francis anyway, will give her a pass, because they agree with her criticism. (Basically, she says that Catholic Charities as an organization is too nice to refugees, and that the pattern of sexual abuse by priests is a result of there being too many gay priests. This is the stuff she attributes to Satan. She's Marjorie Taylor Greene. What do you expect?)
So as you try to understand how the Court will feel about evangelical prayer, keep in mind that some Catholics are so much more attached to the culture war than they are to the Pope that they will side with the person saying the Church is led by Satan.
posted by OnceUponATime at 9:55 AM on April 29, 2022 [4 favorites]
Biden could direct Congress to expand it,
Biden could ask Congress to expand it, assuming our separation of powers is still working.
posted by kirkaracha at 2:20 PM on April 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
Biden could ask Congress to expand it, assuming our separation of powers is still working.
posted by kirkaracha at 2:20 PM on April 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
Exactly. He can't make them actually do anything about it... but he could at least endorse the idea.
posted by delfin at 2:51 PM on April 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by delfin at 2:51 PM on April 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
« Older Grilling with Homer | What the Fitness Industry Doesn't Understand Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
That's the Sermon on the Mount. It's not some obscurity, it's literally one of the best known passages in the New Testament. Any self-proclaimed Christian who wants to make a national media spectacle of his deep need to talk to God is reading a very different Bible from the one I was taught. Zero sympathy for this shit.
posted by potrzebie at 7:37 PM on April 27, 2022 [104 favorites]