Justice Neil Gorsuch says no-one can sue to stop the government from establishing religion
"Theocrat Gorsuch says no American can challenge a Christian religious display on government property.
One inherent danger of allowing a religious minority to install a puppet controlled by religious fanatics in the White House is the now unfolding threat of government officially establishing religion – the Christian religion. Any American’s confidence that the U.S. Constitution is a protection against government establishing religion is grossly misplaced and, that belief is about to be disabused by the current religious conservatives responsible for adjudicating the law of the land.
. . . there are few conservatives who actually fulfill their oath to uphold the nation’s founding document and law of the land; this is particularly true any time the Constitution is at odds with the theocracy-minded Christian Dominionists. Christian Dominionists have lusted for the day the federal government will establish the Christian religion as the law of the land, and it is something Justice Neil Gorsuch contends cannot be challenged."
Gah, i had written a reply and then got lost in a chat box and now, my reply is gone.
I had not heard of this ruling, and went to research it a bit more, as although i usually do like alternet, i found this particular article to be a tad hyperbolic....so i went to find a more professional piece on this decision. and much to my surprise, when i googled "gorush religious displays on govt property" most of the first page of results were efn facebook links!? which is surprising, since i do not use facebook at all, so it was surprising that google offered me facebook links. which i do not necessarily see as trustworthy resources.
but, anyway,i am still needing to know more about this, from another resource, but, so far, it seems as though your headline IS true, it does look like we are fucked.
I remember when trumpetmouth was elected, i said, "the WORST part of this event is the damage he can and will do to SCOTUS.... because THAT will impact us all and THAT will take so so long to undo, even generations to repair."
the wall between church and state in 'merika, has always been fragile, tenuous and misunderstood by many of our citizens here, and 'merikans are NOT the brightest consumers of news around...
sadly, many of us can be easily flamboozled about the role of religion "in" our govt...
but, it sure seems that this fragile wall is being destroyed brick by brick....
It seems to me that the beginning of the end was Reagan opening the door to rw Christians. The end of the beginning was when the Rs stole the Garland SCOTUS seat and the Ds, as usual, did nothing.
well said... good points..
wasn't that just unnnnnnnnbelievable when the Rs stole the Garland seat? i just could not believe that there was nothing we could do? we just 'took it' and did nothing?
i still do not completely understand HOW that was allowed to happen....
trumpetmouth sounds just right
One thing I don't understand is, how come both conservatives and liberals interpret the very same constitution so differently. What's the point of a written constitution if it can be interpreted or is it that the founding fathers were too vague?
I've always been a glass half full sort of chap, but these last few years have totally dented my confidence in the future
As the old saying goes, the future ain't what it used to be.
Or as they would say in those 50s sci-fi movies the future is now
this is saying i will keep for future use
Interesting question, about is the constitution too vague? I am not sure that is the main problem. A factor, possibly, but, i suspect the bulk of the trouble is ideology causing us all to willfully bend the meaning of the words we read. ..to see what we want to see, to try our best to cause others to agree that OUR interpretation is correct.
Although, i think some of it WAS written most clearly, i do think there are those that sort of just squeeze their eyes shut to what it IS said
and what IS written plainly,
just to try to get their way.
..........Take the 2nd ammendment, for example, which is fairly straightforward, and is being used by the rightwing nutz to believe no regulation or restriction is allowed, which is clearly an abuse of the 2nd ammendment.
I think the words regarding the separation of church and state are among the MOST clearly written, and i feel the rightwingers tearing down the wall of separation there, is just willful abuse. I suspect the rightwingers DO realize they are breaking the spirit of the words regarding building a secular govt,
but, just ignore that and push their own ideology off onto those that would like to agree.
what they want to
i could be wrong, but i think a case can be made that even the amendment regarding church and state may not be as clear as it seems. is displaying a religious symbol on public land establishing that religion? what if there is no restriction as to how many other religions can display their symbols in the same lot? does this beat the amendment? or does it mean the public sphere shall always remain secular and free of religious messaging which should remain a private affair?
does this mean therefore that the government can't regulate religion even if its leaders scammed the public or this is to be dealt with as a felony?
Those court decisions were mostly from the 60s, 70s and 80s. A couple from the 90s. Facts still mattered then. Remember - character mattered then too.
Facts don't matter,
I wonder how many politicians protray themselves as actors.
It seems most do..