Place here all your stories about rightwing whackodoodle conservative Christian facsists. We have them and their supporters right here in this messageboard environment, and the current GOP is ovverrun with them. They're also the ones behind disenfranchising minority voters, second-classing nontraditional sexualities, and raping the environment.
And yet, our chest-beating self-righteous environmentalists around here give these people a free pass at the end of the day. :problem:. Horseshoes. :problem: Wouldn't be the first time with environmentalists.
Anyway. Even worse than that, a lot of white-Evangelical churches have in turn been overrun with violent cult ideologies like QAnon. So it's worth it to expose these people for what they are.
I'll start. "Religious liberty" to these people simply means their perceived right to get the government to force you to conform to their lifestyle choice. And hey, why wouldn't they think this way. They've got hundreds and hundreds of years of cultural and legal precedent that let them get away with this violence.
The religious right wants states’ tax dollars, and the Supreme Court is likely to agree - Vox
Well, today's conservatives are dishonest grifters at base. So, that makes sense.An emboldened religious right wants the public to pay for its schools.
The plaintiffs in Carson v. Makin, a case being heard next Wednesday, December 8, begin their brief to the Supreme Court with an absolutely ridiculous historical comparison.
“In the 19th century, Maine’s public schools expelled students for adhering to their faith,” they claim, citing one example of a Catholic student expelled for not completing lessons off a Protestant bible. Now, according to the brief, Maine is committing a similarly repugnant sin against religious people by refusing to pay state residents’ tuition at private religious schools.
Under this reasoning, there is no relevant difference between denying a public education to a Catholic student and refusing to pay for private religious education. “The times are different,” the plaintiffs’ brief claims, “but the result is the same: denial of educational opportunity through religious discrimination.”
Carson, in other words, represents a significant escalation in the war over whether the government can enact policies of which religious people — and religious conservatives on the Supreme Court — disapprove. It moves the battleground from whether religious conservatives can seek exemptions from individual laws to whether they can also demand that the public actively fund their faith.
Typically, the Court’s “religious liberty” docket involves laws and policies that prohibit religious parties from acting in a way they believe is consistent with their faith. A church wishes to hold a crowded service, for example, in violation of a public health order limiting the number of people who can gather at one time during a pandemic. Or, an employer wishes to provide its employees with a health plan that excludes birth control in violation of a federal regulation requiring the insurance to cover contraceptive care.