Dominionists in the United States

[Recusant]

The constitution of the US wouldn't allow a dominionist based government. Actually the Constitution doesn't allow a capitalist state either. Capitalism is a personal choice so it cannot be favored over any other personal choice of sustenance endeavors. (material gathering/needs)

With a compliant US Supreme Court in place the government could go a considerable way down that road. Trump and McConnell are working steadily to pack the federal courts with right wing Christian judges who are ready and willing to write decisions favoring the Christian religion. They will create precedents for the Supreme Court to point to, especially if the Republicans put another Kavanaugh or two on the bench.

I agree, that if that's what they're up to then they are stepping outside the Constitution. The Court on a constitutional basis would have to decline making any decision, or even taking on the case for a ruling.

If the US Supreme Court declines to hear a case, the lower court ruling stands.

[Old Seer]

I have doubts it would even get past a lower court.

[Recusant]

We have seen the US Constitution flouted repeatedly in the past few years, and no decrease in support by the citizenry has been observed. This was done basically to advance personal political interests. The indication is that your faith in the Constitution as an effective bulwark against creeping Christian theocracy is misplaced. The same element of the population that's willing to cheer on those who have circumvented and undermined the Constitution for their personal political benefit will be overwhelmingly in favor of actions that promote Christianity, Constitution be damned. 

[Old Seer]

I don't think I have misplaced faith in the constitution. I fully realize there are those that would prefer it to be taken away. I understand that getting around the constitution is not an easy thing to do, but do not have blind faith. I may have some faith in the constitution but little faith to none in those that interpret it.

[Recusant]

I don't think I have misplaced faith in the constitution. I fully realize there are those that would prefer it to be taken away. I understand that getting around the constitution is not an easy thing to do, but do not have blind faith. I may have some faith in the constitution but little faith to none in those that interpret it.

You're beginning to get to the gist of it in your last sentence. None of the people I wrote about in my post express a preference that the US Constitution be done away with. Rather the contrary. They believe that it supports their actions, just as the Dominionists believe that (aside from a couple of grievously misinterpreted parts) the US Constitution fully supports their vision for the country.

Dominionists would tell you that your interpretation of the US Constitution is faulty. What they need to "get around" is not the Constitution. It's the godless falsehoods about the Constitution that have prevented the US from being the fully Christian nation that it was always intended to be.

[Old Seer]

Basically what I understand is- it would be against the constitution for the lower court or the supreme court to allow religiousness intrusion into government. Whether they do or not is a matter of speculation.

[Recusant]

The US Supreme Court is the final arbiter on interpretation of the US Constitution. If a lower court rules in favor of a theocratic law and the Supreme Court either affirms the ruling of the lower court or declines to hear the case, the lower court interpretation of the Constitution stands. You and I can grouse about it all we like, but how members of the public interpret the Constitution is not particularly relevant.

[Randy]

That is what scares me. Can you imagine the chaos that would erupt if we went into a theocracy? With all the other religions and our kind there would be turmoil with violent protests and so-forth. It would be a dangerous country to live in.

[Recusant]

That is what scares me. Can you imagine the chaos that would erupt if we went into a theocracy? With all the other religions and our kind there would be turmoil with violent protests and so-forth. It would be a dangerous country to live in.

Not to worry. The Christian militia, with their god's help and some funding from the government, will take on the task of ensuring the security of the republic. 

It seems unlikely that a full-blown Christian theocracy will arise in the US. That doesn't stop people like those mentioned in this thread from doing whatever they can to push the country in that direction. Right now they're on a roll because the current administration wouldn't have existed without solid votes from the right wing Christian evangelical demographic. There is no question that they've seen this administration support and enact policies that they enthusiastically endorse.

I don't think that the majority of the citizenry of the US are in favor of these policies, but there is a definite political imbalance built into the US Constitution. We won't dive in to voter suppression and gerrymandering, but they're also part of the political reality that has helped the Christian right to gain such prominence.

[billy rubin]

That is what scares me. Can you imagine the chaos that would erupt if we went into a theocracy? With all the other religions and our kind there would be turmoil with violent protests and so-forth. It would be a dangerous country to live in.

there have been good and bad theocraciez, although i think most have been pretty bad. pennsylvania was a quaker theocracy, and while it wasnt perfect, it did pretty well. lasted some 80 years, until it the quakerz seceded from government rather than fight in the french and indian war.

did away with capital punishment for one thing, except for treason, which was imposed by the king of england. ill have to go reread the charter. its not very long.

[Recusant]

People may think that I'm overstating Justice Kavanaugh's bias. We can look to his dissent from the latest ruling by the US Supreme Court on the question of church vs government for evidence. In his dissent he dishonestly presented the facts and sided with churches. This was over a relatively minor question, but shows clearly that Kavanaugh does not consider his duty to impartiality as a restraint. Apparently he believes that his duty to the cause of Christianity (as he sees it) is of prime importance. Truth and justice be damned.

Let President Trump put another Christian ideologue on the bench for life and we'll see rulings like this go the other way. It takes no imagination at all to see that it's likely the same will happen with more significant rulings as well.



"Roberts Upholds COVID-19 Restrictions on Churches, Scolds Kavanaugh" | Slate

Friday at midnight, the Supreme Court rejected a church’s challenge to California’s COVID-19 restrictions by a 5–4 vote, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the liberals. In a pointed opinion, Roberts indicated that he will not join conservative judges’ escalating efforts to override public health measures in the name of religious freedom. Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s dissent, by contrast, falsely accused the state of religious discrimination in an extremely misleading opinion that omits the most important facts of the case. Roberts went out of his way to scold Kavanaugh’s dishonest vilification of the state.

[. . .]

“The precise question of when restrictions on particular social activities should be lifted during the pandemic,” Roberts declared, “is a dynamic and fact-intensive matter subject to reasonable disagreement.” The Constitution leaves such decisions “to the politically accountable officials of the state,” whose decisions “should not be subject to second-guessing” by judges who lack “background, competence, and expertise to assess public health.” Multiple coronavirus outbreaks in California have been traced back to religious services. California has good reason to treat churches more like concerts—where people “congregate in large groups” and “remain in close proximity for extended periods”—than grocery stores, where they can social distance. For courts, that should be the end of the matter.

Kavanaugh, in dissent, viewed the case through a different lens. Whereas Roberts began by noting that COVID-19 has “killed thousands of people in California and more than 100,000 nationwide,” Kavanaugh crafted a narrative of invidious religious discrimination. His dissent reads like a brief by the church, not a judicial opinion. Kavanaugh alleged that Newsom’s order “indisputably discriminates against religion” in violation of the free exercise clause. For support, the justice insisted that “comparable secular businesses,” like grocery stores and pharmacies, “are not subject” to the same restrictions imposed on churches. California must have a “compelling justification” for this disparate treatment, and he saw none.

But Kavanaugh’s assertion that California treats churches and “comparable secular businesses” differently begs the question: what is a comparable secular business? When it comes to the spread of infectious disease, is a church really just like a grocery store, where people spend as little time as possible, separated by aisles and shopping carts, rarely speaking to one another? Or is it more like a concert, where people congregate for lengthy periods, shoulder to shoulder, often speaking or singing and thereby spreading droplets that may contain the coronavirus?

What is genuinely shocking about Kavanaugh’s dissent is that he does not even address this question. The dispute lies at the heart of the case, and Kavanaugh ignores it. He simply takes it as a given that churches are “comparable” to grocery stores when it comes to risk of spreading COVID-19. By warping the facts, Kavanaugh paints California’s rules as irrationally discriminatory, when in fact they are based on medical advice Newsom has right now. If the justice wants to override public health measures during a pandemic, shouldn’t he at least admit that he’s substituting his own scientific judgment for that of a democratically elected lawmaker’s?

[Continues . . .]

[Icarus]

Kavanaugh has failed to account for all those "secular" businesses who are shut down.  Theaters, concerts, sports events, live TV audiences, titty bars, and nearly every other business that might involve crowds who would be in close contact with one another.

[Recusant]

I don't think that was his failure. He deliberately ignored the facts to promote a specious argument in favor of the churches. What he failed to do is come up with any legitimate, constitutionally based argument in favor of the churches. If somebody as well motivated and qualified as Kavanaugh fails, it seems likely that there is no such argument.

I'm not saying Kavanaugh is a legal genius. However, he has people on his staff who are probably far more competent than he is. Kavanaugh failing to produce a legitimate argument means that an office of legal minds with excellent skills and knowledge failed.

That did not stop him from making the argument. Put another cut from the same cloth on the bench and Kavanaugh's specious argument would carry the day.

This sort of thing is why I don't discount the power of Christofascists in the US.

[Recusant]

Two decisions from the US Supreme Court that will be pleasing to the Christian soldiers.

"The Supreme Court Just Gave Religious Employers a License to Discriminate Against Workers" | Slate

The Supreme Court stripped civil rights protections from hundreds of thousands of American workers on Wednesday in a sweeping decision that exempts countless religious employers from nondiscrimination statutes. Justice Samuel Alito’s 7–2 majority opinion carved a huge loophole in the employment laws in all 50 states and the federal government, allowing religious employers to discriminate against any worker they deem “ministerial.”

Wednesday’s ruling in Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru involves a doctrine called the ministerial exception. This principle, which courts derived from the First Amendment, bars the government from telling a religious institution whom to choose as its faith leaders. Respecting that principle sometimes requires the courts to butt out of employment disputes, even when a worker claims unlawful discrimination.

The basic premise makes sense; no one seriously argues that the government should be able to tell a church it can’t fire its priest. But  religious institutions employ a lot of people, and not all of them play a key role in the overarching spiritual mission. Consider, for instance, the two plaintiffs here. Kristen Biel was a fifth grade teacher at a Catholic school that classified her as a lay employee. It did not require these employees to have religious training, and she had none. Biel primarily taught secular subjects; her chief religious duty was joining the class in twice-daily prayer. Agnes Morrissey-Berru was also a fifth grade teacher at a different Catholic school. Like Biel, she was considered a lay employee, taught secular subjects, and had no religious training. She also led her students in a brief prayer once a day.

After Biel was diagnosed with breast cancer, the school terminated her contract. She sued for disability discrimination. Morrissey-Berru’s school terminated her contract, as well—because, she asserted in an age discrimination lawsuit, it considered her too old. Neither school provided a religious reason for its decision. Yet when each woman sued, both schools raised the ministerial exception, suddenly announcing that, in fact, Biel and Morrissey-Berru amounted to “ministers” and thus had no right to sue for discrimination.

[Continues . . .]

* * *

"U.S. Supreme Court permits broad religious exemption to birth control coverage" | Reuters

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday endorsed a plan by President Donald Trump’s administration to give employers broad religious and moral exemptions from a federal mandate that health insurance they provide to their workers includes coverage for women’s birth control.

The court ruled 7-2 against the states of Pennsylvania and New Jersey, which challenged the legality of Trump’s 2018 rule weakening the so-called contraceptive mandate of the 2010 Affordable Care Act, commonly called Obamacare. Christian conservatives, a key constituency for Trump as he seeks re-election on Nov. 3, had strongly opposed the Obamacare mandate.

The federal government has estimated that up to 126,000 women could lose contraception coverage through their employer-provided health insurance under Trump’s regulation.

The Obamacare mandate requires employer-provided health insurance to give coverage for birth control with no co-pays. Previously, many employer-provided insurance policies did not offer this coverage. Republicans have sought to repeal Obamacare, signed by Trump’s Democratic predecessor Barack Obama in 2010, and Trump’s administration has chipped away at it through various actions.

White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany called the ruling “a big win for religious freedom and freedom of conscience.”

[Continues . . .]

[Randy]

Well that's just great!  I wonder what is next to fall.