I don’t know how much confidence I have in the establishment clause any more, or at least the SCOTUS’s interpretation of it. If having “In God We Trust” on our money is OK, having prayers before Cabinet meetings is OK, adding “Under God” to the Pledge is OK, the annual Prayer Breakfast is OK, and on and on, what on earth would actually constitute an unacceptable establishment of religion?
3 Likes
It is not at all so clear in practice. Religions which are newer are much more well-established in institutional terms than ancient ones. Courts seem to be generally disinterested in testimony of cultural anthropologists and such. The lack of an institutional basis of many religions places a huge burden of proof on adherents. Many such groups, such as those indigenous to the Americas and Europe have been victims of cultural bias even to present day, and been explained away in law as either being recognized only as ethnic practice (Americas), or tautologically dismissed with “if it includes witchcraft, it’s not really a religion” (Europe). Going further back, many of these substances have had legislation enacted against them in the first place because they are sacraments of often non-white, non-Christian religion. Not because they are harmful to anyone.
Claiming that American religions are only open to indigenous peoples arbitrarily classifies them as only protected as a cultural practice, and not on a religious basis - despite no legal reason for doubting their sincerity. This functions rather differently in contrast to other recognized ethnic religions such as Judaism or “Hinduism” (which IS recognized as a real religion, despite being made up by westerners!) And again, there is a vastly uneven burden of proof here demanded of those adherents. Converting to even other ethnic religions such as Judaism seems to pose no legal challenge. Another shortsighted problem is application of an Abrahamic metric of assuming that other systems use only one specific sacrament which is doctrinally specified and cannot be varied or improvised. I suspect that many Americans would find this etched-in-stone perspective to be laugh-out-loud foolish. US religious law is mostly formulated around using contemporary Christianity as a benchmark for religion generally, despite it being a Levant import.
That might be their stated purpose. But in practice it has been to define what actual religions are. And my experience is that they do this in bad faith. It is not as bad over the past few decades, but there are still centuries of institutional abuse behind this.
I suppose it was an intellectually dishonest discussion from the beginning then, if whatever I say is automatically “sophistry”. As clergy, I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to assume that my knowledge of religious practice might be more involved than that of some judges who speculate upon such matters for their own perceived convenience.
Again, this stance is based upon the assumption that there is something to “get away with” here.
Too bad then, because they conveniently don’t recognize my religion as “real”, and wouldn’t recognize the institutional nature of its practice anyway. And no, there isn’t anything “naturally” suspect about it. The practice is well-documented as unfairly discriminatory. It’s cultural bias as law, where I am told such bias does not exist.
I wish it was.
I’d like to give you more <3’s for this. It’s the funniest thing I’ve seen in weeks. 
It’s just my personal experience, which has been more PITA than anything. But I am happy that you found it amusing.
Edit: Oh, I thought you were replying to my previous post! That makes sense.
1 Like
This is par for the course of Christian bigotry. I would be rather surprised if there were any protections for those of us who don’t believe in the supernatural.
3 Likes
Here’s the episode, cued for the whole skit. s’Greet!
Something I suspect many proponents of the law are aware of is the privileged status of Christians in U.S. society right now. Every time I hear it argued that the law is fair because it applies equally to people regardless of their religion, or lack thereof, I cringe because I know some religions are more equal than others.
4 Likes
ALL HAIL MOLOCH!
ALL HAIL MOLOCH OR I WILL NOT SERVE YOU AT THIS LOCAL NEIGHBORHOOD PIZZA HUT!
Moloch…pizza…hard choices there in Indiana
In historical context it was to prevent the creation of a state (government mandated) church. In modern context it prevents direct state (government) funding of churches. There continues to be debate about how it applies to programs related to religion but not connected to a church.
In many European nations there are still church taxes collected by their respective federal governments. I once worked with a German citizen living in the US who would complain about the constant begging done by American churches. He claimed it was much better in Germany where the government gave money to churches, and as a result they didn’t have to constantly ask for offerings. My understanding was that your not required to follow the beliefs of any official church, but you are required to pay to support those official churches.
Have you ever had (what passes for) pizza in Indiana? You’d prefer eating children too.
3 Likes
Please tell me more about Christian animal sacrifice. I hadn’t heard of it before.
Yeah, there’s not a lot of options beyond Moloch for pizza in Hoosierville, let me tell you.
A suggestion for leftists: If you want something to embarrass the wrong side of the right on this issue, there’s a simple thing to do. Hire an illegal alien and claim that it’s required by the Biblical command to treat strangers fairly (Exodus 22:21).
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
