#Separation of church and state

[liberalsarecool]

Public schools are a public investment. They are not a christian religious school indoctrinating religious opinions.

Public money does not build churches. Public policy has no influence over church doctrine.

See how the separation works?

[socialjusticeinamerica]

[odinsblog]

🗣️This is an illegitimate and deeply corrupt Supreme Court

Justice Samuel Alito spoke candidly about the ideological battle between the left and the right — discussing the difficulty of living “peacefully” with ideological opponents in the face of “fundamental” differences that “can’t be compromised.” He endorsed what his interlocutor described as a necessary fight to “return our country to a place of godliness.” And Alito offered a blunt assessment of how America’s polarization will ultimately be resolved: “One side or the other is going to win.”

Alito made these remarks in conversation at the Supreme Court Historical Society’s annual dinner on June 3, a function that is known to right-wing activists as an opportunity to buttonhole Supreme Court justices. His comments were recorded by Lauren Windsor, a liberal documentary filmmaker. Windsor attended the dinner as a dues-paying member of the society under her real name, along with a colleague. She asked questions of the justice as though she were a religious conservative.

The justice’s unguarded comments highlight the degree to which Alito makes little effort to present himself as a neutral umpire calling judicial balls and strikes, but rather as a partisan member of a hard-right judicial faction that’s empowered to make life-altering decisions for every American.

(continue reading)

[canadianabroadvery]

[polyamorouspunk]

IF CUTTING OFF THE HEAD DOESN’T WORK BURN THE WHOLE THING!

[porterdavis]

Is this what you want?

Whatever happened to separation of church and state?

[todaysdocument]

Memorandum Opinion - Madalyn Murray O'Hair v. Thomas O. Paine.

Record Group 21: Records of District Courts of the United StatesSeries: Civil Case FilesFile Unit: 69CA109: Madalyn Murray O'Hair and Richard F. O'Hair v. Thomas O. Paine

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

Filed Dec 1 1969 Dan W. Benedict, Clerk

by W E Lyons Deputy

MADALYN MURRAY O'HAIR, ET AL. (brackets)

VS. (brackets)

THOMAS O. PAINE, ET AL. (brackets)

CIVIL ACTION NO. A-69-CA-109

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an action brought by Madalyn Murray O'Hair,

Richard F. O'Hair and the Society of Separationists, Inc., against

Thomas O. Paine, individually and as Administrator of the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The plaintiffs are

seeking an order enjoining NASA from (1) doing any act whatsoever

which abridges the plaintiffs' freedom from religion or establishes

Christianity as the official religion of the United States, and

(2) enforcing any policy or regulation which has been heretofore

promulgated and which has such above effect. The plaintiffs

also seek a temporary restraining order enjoining the defendants'

"from doing any act whatsoever which restricts or abridges plaintiffs'

freedom from religion and specifically enjoining NASA and its

administrator and and personnel from further directing or permitting

religious activities, or ceremonies and especially the reading

of the sectarian Christian religion Bible and from prayer reci-

tation in space and in relation to all future space flight activity."

Jurisdication of the case is founded upon 28 U.S.C. 1346 (a) (2).

Upon request of the plaintiffs, a three-judge court was

convened in accordance with Jackson v. Choate, (name is underlined) 404 F.2d 910

(5 Cir., 1968). That Court, consisting of the United States Circuit

Judge Homer Thornberry, United States District Judge Adrian A. Spears,

and United States District Judge Jack Roberts, determined that this

case was not properly a three-judge matter. Sardino v. Federal Re-

serve Bank of New York, 361 F.2d 106 (2 Cir. 1966); Pennsylvania

Public Utility Commission v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 383 U.S. 281

(1965). The case was accordingly remanded to Judge Roberts of

decision.

The various plaintiffs are atheists, deists, and believers

in the complete separation of church and state. They have asserted

the right to bring suit in two separate grounds: (1) taxpayer status; [complete document and transcription at link]

[sixbucks]

The border I want to close is the one between church and state.

[liberalsarecool]

Conservative churches exploit their tax-free status.

[socialjusticeinamerica]

[canadianabroadvery]

[delicatehologramballoon]

[porterdavis]

Fair is fair

In a letter to the editor of The Washington Post, Larry McClemons of Annandale, Va., took issue with Oklahoma’s new edict that the Bible be taught in every classroom: “Perhaps, in a show of fairness, these state officials could mandate the teaching of algebra in churches.” (Arthur Rothstein, San Francisco)

[contemplatingoutlander]

A Trump judge sends Southwest Airlines to right-wing reeducation camp

Ruth Marcus does an excellent job of pointing out how another Trump appointed judge (from Texas) is stomping on the Constitution when it comes to the separation of church and state. The judge in this case doesn't seem to understand the difference between people being allowed to hold religious beliefs and religious people harassing others who don't share their religious beliefs. The article is well worth reading. Here are some excerpts:

Another day, another extremist ruling by another extremist Trump judge, and this decision — from Texas, no surprise — is straight out of “The Handmaid’s Tale.” The judge held lawyers for Southwest Airlines in contempt of court for their actions in a religious-discrimination case brought by a former flight attendant and ordered them to undergo “religious liberty training.” And not just any instruction, but training conducted by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a conservative group that litigates against same-sex marriage, transgender rights and abortion rights. [emphasis added] The issue arises from a lawsuit filed by Charlene Carter, a flight attendant for more than 20 years and a longtime antagonist of the Southwest flight attendants union. In 2017, after union members attended the Women’s March under a “Southwest Airlines Flight Attendants” banner, Carter sent Facebook messages to the union president containing graphic antiabortion messages.

[See more under the cut.]

“This is what you supported during your Paid Leave with others at the Women’s MARCH in DC …. You truly are Despicable in so many ways,” Carter wrote in one message accompanying a video of an aborted fetus. After the union president complained, Southwest fired Carter, saying her conduct “crossed the boundaries of acceptable behavior,” was “inappropriate, harassing, and offensive,” and “did not adhere to Southwest policies and guidelines.” An arbitrator found that Southwest had just cause for the firing. Carter, represented by the National Right to Work Committee, sued, claiming Southwest and the union violated her rights under federal labor laws and Title VII. The federal job-bias law bars employers from discriminating on the basis of religion, and Carter claimed she was dismissed because of her sincerely held religious beliefs against abortion. [...] The scary part is what came next. [U.S. District Judge Brantley] Starr instructed the airline to “inform Southwest Flight Attendants that, under Title VII, [Southwest] may not discriminate against Southwest flight attendants for their religious practices and beliefs.” Instead, Southwest said in a message to staff that the court “ordered us to inform you that Southwest does not discriminate against our Employees for their religious practices and beliefs.” This sent Starr into orbit.... “In the universe we live in — the one where words mean something — Southwest’s notice didn’t come close to complying with the Court’s order,” Starr said. “To make matters worse,” he said, Southwest had circulated a memo about the decision to its employees repeating its view that Carter’s conduct was unacceptable and emphasizing the need for civility. “Southwest’s speech and actions toward employees demonstrate a chronic failure to understand the role of federal protections for religious freedom,” Starr decreed. He proceeded to order three Southwest lawyers to undergo eight hours of religious-liberty training — a move he described as “the least restrictive means of achieving compliance with the Court’s order.” Luckily, Starr observed, “there are esteemed nonprofit organizations that are dedicated to preserving free speech and religious freedom.” [...] Adjectives fail me here. This is not even close to normal.... the notion of subjecting lawyers to a reeducation campaign by the likes of the ADF is tantamount to creating a government-endorsed thought police. Imagine the uproar — and I’m not suggesting these groups are in any way comparable — if a liberal-leaning federal judge ordered instruction on women’s rights (those are constitutionally protected, too) by Planned Parenthood. [...] This is the alarming legacy that former president Donald Trump has left us — a skewed bench that he would augment if reelected. The Trump judges seem to be competing among themselves for who can engage in the greatest overreach. [...] Conservatives are quick to balk at anything resembling the order that Starr issued when they disagree with the underlying principle. [...] I need no excuses for calling this what it is: a reeducation program — outrageous, unconstitutional and an abuse of judicial authority. [emphasis added]