One of the nation’s top legal minds says that the United States should return to Christianity. The incident has left critics questioning his impartiality, and pondering whether a Supreme Court Justice should be so clearly endorsing one faith over another in private conversations.
“Return to a Place of Godliness”
In a secretly recorded conversation, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was heard agreeing with the idea that America needs to return to a “place of godliness.”
At a private Supreme Court event, Justices Samuel Alito and John Roberts were recorded by undercover activist Lauren Windsor, who was posing as a conservative Catholic. “People in this country who believe in God have got to keep fighting for that,” she is recorded saying to him, “to return our country to a place of godliness.” Alito is heard responding, “I agree with you, I agree with you.”
The full recording was posted on X (formally known as Twitter):
Windsor also recorded Chief Justice John Roberts, also a Catholic, who offered a contrasting opinion from his counterpart.
“I believe that the founders were godly, like were Christians, and I think that we live in a Christian nation and that our Supreme Court should be guiding us in that path,” Windsor is heard saying to Roberts.
“I don’t know if that’s true,” he retorted. “I don’t know that we live in a Christian nation. I know a lot of Jewish and Muslim friends who would say maybe not, and it’s not our job to do that.”
A History of Religious Rulings
The recordings have renewed conversation on what, exactly, the role of faith should be when it comes to the legal system. Alito is well-known for his strong Catholic faith, and has repeatedly ruled on the side of religious freedom, particularly in cases involving Christians. Among other rulings, he:
- Sided with a public high school football coach who was praying on the field.
- Agreed that a Christian web designer can legally discriminate against same-sex couples.
- Took the side of a Christian baker who didn’t want to make a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding.
- Ruled that a giant Christian cross on public grounds was not religious in nature.
Some critics argue that Alito may view himself as a legal tool of the almighty, rather than a supposedly impartial judge on the highest court of the land.
Do Faith and the Gavel Mix?
Similar questions have been raised about other members of the court, such as Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett. Before he entered law, Thomas originally intended to become a Catholic priest. Coney Barrett is the daughter of an ordained deacon in the Catholic Church.
How could it be possible, some critics ask, for devout faith beliefs _not _to influence these Justices' decisions on cases that revolve around religion?
Supporters might counter that it's unrealistic to ask someone to entirely remove their faith from the equation, but that the Supreme Court takes its mission to judge impartially and in accordance with the constitution seriously – and does its best to abide by that goal.
What is your reaction? And back to Alito – what do you make of the idea that the U.S. should "return to godliness"?
112 comments
-
David M Hines
Oh, that’s rich. The guy who takes payoffs from his billionaire pals wants to talk about godliness.
-
Keith D
Both "Justices" missed it. Their job is to decide cases per the Constitution. That's it. Any talk of using the Court to drive 'godliness' (whatever that is!) is criminal.
-
Rev Ned
There are thousands of religions. Who’s God????
-
Walter J. Holbrook
This is coming from a place of love and faith. Stop trying to force the word of God down people throat. Stop telling them that they are unworthy because they don't see the word as you do. God does not force his word of faith upon you. He gives you a choice. For so long many saw that Christianity and government should be separate because it would become corrupt. We as God's children see this today of how his words are twisted and misused to give foundation in politics and spiritual leaders. Stop playing God and serve him.
-
Richard G Brockschmidt
I believe this country is a godly country with different faiths practicing in different ways. The government has no business saying which way to practice. That’s how wars have started back in history and it is still going on today in the Middle East. That is what makes our country different.
-
Evens Noel
I agree with the idea that the U.S.A should return to place of Godliness for the simple fact that the fear of God always instills in the hearts of believers the wisdom and the love for others. Indeed, the United States of America has the responsibilities to uphold the freedom of religion according to the First Amendment by promoting the norms and values that are embedded in the faith. It would be in the interest of the United States of America if the Supreme Court Justices facilitate the religion in the K-12 Curriculum. That would allow the United States of America to nurture in the society good citizens who practice the justice and the goodness in their lives. In other words, by returning the U.S.A to a place of Godliness, the American society will witness a reduction of crimes, violences, and the abuses which are condemned by all religion practitioners.
Returning the United States of America to a place of Godliness means to allow people to learn about the philosophies of Jesus, Alah, Abraham, Confucius, Buddha. It does not mean that you are supporting one religion over the other. As a matter of fact, there are a lot of similarities among Christianism, Judaism, Muslim, Confucianism, and Buddhism. Returning the U.S.A to a place of Godliness is to encourage people to uphold and practice the societal norms and values. At the end of the day, it is up to people themselves to choose which philosophy they want to adopt.Rev. Evens Noel
-
Robert Edward Szekely
A Nation in which a majority of the population practice Christianity is not the same as a "Christian Nation". A Christian Nation would be a theocracy: the United States is a Republic.
-
Kathleen Anne OBrien
Another stupid statement from a supreme court bigot that has no idea what is ethical.
-
Daniel Gray
And yet another ignorant statement from someone who does not know or refuses to understand what is in the Constitution
-
-
James Bullard
When the nation was founded most of the people were Christians but there were other religious groups and not all of the Christians agreed. Even some of those who attended Christian services from time to time disputeted the dictates of their church leaders and many of the founders were deists who, although they believed in god, based their beliefs on reason rather than any specific theology. Their reason looked at the religious wars and pograms that had gone on in Europe for centuries and deliberately designed a nation where that separated religion from government, a secular state in which one is individually free to choose wheat religion, if any, to adopt.
-
Susan Shultz
*If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - Federalist Papers
Religious freedom to persecute is a dangerous freedom indeed. - Dirty Doves
Let us not police one another. Let us teach one another by example. Thank you.
-
Theresa C. Marquess
"In God We Trust." Like it or leave it, that is how it was from the start. Look at the money that is in your own pocket. That is a tell all...
-
Ari Joseph Bertine
Hmm. Looks like you're using money as scripture. That is also a tell-all.
-
Rev. Dr. Father JJ
it was added to coins in 1864 and added to paper bills in 1957 (because of red scare).
so why wasn't that phrase on coins and paper bills right from the get go, like maybe around the late 1790s or early 1800s?
or are you making it up because you really don't know (the) facts and aren't bothered by facts? hmmm?
-
-
Michael Anton Goedeker
In regards to the discussion, we do see a corrilation that a judges religous beliefs impacts his or her judgements: Impact of Ideology and Religion on Supreme Court Decisions
- Ideological Leanings:
Judicial Philosophy: Conservative Judges: Often adhere to originalism or textualism, interpreting the Constitution as it was understood at the time it was written. They may be less inclined to support expansive interpretations of individual rights and more likely to uphold state power and traditional values. Liberal Judges: More likely to adopt a living Constitution approach, interpreting the document in a contemporary context. They often support broader interpretations of civil liberties and are more likely to favor progressive social policies.
Impact on Decisions: Economic Regulation: Conservative judges may favor less regulation and more business-friendly policies, whereas liberal judges might support more regulatory oversight. Civil Rights and Liberties: Liberal judges often expand protections for minorities, women, and LGBTQ+ individuals, while conservative judges might emphasize religious freedoms and traditional family structures.
- Religious Beliefs:
Personal Beliefs vs. Judicial Duty: Judges are expected to set aside personal beliefs to interpret the law impartially. However, deeply held religious convictions can sometimes influence decisions, particularly in cases involving moral or ethical issues (e.g., abortion, same-sex marriage). Examples: Hobby Lobby (2014): The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a corporation's religious objection to providing contraception coverage, reflecting a consideration of religious freedoms. Masterpiece Cakeshop (2018): The Court sided with a baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple on religious grounds.
Trends Toward Conservatism in the US Supreme Court
- Historical Shifts:
The composition of the Supreme Court has become more conservative over the past few decades. This shift is largely due to the appointments made by Republican presidents, who have had the opportunity to nominate several justices.
- Key Indicators:
Appointments: Republican presidents, including Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump, have appointed justices who are generally conservative in their judicial philosophy. Notable appointees include Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and more recently, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Recent Decisions: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022): Overturned Roe v. Wade, eliminating the federal constitutional right to an abortion. Janus v. AFSCME (2018): Limited the power of public sector unions by ruling that mandatory union fees violate the First Amendment.
- Long-term Impact:
The current conservative majority on the Supreme Court is expected to influence U.S. law and society significantly. Key areas likely affected include abortion rights, gun control, affirmative action, and religious liberties.
Conclusion
Balance and Perception:
The ideological and religious composition of the Supreme Court can significantly impact its rulings, shaping U.S. law and society. A trend towards conservatism has been evident in recent decades, potentially altering the legal landscape on key issues. While judges strive to rule impartially, their backgrounds and beliefs inevitably play a role in their judicial reasoning.
-
Ari Joseph Bertine
This is honestly terrifying. These people have completely forgotten the "freedom" part of "freedom of religion". "Freedom" doesn't mean "I get to force everyone else to agree with me." They are the first to start screaming if they think someone else is forcing their ideas on them, which happens any time someone expresses their own ideas at all. I don't know what caused all these grown adults to have the entitled, spoiled brat attitudes of coddled toddlers, but it's horrific and it threatens the principle of religious freedom that was in fact the whole point of establishing colonies on this continent in the first place. And worst of all, these are people who are supposed to exhibit and use wisdom in their decisions! Seeing such fools at the top of the legal heirarchy chills me to the bone. Religion and law are not supposed to be synonymous in this country.
-
Michael Anton Goedeker
Your numbers are incorrect. Here are the actual numbers taken among other sources (the library of congress): Religious Affiliations (Revised Percentages):
Protestant Christianity: ~65-70% Catholic Christianity: ~4-5% Judaism: <1% African Traditional Religions and Islam: ~20% (among enslaved populations) Indigenous Religions: ~10-15% (among Native American tribes)
These revised percentages reflect a more accurate representation of the religious diversity among enslaved Africans and the Indigenous populations.So between 31-36% were not christian and also not catholic...
-
Russel A. Kester
I'm not sure about your numbers. Since the slaves reached a high of possibly 21.5% that would mean that for 20% of the population to be whatever is meant by traditional religion and Islamic virtually the entire population would have needed to be non-Christian. That doesn't sound right.
-
-
Steven Ferrell
Guess people would rather they believe in saying satan should be the way to go.
-
Rev. Dr. Father JJ
Satan IS the way to go. just go read your bible and read about all the atrocities that your so-called god caused on humans everywhere. plagues, floods, war, execution, sacrifices...all the things one would expect Satan to be responsible for are actually the results of your homicidal, maniacal, infanticidil 'god' who thinks nothing of killing every male child under the age of 8.
ever stop to think that your 'god' actually is the evil Satan and evil satan is actually your god?
-
-
April B
It seems that everything going on in the world with religion and politics is a repeat. I can’t understand why issues of old are being revisited? Have we not already addressed these issues in the past? Have we forgotten history? It’s so disappointing to see we as humans have still not reached a point of enlightenment. We are going backwards in time, and honestly, it’s scary. Our country is so divided. First, racism again shows its ugly face. Now, religious divisions, and not in a tolerant way. One can only ask, what’s next? We are reaching a boiling point.
-
Ari Joseph Bertine
I think forgetting history is the exact problem here.
-
-
Steven Alan Corben
I believe that " IN GOD WE TRUST" is on our country's paper money so there is, and always has been, an inherent link between God and country!!
-
Ari Joseph Bertine
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
--First Amendment of the United States Constitution, 1791
"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That at such time as new dies for the printing of currency are adopted in connection with the current program of the Treasury Department to increase the capacity of presses utilized by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, the dies shall bear, at such place or places thereon as the Secretary of the Treasury may determine to be appropriate, the inscription " In God We Trust", and thereafter this inscription shall appear on all United States currency and coins."
--H.R. 619, 84th Congress, July 11, 1955
"Always has been" is a weird way to describe "for the last 70 years of our country's 248-year history."
-
Russel A. Kester
It seems the inscription printed on our money was simply an acknowledgement that we had been and at that time still were a culturally Christian nation. I don't see the mystery.
-
-
-
Keith Law
“America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”
Article 11, Treaty of Tripoli. Unanimously adopted by the 5th presided over by VP Thomas Jefferson and signed into law by POTUS John Adams.
The article was read allowed in Congress and was printed in the paper of the day in Philadelphia. There was no opposition to this declaration by any of the founders alive at the time, and they all were but for one.
Along with the First Amendment, from a conservative judicial position, CASE CLOSED!
Alito and the rest of the conservatives on the Supreme Court are liars and hypocrites who l, like all FOX/Trump/Republicans (in that order) will say or do anything to maintain power and control wealth.
This is all a no brainer, right?
-
Rev. Michael Gerraghty II
Christianity is the new Reich under a different banner.
-
Russel A. Kester
Good grief, Charlie Brown.
-
Robert James Ruhnke
It’s not even a new reich, they’ve been murdering people for the last 2000 years over which rendition of their faith is better. Russell, he’s not wrong, Christian Nationalists and Christian Right wingers are wanting a return to draconian laws which punish people for being gay or gender nonconforming. This includes you Kester, no amount trans bashing or anti woke sentiments will save you from their blood thirst. Don’t be lulled into a false sense of security now just because you’ve had the opportunity to be alive in one of the most peaceful and secular centuries known to man.
Again, Kester, I don’t hate Christianity, that’s just you projecting over your own hatred and soft spoken well intentioned bigotry.
-
Russel A. Kester
Robert, first, your style of communication in the above showed some really good changes. I don't defend wrongs done in the name of Christianity and still need to study more about the idea of a just war. Neither do I fear the Christian faith. The Nazis in Germany did all of those things which you rightly fear as has the faith of Islam. It is the hearts and minds of the adherents that is to be watched. If they be good and loving people, so will their be their beliefs and actions. If one is a far left progressive than virtually anything else seems to him or her to be right wingers. I don't perceive that any truly far right persons are in a position to take over the country. I'm talking Neo-Nazi far right. And I don't fear Christianity. It has done some wonderfully good things for people throughout its history. These positive contributions to civilization are seldom pointed out and praised. Our society is not peaceful because it's secular, unless you think riots, setting buildings on fire, and hurting people is peaceful, it's peaceful because up until recently we had a republican form of government under the rule of law which guaranteed civil rights. That gets the credit not secularism. It was Christianity which helped lead to those cherished goods as it preached the dignity and worth of each person as a child of God.
-
-
-
-
James Mounts
History has shown that Judeo-Christian biases produce a better society than the religion of the left, secularism. Nothing in our Constitution requires our judges to be anti-religious robots. Get over it, and stop trying to install secularism as the official religion of the nation.
-
Rev. BH
Not "anti-religious robots". Rather, non Christian-Nationalists bought and paid for (e.g. Clarence Thomas) by the far right. Secularism is not, and cannot be a religion. Do you understand it's definition? :"Secularism is most commonly thought of as the separation of religion from civil affairs and the state and may be broadened to a similar position seeking to remove or to minimize the role of religion in any public sphere." Something scary about that?
-
-
Daniel Todd Kamm
I transitioned too early my apologies for any confusion: my reference: "And it's not appropriate for the Justice in this situation to cast the blame on his wife's activities or those of his neighbors" actually refers to Justice Alito, and the Justices in general; though it appears to refer to our local courts here and my jury experience this week.
If one sits on the Supreme Court... one had better be "supreme" in all it's facets... otherwise, well Diana Ross and the Supreme's will do, eh?
Peace Out..tk
-
Daniel Todd Kamm
The problem with "judging" is that it is very subjective unless one agrees under oath as they do to adhere to a particular standard ... like the constitution. Even then one's adherence to a standard can be swayed by many other variables.
The politics of the judiciary should be non-sequitur. The constitution says what it says, state constitutions and local ordinances should follow suit and also err on the side of increasing freedoms for all citizens, regardless of association.
That may sound ideal, and certainly our society has struggled to live up to it's professed ideals, sometimes successfully and sometimes not so much.
I just finished a very long week of jury duty. In the end, after some very tense moments we arrived at our decisions and in this particular case, or cases, as there were multiple complaints and charges, to convict on a misdemeanor charge, and not convict on more serious charges.
In consulting with the judge and the parties' representative counsels afterward... we were believed to have done the tight thing.
But what if we had had a biased, partial jury?
What if our judge, and our prosecutor, and our public defender, owed their very reputations, status, livelihoods, etc. to a political appointment instead of an election (elections are messy enough) and are expected to "deliver" justice based on their appointments and commitments to a political base...
Very messy. NOT appropriate.
And it's not appropriate for the Justice in this situation to cast the blame on his wife's activities or those of his neighbors.
While he is in office, he is responsible for the same things I was sworn to as a juror this week "fair and impartial" and a lot more...
If I can do it, HE can do it... or he needs to say he can't and get the hell out of there.
Peace Out...tk
-
Fr. Chad
If they do seek redemption, let me remind them and make clear for all who wish to investigate: - Gossip is a sin - Mockery is a sin - Giving false testimony against a neighbor is a sin - Lust is a sin - Scoffing is also sinful - Greed is a sin - Pride is a sin - False teachers, false prophets, and False Messiahs are inevitable. - and working on the sabbath is a sin - anger and hatred are the same as murder People live in and have love for sinfulness and of greed with no concern for the people or their greater good
-
Lionheart
The word “Sin” is just a human construct created by religionists to keep their religious blackmail alive.
🦁❤️
-
-
ServantOfJudgement
When a nation turns from God you get:
Old senile kings, kings that are immature and rash, entitled princes and princesses that break laws, squabble and fight, terrible homelessness, rampant drug use, borders over run, economic hardship, national drunkenness, wicked queens, pestilence, drought, flooding, government corruption, haughty women, womanly soft men, men dressing as women, children sold into sex slavery. I might have missed some, going off of memory. Not long after these things will the nation be put down.
Don't need to believe in God to feel his judgement, just need to turn on the news or go to town for bread.
I wonder how the primitives that penned the bible would wield such time tested intimate knowledge of the rise and fall of nations to the point of outlining the rise and fall of the USA.
-
Rev. Dr. Father JJ
seriously, just stop. all you do is push your own ideology here and berate and mock other people's beliefs. you behave in a way that is clearly not kris chin at all. so if you can't be accepting about other's beliefs why are you even here? just to push your own personal drug of choice and force others into addiction as well?
-
Russel A. Kester
JJ, if only he who is without sin may cast the first stone, I don't think any of us should be casting stones today. Your statement itself seems to be intolerant of SOJ's beliefs. How then can you right of being accepting of others beliefs?
-
Rev. BH
Rev. Dr. Father JJ, I too am intolerant of nutty beliefs. (R.A.K. What does "How then can you right of being accepting of others beliefs?" mean?)
-
Russel A. Kester
'Right' should have been 'write.' Thank auto correct. And it means that when one gets upset with others for not accepting the thoughts or beliefs one holds, it's usually because that person is guilty of the same frailty. These persons can often be found because they tell others to stop expressing their opinions while continuing to express their own intolerable opinions unabated.
-
-
-
-
-
James Mounts
When we say "America is a Christian nation," we are not referring to the government, or the "founding fathers". The fact is, most of the citizens who supported the new republic in 1809 were Christian, and today, the largest group who vote today are Christian. Are they not entitled to representation?
-
Joy
Oh here's an idea! How about SCOTUS do thier jobs whilst being impartial to the notion of "one side or the other will win" and keep religion out of it! SCOTUS is not the place for politics or taking sides! That is why we have three branches of the government to keep them all in check. Unfortunately, the Executive Branch seems to always over step and gets its claws into the Judicial and Legistlative.
-
Donald J Rothschild Jr
READ YOUR HISTORY!!
"America is a Christian nation!"
Oh really now? I wonder what the Founding Fathers had to say about this...
Thomas Jefferson: "Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
James Madison: "Religion and government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together."
John Adams: "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."
-
ServantOfJudgement
History says at the time of founding the population was 75-98 percent christian.
If I have a bucket filled with water, it's a bucket of water. If it's filled with milk, it's a bucket of milk.
We had a Nation of Christians. Check the books, you'll find the painful truth.
Not true today, as president Obama pointed out, we're a post-christian nation nowadays.
-
Christine
Well that's a meaningless simile if there ever was one. You can say the population was mostly various denominations of Christianity that have fundamental disagreements with each other, but that doesn't make it a "Christian nation" - that makes it a secular country filled with lots of Christians. Interesting that you completely ignored the painful truth expressed by the actual founding fathers when designing this nation as specifically not a Christian one, but cling to some apparent Obama quote. It's almost like you have an agenda that doesn't align with the facts and are doing your best to hide that via distraction.
-
ServantOfJudgement
Just agreeing with what a president said Christine.
He won the nobel peace prize immediately after being elected before he even took office. President Biden said of him "I mean, you got the first sort of mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy". On top of Biden's assessment, he's educated.
When a president with those credentials says we're a post Christian nation, then we're a post Christian nation.
Why fret anyhow, where not one and never will be one. Were a satanic nation now.
-
Rev. BH
"Were (sic) a satanic nation now." Wow! So that's why I'm suddenly feeling so Satanic today! Think I'll go hang with all my Satanic pals and do Satanic stuff!
-
-
Russel A. Kester
Christine, review Federalist Paper No. 2 wherein it specifically says that the peoples of the several states shared a common religion, namely, Christianity. Also, read some of the literature of the era and it shows just how much Christianity influenced it. To wit, "The role of religion played a major role in early American literature. Many different authors form a variety of time period's incorporate religious ideas and philosophies into their writings." Source is https://www.bartleby.com/essay/The-Role-of-Religion-in-Early-American-FKC9Z7RYVC#google_vignette
Churches were everywhere, Christian morals were the law of the land, and people's lives were guided by their Christian faith. As the paper to which I referred said this was a Christian nation despite some people like Jefferson who went through the Bible and removed any references to miracles because he had a person problem with Christianity. But his was one of a handful who thought that way and they did not reflect the attitudes and beliefs of society as a whole.
-
-
Patricia Ann Gross
SOJ, If I have a bucket 3/4 filled with water, it is not a bucket filled with water. It is 3/4 water and 1/4 air. Not being a Christian nation does not equate to being a Satanic nation. We're a nation of hundreds of different mainline and indigenous religions, including those that ascribe to no religions. The First Amendment gives us that right, so nobody should be disparaged or discriminated against because of whether or not they follow a particular religion. Neither should they be considered less than 100 percent human.
-
Farajallah Michael Yazbek
NO, if you read the 1st Amendment correctly it says, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING the free exercise thereof; or bridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." This means hands off religion or the stopping of it by anyone who wishes to practice it. William Wayne Justice got it wrong with the ruling in favor of Madelaine Murray O' Hare in the 1960s. There is no actual prohibition of reading Bible Stories or prayer in schools, but rather it is actually supported by the First Amendment.
The fact that the activist in question lied about why she was conducting the interview brings into question her honesty in the article she published by posting the video online. Believe me when judges at all levels use their morals, which stems from religion, to make proper judgements based on societal norms. Just because he says he uses his religion to base his decisions doesn't mean he's cramming things down our throats. It means he does things thoughtfully and morally. Deal with it, but he consults scripture to get his inspiration and advice on how to properly think out his rulings.
-
Rev. Rory
So then, what is your opinion about religion in India? Who is right? Who is wrong? What does this accomplish?
"The history of modern India has many incidents of communal violence. During the 1947 partition there was religious violence between Muslim-Hindu, Muslim-Sikhs and Muslim-Jains on a gigantic scale. Hundreds of religious riots have been recorded since then, in every decade of independent India."
-
Rev. Dr. Father JJ
can the kkkristofascists that are anti-...well pretty much anti- everyone and everything that isn't white, straight and for the most part, male, accept that their future (or that of their children) is going to be that of a brown nation.
between blacks and especially latinos, that nasty ole' miscegenation is working hard to mix all the races, distilling it down to probably a nice cocoa brown. so while it may become, well not kkkris chin but katoholic instead, it will become (it IS becoming) a nation of brown people and all you poor ole' white, racist kkkristofascists will find out what is to be second, or third class citizens. personally I find brown (and black) to be beautiful. and who knows, maybe the first nations will finally get their fair share as well
-
Russel A. Kester
JJ, that comment was not only anti-Christian, it was also quite racist. Such comments are not helpful to making our nation one people who are color blind and love one another as God's children.
-
-
Dr. Zerpersande, NSC
@SOJ Never thought about it before that way but you COULD say that due to the great majority of citizens being xtian at that time the US could have been CALLED a xtian nation. However, if you check out the quotes, and the Constitution itself, you’ll find that it wasn’t FOUNDED as a xtian nation.
As for “ If I have a bucket filled with water, it's a bucket of water. If it's filled with milk, it's a bucket of milk.”…
If you had bucket filled with 75-95% milk and 5-25% horse crap you can’t market it as a bucket of milk.
-
-
Daniel Gray
Oh really? then explain why Jefferson not only taught a bible reading class INSIDE the WH but also according to his papers in the Jefferson Museum, claimed he was a deeply religious man and even led the prayer at the 1st Continental Congress meeting!
-
Dr. Zerpersande, NSC
Jefferson:
There is not one redeeming feature in our superstition of Christianity. It has made one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites.
I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.
The hocus-pocus phantasm of a god, like another Cererus, with one body and 3 heads, had its birth and growth in thousands of martyrs.
The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.
-
Daniel Gray
Mad because you have been proved wrong I see.
-
-
-
-
Alexander Arends
Supreme Court judges should base their decision on the constitution and the rule of law. That may mean that their decision disagree with their personal believe. So it is irrelevant if a judge is religious (any type) or an atheist. His/her personal beliefs do not have to coincide with their decisions. Otherwise you will only end up with non god fearing judges. And I find people trying to trap judges at social settings disgusting.
-
Merlin
Non-secular biases taints objectivity. Publicly acknowledging their biases should trigger disqualification.
-
Russel A. Kester
Merlin, the term bias is not applicable as it has a negative connotation which refers to something as being unfair. These two judges expressed opinions. Not quite the same and that term isn't loaded with a negative slant.
-
-
Michael James Mason
Keep your Politics and religion separate! Not every American follows Your religion!
-
Clay Serenbetz
Justice Alito's statements give the appearance that he seeks to turn the USA into a Christian nation. This is a serious breach of judicial ethics and creates a necessity for Justice Alito to immediately resign in order to maintain the credibility if the Court's decisions.
-
Russel A. Kester
Clay, if Justice Alito has a sincere wish for America to once again be a culturally Christian nation that is not tatamount to a breach of judicial ethics. It is a personal opinion or desire. Would you say that a Supreme Court justice who thought that America should be an Atheist nation had breached judicial ethics and should resign? Of course not. And neither should anyone think that of Justice Alito.
-
Clay Serenbetz
He publicly expressed his views by allowing the American flag to fly upside down on his property and then allowed a flag referring to "Heaven" above another home. These acts combined with his injudicious comments raise a reasonable question of his impartiality. Someone who wants to turn the USA into a theocracy. As such, he has forfeited his appearance of impartiality and he must resign.
-
Russel A. Kester
Clay, we must distinguish between personal opinions, which almost by definition of personal is equivalent to partial, and a judge's professional rulings. If his or her rulings be just, then there is no need for him or her to resign. There are occasions when a judge should refuse him or herself, but that is a different issue.
-
-
Amber Fry
When his actions start leaning that direction then yes, it is a very serious breach. It's why he led the overturning of the Roe precedent. It was religion, not law. It only takes reading the transcripts of the Row V Wade case to see that.
-
Russel A. Kester
Amber, as I understand it, the court decision to which you refer did not ban abortion throughout the land, it simply returned it to the states. Women are still able to get abortions in most states. I think it was a question of whether or not that was a proper subject matter for the federal government or to the several states. I'll try to find the transcripts as you suggest. Thank you.
-
-
Ari Joseph Bertine
"Would you say that a Supreme Court justice who thought that America should be an Atheist nation had breached judicial ethics and should resign?"
Absolutely. That would also demonstrate a lack of respect for our Constitutional freedom of religion. Someone does not believe that the Constitution should be followed is not a good fit for the SCOTUS.
-
Russel A. Kester
Ari, having personal opinions about what course we should steer our nation into the future in order to be a better people is not tatamount to a lack of respect for our constitutional freedoms. One can do both. In fact, that's what it means to be a leader. Neither of these judges said that the constitution should not be followed. I think that they absolutely believe the constitution should be followed and rightly interpreted, but if in the future the US did return to its roots as a culturally Christian nation that wouldn't violate anything in the constitution. They're not advocating that the Pope be made king. These concerns are irrational.
-
Ari Joseph Bertine
In order for the United States to become a Christian nation, we would have to overrule the 1st amendment's clause to not prohibit the free exercise of religion, because legislating Christian laws would prohibit a lot of free exercise of other religions. For these people to have personal opinions that mean that they would like to see this happen makes me worry on the ground that they are human beings who are not immune to unconscious bias and that they will ultimately make biased decisions. They were appointed for political reasons, not because of any established reputation for being unbiased; in fact, a few of them were appointed specifically because of political bias, and that political bias happens to go along with religious bias in their cases. I don't have that much faith in the SCOTUS anymore because of that.
-
Russel A. Kester
Ari, we are using two different terms and maybe as many if not more ideas. A nation's being culturally Christian is not the same as a Christian nation. Here's how I think of the difference. If a Christian King says this is my kingdom and every subject in it will be a Christian or die, then I'll accept that it's a Christian nation headed by a Christian king. But if a nation has democratically elected representatives and it happens that 99% of the citizens are Christian but there is no requirement to be, then it is a culturally Christian nation. I do think we get confused because we use the term 'Christian nation' as a short hand for the longer 'culturally Christian nation.' I agree with the two judges opinion that it might be good for us to return to being culturally Christian nation, but that does not mean I want people to be forced against their will to convert to Christianity. One would be a free choice by the people, the other would not.
Thanks for the challenge which helped me to think this through in more detail to be clearer, at least in my own mind, as to what I mean by those terms.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Bridget Kielas-Fecyk
Two things, 1st amendment FORBIDS our courts, or our lawmakers, to enforce any religion. The United States of America is a SECULAR nation, not a Christian one, not a Catholic one, not an Evangelical one, not a religious nation at all.
1st Amendment -- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Then there's the Treaty of Tripoli which the USA is STILL bound to. Written by our Founding Fathers. It strictly stated that the United States is a SECULAR nation.
Treaty of Tripoli - Article 11 - “As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religious or tranquility of Musselmen, and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
-
Russel A. Kester
Bridget, the Treaty of Tripoli was the first treaty between the United States and Tripoli (now Libya) to secure commercial shipping rights and protect American ships in the Mediterranean Sea from local Barbary pirates per Wikipedia.
Later as president, Thomas Jefferson refused to continue paying Tripolitania the tributes stipulated by this treaty, partially leading to the First Barbary War. A superseding treaty, the Treaty of Peace and Amity, was signed on June 4, 1805.[3] also per Wikipedia.
So the treaty to which you refer is null and void as we stopped paying pirates to not capture and enslave people and plunder ships' cargoes. And it was supercede by a subsequent treaty. It was a treaty used as a diplomatic tool to stop the bad people until we had a navy sufficient to take them on. Nothing more and certainly not something that could bind America to being a non Christian nation.
By the way, the word secular as used at the time meant a government whose head of state and leadership was not a church or the Pope. That is not the same meaning for the word secular today which is an ideology. The word evolved.
-
Bridget Kielas-Fecyk
As I earlier stated, the Treaty of Tripoli is STILL in effect with the second treaty on top of it. It was NOT, in fact, removed. It was not made null and void. The United States is STILL a Secular nation. You can hate the idea all you want and try to claim that the USA is a "Christian Nation" but it is NOT a "Christian Nation" it is a secular one.
Secular is NOT an ideology. And the word has not evolved. Secular means that there is NO one religion worshipped. And that the state does NOT officially recognize any state religion.
You can say "It's an ideology, secular is a religion". But that's like saying being an Atheist is being religious. Obviously, it is not. Being an Atheist means the individual believes in no gods, nor acknowledges one exists, They have no religion. Hence a-theist. NON-Theistic.
Secularism is not an ideology either. It, literally,means the following "" A doctrine that rejects religion and religious considerations" It also means, in the context of a Nation, the acceptance of worshipping ALL religions but having none officially, or unofficially, listed.
The government's leadership is NOT any churches nor is it the Pope even today. The government in the USA is lead by individuals who are democratically voted into office on an annual basis by the citizens of the nation. They are NOT appointed by any church or religious leaders.
What YOU apparently are ascribing to, and claiming the United States of America is, is known as Religious Theocracy.
A religious theocracy, such as Afghanistan, is ruled strictly by ONE religion. No other religions are allowed to be worshipped. Religious indoctrination begins in preschool and all the way through high school and into the adult life. Religious police enforce the doctrines even upon those that do not, themselves, actually BELIEVE in the religion.
That is what you are ascribing to. And the United States is NOT a religious theocracy.
There is a reason the 1st Amendment states that no laws shall be placed that shall either officially acknowledge a state religion, nor shall it hinder the worship of any religion.
But YOU are trying to claim that, that part's wrong. That, that part of the 1st amendment needs to be ripped out of the constitution because you dislike it.
THEN you try to claim the Treaty of Tripoli is "Null and Void" because you hate article 11. Guess what? Too bad. The Treaty of Tripoli is STILL in effect and Article 11 still states that we are a Secular nation. Just because a second treaty was placed WITH this first one does not make it null and void. Treaties can have enhancements later that does not nullify the original treaties. And the 11th section of it is STILl in effect to this day.
Sorry, but no, Secular is NOT an ideology. It literally IS what the United States is. A nation that rejects the idea of having a State Sponsored religion. It is NOT A christian nation.
Just because, at the moment, the majority, though not by much, of the populace worship one religion or another that's within the umbrella term of "Christians", I mean being Jewish could be considered under the umbrella term of "Christian", does NOT mean this is a Christian Nation. It simply means that the larger population are part of that faith in one way or another.
However, there is still a large population, almost half of the population, are NOT Christians. These individuals are Pagans, like me, and Muslims. People who worship Hinduism and Buddhism. People who worship Taoism and a very large number who are Agnostic or Atheist.
So, no. No matter how you try to twist it to fit your narrative. The United States is NOT, in any way, a christian or catholic nation.
It will NEVER become a Religious Theocracy. There are far too many people that would fight back to keep their freedom. Something ALL religious theocracies systemically rip away from them.
-
Russel A. Kester
Bridget, here is the online dictionary's definition of supercede, "take the place of (a person or thing previously in authority or use); supplant." So, no the Treaty of Amity does not 'sit on top of the Treaty of Tripoli' it completely replaces it making the former null and void.
I asked Google AI if secularism was an ideology and here is it's response, "Secularism can be described as both a political ideology and a belief system."
Catholicism is a denomination within Christianity. It is also the largest one.
Being a culturally Christian nation does not make it a de facto religious theocracy. It can be culturally Christian and be a republic which places no Christian denomination above another or any other religious belief. They are not mutually exclusive.
Returning America to its former glory as a culturally Christian nation as is the desire of the two judges referred to in the article and by millions of Americans would be better for our nation than our current course. There is still hope.
-
Rev. Rory
Do you know what AI is? It compiles information from the internet. There is a lot of opinion and misinformation on the internet. When you use AI, at least the Bing version, it provides the resources from which it gathered the answer. It is from there that you can make a call on the validity or slant of the answer. I've tried this out by asking questions about various religions and political comments and I found a lot of misinformation was gathered.
Yes, we are a culturally Christian nation. That does not mean that all others should be dismissed or denigrated. That is the beauty of living in a secular society. It's called freedom.
And my error, I checked a "like" for your comment and I can't remove it. The IT people of this comment section would be wise to correct that limitation.
-
Russel A. Kester
Rory, yes, I'm familiar that AI gathers information from a variety of sources which it them compiles into a response according to its algorithms. So it has the advantage of providing more than one perspective on any given topic which we can assess. I don't think we are a culturally Christian nation today. I think we are a secular humanist nation of this time. And I'm unconvinced that's a good thing. Yes, freedom is a good thing; up to a point. When one uses their freedom the trample the rights of others then it becomes problematic. The judges opinions that they would welcome a return to a culturally Christian nation does not trample anyone's rights. And they should not be castigated for their personal opinions. In fact, those who champion freedom should be the first to defend these two judges.
-
-
Keith Law
None of this matters. The 5th Congress adopted the treaty with the language that this is NOT a Christian nation. No one protested that statement. CASE CLOSED regarding the intensions of our founders regarding the roll of Christianity in the founding of this nation. CASE CLOSED!
-
Russel A. Kester
No Keith, just because a treaty was signed at a time of duress to stop pirates from plundering our commercial ships while it took slaves from many countries does make for a.case.closed. It simply means that it said in the treaty whatever it needed to say until our own naval forces were developed to protect our interests. Once they were Jefferson broke the treaty. Statesmanship.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Sunshine DayDreamz
Over and over again in the Old Testament, God ranted about corrupt judges. It's a big pet peeve. It's right up there with not feeding the poor, not taking care of the widow and/or orphan and not welcoming strangers. We are long overdue for term limits.
-
Russel A. Kester
Sunshine, your comment seems to declare that our current judges on the Supreme Court are corrupt. Why do you think that? Is it only because of their religious beliefs? Have judges no right to personal beliefs?.
-
Rev. Rory
Nah, it's not the religious beliefs. It's the millions of dollars that they take (not all of them) to give favorable rulings to billionaires. Certainly you've heard of Leo, Koch, Crow. Yes, judges have a right to have religious beliefs. No, judges have no right to rule based on who pays them the most. My goodness! Have some self-respect!
-
Daniel Gray
And you include Sortomayor in on that as well? Seems she took a 2 million dollar bribe from Penguin House Publishing while she was deciding on the case dealing with them. And lets not forget Brown. She got all kinds of Beyonce concert tickets and backstage passes and even had her aides try and conjole libraries to purchase her book.
I mean if you are going to go after one, then you need to go after all of them
-
-
-
-
Colleen McAllister
While it is difficult for anyone of strong faith to ignore that faith when making decisions, it is not impossible. As a Deacon at my own church I am often called upon to provide decisions or counseling for church members. There have been times when I feel a bit more liberal yet will still stick to what the Bible says no matter what. Often I find that the differences between the two are quite minor. Just as in legal matters, the law is the law. If the SC Judges cannot or will not follow that then remove them.
As to Alito, We are not a Christian nation. We are a nation based on Judeo-Christian principles. The whole point of our forefathers coming here was to have the freedom to worship as they chose. That must not stop. I do believe we should return to "godly" or rather moral values. That does not mean Christian. That does not mean condemning anyone who disagrees with me.
-
Matthew Mastrogiovanni
How about having the "Godliness" part be Odin?
-
Ari Joseph Bertine
I'm pretty sure that Mammon already rules the roost in this country.
-
-
Russel A. Kester
So the justices have person opinions and beliefs. If course they do, they're human beings and citizens. There's nothing new to hear. The only question of concern to the judicial system is if they properly interpret and apply the law without prejudice. If so, then their personal lives, opinions, and beliefs are just that ... personal.
-
Robert James Ruhnke
Like how they’re pushing their personal interpretations of faith onto Medicine and want to control women’s bodies. Like how they’re trying to do away with marriage equality. How they’ll criminalize being gay and trans as immoral again? Seriously Kester, they’re priming you for the cooking pot and you don’t see it. I pity you.
-
Russel A. Kester
Robert, the latest decision by SCOTUS did nothing to tell a woman what she could or couldn't do with her body. It did return that decision to the people of the several states to decide it as the court found fault in a previous court's decision in the matter. So there is no control over women's bodies by the court. None. I understand that at least one judge, Thomas, has issues about the decision made by the court over marriage equality for gays. But a conservative Supreme Court based on conservative arguments made that decision and since even Thomas's own marriage would be in jeopardy if the court rejected the reasoning of its own decision, I'm pretty comfortable. The only group I know of in America wishing to make being gay illegal are Islamists. Which is all the more reason for promoting a Christian culture in our nation. Look at the Episcopal church and see if there is anything there to cause these fears you speak of. The Catholic Church has for decades preached that gays and lesbians are children of God and worthy of dignity and respect. And six of the Supreme Court justices are Catholic. Your concerns and fear seem excessive at this time. However, if left wing activists continue to follow the path you seem to think they should, then there might well be a backlash which will endanger the LGB community. That is something every gay and lesbian should consider when he or she decides which organizations are to be given financial support and whose ideologies are to be accepted and promoted.
-
-
-
John Condron
Four years ago, the Supreme Court of the United States was, by far, the most-trusted institution in Washington. Americans’ trust in the court dropped 20 points from 2020 to 2022, according to Gallup, to a record-low 47%. For the first time, a plurality of Americans (42%) viewed the court as “too conservative.” Alito, Coney-Barrett, and Thomas are largely responsible for this shift. Roberts is also part of the problem, but he is trying to control the damage. I think he is failing. This will be disastrous for our society, but many right-wingers are more than just "okay" with that--it is what they are working towards!
-
TJ
The forefathers of this nation, because of oppression of religion came here to the US. In our first amendment " congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." In doing so they are creating and oppressing those that done believe in Christianity and may result in civil unrest.
-
SueW
Please elaborate. As a nonbeliever, I have completely failed to notice my being created or oppressed.
-
Michael Benjamin Roberts
Freedom of Religion is also Freedom FROM Religion. There are many theocratic/repressive/authoritarian regimes in the world. Maybe you should consider moving to one of those. However, that is NOT the United States of America. It is not what The People of America want for America. The Christian faith you refer to is based on FREE WILL not coercion. Read your bible, you might actually learn something.
-
Michael Benjamin Roberts
Freedom of Religion is also Freedom FROM Religion. There are many theocratic/repressive/authoritarian regimes in the world. Maybe you should consider moving to one of those. However, that is NOT the United States of America. It is not what The People of America want for America. The Christian faith you refer to is based on FREE WILL not coercion. Read your bible, you might actually learn something.
-
Farajallah Michael Yazbek
NO, if you read the 1st Amendment correctly it says, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING the free exercise thereof; or bridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." This means hands off religion or the stopping of it by anyone who wishes to practice it. William Wayne Justice got it wrong with the ruling in favor of Madelaine Murray O' Hare in the 1960s. There is no actual prohibition of reading Bible Stories or prayer in schools, but rather it is actually supported by the First Amendment.
The fact that the activist in question lied about why she was conducting the interview brings into question her honesty in the article she published by posting the video online. Believe me when judges at all levels use their morals, which stems from religion, to make proper judgements based on societal norms. Just because he says he uses his religion to base his decisions doesn't mean he's cramming things down our throats. It means he does things thoughtfully and morally. Deal with it, but he consults scripture to get his inspiration and advice on how to properly think out his rulings.
-
Keith D
"There is no actual prohibition of reading Bible Stories or prayer in schools, but rather it is actually supported by the First Amendment."
True enough in voluntary venues, but false in compulsory or tax-funded venues like PUBLIC schools.
-
-
-
Stacey Owens
Only through Jesus Christ can this nation operate in the will of God. Its call the law of the spirit of life. No one can force God to do His will just by following the law. If one does, he must fulfill the whole law, as it is written. The laws of God was implemented because of our sinful nature. It was to show that our nature was disobedent according to His will. The law is considered weak to our human nature. In order for mankind to fulfill and over come the act of this human nature it must be through Jesus Christ to deliver us from ourselves. He is the embodiment of the godly nature. Faith in him produces the life of godliness in spirit and in truth. It declares the spirit of Christ through the fulness of grace and truth of God. In other words, God honoring the believer with Himself, not just the believer, but Jesus Christ the life in the believer.
If we follow the belief of the old dispensation, it will cause death, and the fulness of Grace will be no more: (As the prophets have spoken).
We don't need to go backwards, we need to decrease (surrender to Jesus Christ) so that Christ may increase.
-
Bridget Kielas-Fecyk
In other words, you want to turn the USA into a religious theocracy like Afghanistan, gotchia. You know, where if you don't worship what the STATE demands you worship, you're beaten, imprisoned, or executed.
-
Russel A. Kester
Bridget, you mean like Russia, China, North Korea, and Cambodia did? You know those nice places that followed an atheistic belief system and killed millions of people with just a couple of years? A nation can be culturally Christian and not have a theocratic state as you fear.
-
Robert James Ruhnke
None of those nations claimed to be humanist, Lester. Sure atheists have been murderers, but then they’re also not claiming to be followers of peace, where as Christians say one thing and do another. Atheism isn’t a religion, calling those countries theocratic is wrong. I’m not Condoning what China or Russia have done, but Christians have murdered billions in the name of their god in the last 2000 years.
-
Russel A. Kester
Billions? Really? How did you come up with such a wild number? It's unbelievable.
Your comment lacks any analysis. It also gives a free pass, once again, to Islam and focuses solely on Christianity and that of a history that spanned 2,000 years! It failed to assess what Christianity is today as both it and the times have changed. Yes, those leaders I mentioned promised utopias of peace, prosperity, and equality. They delivered death and destruction.
Also, I did not call those countries theocratic. I did write that a nation can be culturally Christian without being theocratic.
-
-
-
-
Rev. Michael Gerraghty II
Christian Nationalism is to be stayed away from, Its ruining our country as it stands as is.
-
Russel A. Kester
Michael, since Christian Nationalism isn't currently controlling the country it cannot be responsible for the destruction you perceive happening in our country. That would be secular humanism. So if that's not working according to your view, then perhaps we should try Christian Nationalism. It might be better.
-
-
Rev. Rory
The individual, along with their church, are bound to follow the laws of God, The United States is a country of many religions and those that follow no religion. That is true freedom. Legislating a particular religion and a particular God is a theocracy where the government punishes people that don't fit a narrow vision and a single philosophy.
We should all agree that there are similarities among all religions that generally referred to as morals. Stealing is wrong, etc. and this country was created to work for all. We have not perfected it and made many mistakes and will continue to do so. You can imprison people because they "don't surrender to Jesus Christ" but that doesn't make them believers.
-
Keith Law
Surrender to the kid who was fated to be sacrificed for the original sin of the first ever mom and dad who ate forbidden fruit 6000 years ago even though modern humans evolved over 250,000 years ago.
The kid that was born from the sexual union between the Jewish high god YAHWEH (an invisible magic man) and a young Jewish woman just before her wedding day to someone else 2000 years ago. BTW: having sex with women before they were wed to another man was a right of Babylonian kings as found in the epic myth of Gilgamesh written before the Old Testament. This is from whence came the Abrahamic tribe.
Get it, myth?!
-
Lionheart
Well, Lady Stacey, perhaps you can explain where you get your demonstrable evidence from to support your claims? Where did you get your “law of the spirit of life” from? Did you read that from somewhere? You seem to talk about the “laws of god” a great deal, but no one has yet proved any of the world’s gods are real. Not even any gods have come forward yet to prove they exist to prove others are false. I look forward to your reply. 🤗
🦁❤️
-
-
-
Daniel Gray
Ypu do know that the Supreme Court cannot make a law right? Only Congress can do that under Article 1 Section 1 (that also means no president nor department head can make a law or a mandate either) So until the Constitution actually gives them the right to make a law, this is a lot of complaining over nothing
-
Amber Fry
Of course, however they have proven to be willing to overturn precedented rulings based in their religious convictions rather than the law. That is where the danger lies.
-
Daniel Gray
Precedented rulings dont mean squat if they violate the Constitution...you do know that right?
-
-
-
Reverend Marika
"In doing so they are creating and oppressing those that done believe in Christianity and may result in civil unrest."
Please elaborate on your comment regarding "civil unrest".
-
I'm surprised at how many anti-Christian commenters there are responding to this article. That said, what we say in private shouldn't determine someone's worthiness for their position. Whether we like it or not, our country was formed by Christians and founded on Christian principles. Many people misunderstand the principle of not promoting the "establishment" of any particular religion. That does NOT mean we can't voice our opinion, even from judges. It means that the government and religions do not collude to limit people's faiths, that religions have no direct say in politics.