Conservatives of all stripes have been crying tyranny over the past four-and-years informing that they have little comprehension of what tyranny entails, but this nation has suffered tyranny defined as a “rigorous condition imposed on the people by some outside agency or force” over the past thirty years. The Founding Fathers recognized that without certain guaranteed rights, the people would be subjected to tyranny from outside forces attempting to impose, by government fiat, their own agenda without legal cover, and for the past thirty years a group has violated the Constitution with impunity. The Constitution has been under a sustained attack by forces in, and outside, the government and it was announced on Monday that the Supreme Court will hear arguments to decide if the Constitution’s prohibition on the establishment of religion should be stricken down and whether Americans will live under a theocracy.
The High Court agreed to rule on whether or not Christianity is the established state religion, and if non-Christians are protected by the 1st Amendment. Many Christians have panted to eliminate 1st Amendment protections against religious tyranny, and the issue the Justices will decide on is if government entities have the right to force all Americans to suffer through mandated supplications to Jesus Christ despite the Constitution’s clear directive that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” The Establishment Clause has been interpreted as meaning the U.S. government is prohibited from giving one religion preference over another, and yet that Establishment Clause has been desecrated with near impunity in Congress, local governments, and public schools as Christians regularly conduct prayers at school functions, public meetings, and at all levels of government.
Last year, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a New York Town Board violated the Constitution’s Establishment Clause and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court by an Arizona-based Christian group, the Alliance Defending Freedom, with support from over 40 Republican members of Congress and 18 state attorneys general who have written separate briefs advocating for eliminating the Establishment Clause. The implications of a favorable High Court ruling will be the first step in establishing Christianity as the state religion and eliminating religious freedom for any American who does not adhere to the Christian religion. It also potentially protects the religious right that often wages campaigns of harassment, intimidation and violence against Americans who support the 1st Amendment’s separation and establishment clause(s), and puts non-believers religious liberty, and their lives, in jeopardy that is typical of harsh Islamic Sharia Law as enforced by the Taliban.
For a religion founded on Christ’s teachings of peace, many of its extreme adherents are guilty of intimidation to force non-believers who adhere to the Constitution to acquiesce to Christians whose efforts to inject Christian doctrine into government are thwarted in the courts. The Freedom from Religion Foundation reports that when non-believers file suit to have religious symbols removed from public buildings, public schools, and stop Christian prayers at public meetings, they often request, and are granted, anonymity to protect themselves and their families from violence and intimidation. In just one out of hundreds of cases across America, plaintiffs begged the court to keep their names out of the public record because they feared retaliation from the community. The court granted their request.
The plaintiffs were threatened on social media (Facebook) with Christians asking “Have the families involved in the lawsuit been identified? Someone needs to send that group back to Wisconsin with several black eyes!” Another commenter encouraged others to seek out the plaintiff’s identity and “slam the shit out of the bitch” who filed the lawsuit. The court granted the plaintiffs anonymity because “this basis upon which the “Does” fear disclosure is substantial and that there is a substantial public interest in ensuring that litigants not face such retribution in their attempt to seek redress for what they view as a Constitutional violation, a pure legal issue.” To give the violent Christians access to the plaintiff’s identity, Republican state representative Tim Krieger filed a bill that would eliminate the right of plaintiffs to sue anonymously over religious symbols on public property so the Christian-Taliban can follow through with their violent threats.
In another case, a high school activist who spoke out against an illegal prayer banner in her public school prevailed in court, and besides violent threats on social media and a handwritten letter, police took the threats so seriously they began giving her a police escort for protection. Another case in 2000 when the Supreme Court struck down school-endorsed prayer at a Texas high school football games in Santa Fe, the school district went on a crusade to determine who the anonymous plaintiff was and it forced the judge to issue an order threatening criminal contempt if there was “any further attempt on the part of District or school administration… parents, students or anyone else, overtly or covertly to ferret out the identities of the Plaintiffs in this cause, by means of bogus petitions, questionnaires, individual interrogation, or downright ‘snooping.'”
In 1981, two women who did not want their children exposed to Baptist preaching on school time filed a lawsuit and faced instant retribution as one woman was assaulted by a school employee who smashed her head repeatedly against a car door, and after being fined for assault, the community came to his defense and raised money to pay the fine. The other woman’s home was burned to the ground, her son’s goats were slashed and mutilated with a knife, and one fine Christian phoned to warn her he would break into her home house, rape her in front of her children, and then “bring her to Jesus.” The school district’s superintendent justified the violence saying, “The only people who have been hurt by this thing are the plaintiffs who chose to create their own hell on earth.” These are not isolated cases by any means, and it is the primary reason many writers, including this author, use pseudonyms to protect their homes and families. Two years ago after being stalked, accosted, and suffering repeated vandalism at home over one article about prayer in public school, the local chief of police advised to write a retraction, repent, and “get close to Jesus or face righteous retribution now and for eternity.”
America has given Christians a sense of entitlement to impose their religion on the entire population, and the government, for too long and it defies the Founders’ intent in the 1st Amendment. When it was announced the Supreme Court would hear arguments on whether or not Christian prayer is the law of the land, advocates for religious tyranny released a statement entitled “Prayer will be heard on high,” and noted there is “unambiguous and unbroken history” of such prayers. Senior counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom said, “A few people should not be able to extinguish the traditions of our nation merely because they heard something they didn’t like,” and that this “tradition shouldn’t suddenly be deemed unconstitutional.” However, slavery was a tradition, women were traditionally prohibited from voting, gays were traditionally imprisoned, and mixed-race marriages were traditionally prohibited, but those “traditions of our nation” were all Constitutional violations that were struck down. Mandating Jesus prayers at school functions, public meetings, and even in the halls of Congress is a blatant violation of the 1st Amendment and the High court has little choice but to strike down the practice with extreme prejudice.
The only reason the religious right feels entitled to force its traditions and beliefs on the rest of the population is because the 1st Amendment’s Establishment and Separation Clauses have never been strictly adhered to at all levels of government. It is why evangelicals attempt to impose their marriage definition on gays, and why women’s reproductive rights are the purview of conservative Christians in state legislatures and the U.S. Congress, and why speaking out for separation of church and state is likely to result in acts of violence. America is not a Christian nation going all the way back to Founding Father John Adams’ statement to Muslims in 1797, and yet Christians are emboldened and empowered to take a blatantly unconstitutional matter before the Supreme Court for adjudication. No American denies Christians the right to pray themselves silly in the privacy of their homes and churches, but when they force Americans to listen to their supplications to Jesus Christ at public school events, city council meetings, or in legislative chambers they are violating the Constitution, imposing religious tyranny, and following Taliban Sharia Law