Religious Liberty: President Trump's Unmatched Record

[Subduction Zone]

That's not an official office designated by the Constitution, and people as early as James Madison have been opposed to such a thing based on them being unconstitutional.

There is a provision in the Constitution that allows for them to choose such an office. But it is clearly not all Christian. Guest Chaplains are a regular feature, and they come from all views. And one permanent Chaplain was Universalist. Please do not conflate that with Unitarian. A Universalist is not a Christian. In fact they may have more in common with Satanists.

History of the Chaplaincy, Office of the Chaplain

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There is a provision in the Constitution that allows for them to choose such an office. But it is clearly not all Christian. Guest Chaplains are a regular feature, and they come from all views. And one permanent Chaplain was Universalist. Please do not conflate that with Unitarian. A Universalist is not a Christian. In fact they may have more in common with Satanists.

History of the Chaplaincy, Office of the Chaplain

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5:
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
This does not designate a chaplain as an office. There is no Constitutional reason for this office to even exist.

 

[metis]

So, a government department that IS religious but not a theocracy, right? In practice, the Office of the Chaplain is ALL Christian. That means nothing to you?

There are also chaplains within the military with other faiths as well.

We are not a homogenous nation but a collection of Sovereign States in a federation. See 10A.

We are also a "homogenous nation" under one constitution and under one flag.

True but irrelevant to the point. The 1A restricts Congress only. The 1A does not restrict the Sovereign States.

You simply do not know what you're talking about:
Incorporation, in United States law, is the doctrine by which portions of the Bill of Rights have been made applicable to the states... However, the post-Civil War era, beginning in 1865 with the Thirteenth Amendment, which declared the abolition of slavery, gave rise to the incorporation of other Amendments, applying more rights to the states and people over time. Gradually, various portions of the Bill of Rights have been held to be applicable to the state and local governments by incorporation through the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 and the Fifteenth Amendment in 1870.

Prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the development of the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court in 1833 held in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal, but not any state, governments. Even years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank (1876) still held that the First and Second Amendment did not apply to state governments. However, beginning in the 1920s, a series of United States Supreme Court decisions interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to "incorporate" most portions of the Bill of Rights, making these portions, for the first time, enforceable against the state governments...

Guarantee against establishment of religion

• This provision has been incorporated against the states. See Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947).-- Incorporation of the Bill of Rights - Wikipedia

 

[McBell]

The 1A does not restrict the Sovereign States.

Ah, so you are NOT talking about the states with in the USA then.
Cause the USA has multiple layers of governments (Federal, State, County, City) and "sovereign States" only have one.

A sovereign state is a political entity that is represented by one centralized government that has sovereignty over a geographic area. International law defines sovereign states as having a permanent population, defined territory, one government and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states. It is also normally understood that a sovereign state is neither dependent on nor subjected to any other power or state. According to the declarative theory of statehood, a sovereign state can exist without being recognized by other sovereign states. Unrecognized states will often find it difficult to exercise full treaty-making powers or engage in diplomatic relations with other sovereign states.
​

Sovereign state - Wikipedia​

 

[amorphous_constellation]

The basis of the 1st Amendment was not to make us a theocracy but to prevent us from making a theocracy, and this should be well known since so many of our founding fathers left Europe to come here seeking religious freedom.

Plenty came to try and establish ideas that were even more zealous , I had thought ? The way that the first amendment combats this , is by imploring you to create counter religions. That's why we want to mix religion and politics here. And so, if we codify left wing views in religions, then they can't contest the free exercise of those religions

 

[metis]

Plenty came to try and establish ideas that were even more zealous , I had thought ?

Yes, but there was enough diversity in the colonies whereas there was no way to establish a consensus to form a state religion. On top of that, many of the founding fathers were Deists, which is not an actual organized religion.

The way that the first amendment combats this , is by imploring you to create counter religions. That's why we want to mix religion and politics here. And so, if we codify left wing views in religions, then they can't contest the free exercise of those religions

No, it doesn't do that as it says nothing about creating "counter religions" or to "codify left wing views" other than freedom of religion, which also includes freedom from religion.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Yes, but there was enough diversity in the colonies whereas there was no way to establish a consensus to form a state religion. On top of that, many of the founding fathers were Deists, which is not an actual organized religion.

No, it doesn't do that as it says nothing about creating "counter religions" or to "codify left wing views" other than freedom of religion, which also includes freedom from religion.

all that a religion is, in my estimation, is an organized view.. and it seems that the first amendment recognizes organization a good deal

 

[ecco]

Seriously, the personal attacks against the man show a pettiness that is beneath the dignity our Lord died for. Let's look at the record and put it in historic context. Moses and David were murderers and Cyrus did not even know God but God used them for His purpose. Trump might be the most pro-religion president ever. Christian conservatives are judging Trump not by his faith, but by his works. And when it comes to life and liberty, his works are good. An incomplete summary:

1. Stopped federal funding of abortions - Day One

Actually it was not on day 1. Rather he took some steps in 2017 and others in 2019.

On the other hand, Biden reversed it on day eight.

Biden signs memorandum reversing Trump abortion access restrictions - CNNPolitics​

Biden signs memorandum reversing Trump abortion access restrictions
By Caroline Kelly and Nicole Gaouette, CNN



Updated 2:56 PM ET, Thu January 28, 2021

(CNN)President Joe Biden signed a presidential memorandum on Thursday to reverse restrictions on abortion access domestically and abroad imposed and expanded by the Trump administration.

The memorandum will "reverse my predecessor's attack on women's health access," Biden told reporters during a signing ceremony in the Oval Office.
He added that the measure "relates to protecting women's health at home and abroad, and it reinstates the changes that were made to Title X and other things making it harder for women to have access to affordable health care as it relates to their reproductive rights."
Biden's move fulfilled a campaign promise to rescind the so-called Mexico City Policy, a ban on US government funding for foreign nonprofits that perform or promote abortions. The Trump administration reinstated the restriction in 2017 by presidential memorandum and then extended it to cover all applicable US global health funding. That made some $9.5 billion in aid for everything from HIV treatment to clean water projects and child immunizations contingent on groups agreeing not to discuss or perform abortions.

​

If Trump wanted to seriously stop federal funding, he would have had his Republican Congress enact laws. That would have been much harder and he would have had to share the glow with his fellow Republicans. By issuing an order, he got to claim all the glory. He knew his successor could easily reverse his ruling, but that doesn't diminish the Sheeple adoration.

 

[metis]

all that a religion is, in my estimation, is an organized view..

Some more so; some less so.

and it seems that the first amendment recognizes organization a good deal

But that doesn't change anything, especially since the U.S. is not a theocracy.

 

[ecco]

Limit Gay Couples Adopting.

This is another place where we see the utter hypocrisy of the religious right. They want to limit contraception, but once a child is born, they want to limit the opportunities for that child to be put into a stable home environment.

All because of some words written 2000-3000 years ago. Words that were written by other hypocrites who believed it was permissible to give the virgin daughters of defeated foes to their own armies to do with as they pleased.

 

[metis]

If Trump wanted to seriously stop federal funding, he would have had his Republican Congress enact laws.

Exactly. And we should remember that the Pubs controlled both houses of Congress and the presidency under Trump for two years and did nothing in this area to try and stop abortions through amendment or to pass a replacement for Obamacare as they had previously promised.

The reality is that Trump repeatedly pandered to the "religious right", such as in the area of abortion by claiming to be "pro-life", when in reality he's been pro-choice all his adult life. He even bragged about his ability to "seal the deal" in his book "The Art of the Deal" by telling people what they wanted to hear.

He played the "religious right" over and over again, and they've been so gullible so as to eat every word of his up without question. Yes, he appointed "pro-life" judges, but it's quite clear that he did as such to gain favor with them so as to have them not block his agenda. He expected 100% loyalty from them, but he wasn't smart enough to realize that this tactic was unlikely to work because they're appointed for life.

 

[ecco]

Christian conservatives are judging Trump not by his faith, but by his works. And when it comes to life and liberty, his works are good. An incomplete summary:
1. Stopped federal funding of abortions - Day One
...
16.Made Peace in the Middle East and started no new wars. The first president to achieve this record in half a century.

You forgot that he pulled out the nuke agreement with Iran, thereby making the middle east more dangerous.

You forgot that he pulled out of the Paris Agreement, thereby making the world more precarious.

You forgot that he repeatedly lied to the American people about the election being stolen. That led to a violent mob attacking the Capitol building and injuring 140 police officers, killing one.


Trump is Lord now?

 

[metis]

BTW, in regards to Biden being "pro-choice", that's sort of deceiving. He personally is "pro-life" but recognizes that Roe v Wade will not be overturned, completely at least, because 70% of the American public polled say they don't want it overturned. Generally speaking, politicians represent their constituency, so...

And even the "pro-life" movement is in disarray on this. For example, even though when surveyed that 30% or so that's left cannot agree on some important items, especially the first two below:
-Should abortion be allowed for incest?
-Should abortion be allowed for young teens?
-Should abortion fall under national or a state jurisdiction?
-If a woman has an abortion, should she be tried for murder?
-If a woman has been tried and convicted for murder for having an abortion, should the death penalty be invoked in states that have it?

 

[ecco]

Third, note that the 1A DOES NOT RESTRICT STATES from establishing a religion, only the newly formed compact between the States.
The 1A is a restriction of federal power.

Let me ask you this simple question; why can't a land filled with Christians establish the type of society they want to?

Well, the Mormons tried that. The Federal Government took away one of the basic tenets of Mormonism - polygomy. Who was behind that? Secularists? Atheists? Nope. It was Christians wanting to restrict the rights of other Christians. HYPOCRISY!

So, obviously, the Founding Father's idea that the Constitution did not over-ride the basic Christian nation who established it. How else do you reconcile the prohibition against establishing a religion (1A) and the Office of the Chaplain?

Religious/Political expediency. HYPOCRISY!