And now we have two more hyperbolic posts. *sigh*
My thoughts on this are not hyperbole. I base my thoughts on what I have read from this Court and I find it quite disturbing. I know we disagree on the Establishment Clause, but that does not mean it is not under attack. This Court's going even further and trying to invoke free speech in religious cases. I can think of few things more repugnant to the Establishment Clause. How many Justices do you suppose would agree with Justice Black's interpretation of the Establishment Clause in Everson? I have trouble counting more than three with this current Court.
The religious right has been attempting to put religion and prayer back into public schools for decades. They finally have a Court that might just enable them to do so. If that's hyperbolic, I suppose the same would apply to those that predicted the demise of Roe once Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed. The difference with respect to religion is that Roberts is on board with that viewpoint and he prefers a more gradual approach.
Your
thoughts may be one thing, but your Aug 6 post said that you think "every aspect of the wall of separation that was recognized in
Everson is at extreme risk." How many "aspects" of the wall of separation are there in
Everson? Well, starting with the end of
Everson, one "aspect" is that state or local governments that subsidize bus transportation of children to private schools DO NOT
VIOLATE any constitutional principles, not even the Establishment Clause. Then there are a list of seven other "aspects" of the interpretation of the Establishment Clause that go as follows:
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this:
1) neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.
2) Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.
3) Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.
4) No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance.
5) No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.
6) Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups, and vice versa.
7) In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State." [Numbers added by me.]
Are there any other "aspects" of the
Everson interpretation of the wall of separation that I did not notice than these?
And do you really stand by your stated theory that EVERY ONE of those "aspects" are currently under "extreme risk"?
I happen to have said your post was hyperbolic also because of the last two sentences. I can comfortably say those two sentences were either quite hyperbolic or else just plan dubious and disputable. "The religious right is effectively writing out the Establishment Clause in the most meaningful ways relevant in today's society. That is the victory they want even more than the overturning of
Roe." How are they doing that? Has it ever occurred to you that they - "the religious right," (whom I can't clearly and definitively identify myself as one of them, although I have long had many sympathies with how they view politics and the
Engel decision) - simply have a narrower interpretation of that clause than you, Hugo Black, and several others do, but that having a narrower interpretation of it would have nothing to do with trying to "writ[e] [it] out" of the Constitution? And how good are your mind-reading capabilities so that you could determine that they want "writing out the Establishment Clause" even more than they have wanted to overturn
Roe?
