This is important. I want your opinion. How would you vote regarding these religion-related questions?

The Constitution prohibits the government from supporting or opposing any religion.

Christians (e.g., Evangelicals, Baptists, Pentecostals, Later Day Saints, Jehovah’s Witnesses) are known for their proselytizing efforts. Others (e.g., Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto) are not.

The question becomes: Is a display of one or more versions of the Ten Commandments a form of support and proselytizing or merely education?

Imagine you are a Supreme Court Justice. I would very much like your opinion regarding:

1. Can something titled “The Ten Commandments” exist outside religion as purely secular?
2. Should the government support teaching religious concepts purely as an educational exercise?
3. Is there a bright line between religious and secular teaching that allows for teaching religious concepts?
4. Would a secular course about “The life and teachings of Christ, Moses, and God” be allowed in a secular class.”
5. In a public school class, do atheists have the right to teach that God does not exist? Should the words and beliefs of Siddhartha Gautama (the Buddha), or the words of Vedas, Upanishads, Mahabharata, Ramayana, or the words of Allah and prophet Muhammed be taught?
6. How can we ensure that a secular approach to teaching about religions does not turn into the promotion of a single religion’s beliefs?
7. Should displays of religious-themed artwork be allowed in a secular class? What about an art history class?
   

   
   

The following article appeared in the Florida Sun-Sentinel.

More Christianity in classrooms?
Trump’s victory may embolden efforts by lawmakers on right
Text of the Ten Commandments is posted with other documents June 20 at the Georgia Capitol in Atlanta. John Bazemore/AP
By Moriah Balingit, Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Conservative lawmakers across the country are pushing to introduce more Christianity to public school classrooms, testing the separation of church and state by inserting Bible references into reading lessons and requiring teachers to post the Ten Commandments.

The efforts come as President-elect Donald Trump prepares to take office pledging to champion the First Amendment right to pray and read the Bible in school, practices that are already allowed as long as they are not government sponsored.

While the federal government is explicitly barred from directing states on what to teach, Trump can indirectly influence what is taught in public schools and his election may embolden state-level activists.

Trump and his fellow Republicans support school choice, hoping to expand the practice of using taxpayer-funded vouchers to help parents send their children to religious schools.

Technically, federal spending is not taxpayer-funded. As Monetary Sovereignty teaches, federal spending is funded by federal money creation.

That said, what would you, as a SCOTUS justice, say about federal funding of vouchers for religious schools?

What about federal funding of secular schools that include one religious class? What about tax breaks for private schools that include one religious course?

What are your thoughts on the Pledge of Allegiance that young students often recite (sometimes getting the words wrong)? While it may not genuinely foster “allegiance,” it still seems to hold significance for some lawmakers.

“I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

It would be noteworthy to find even one person whose patriotism has been strengthened by this pledge. Yet, despite its lack of usefulness, it effectively excludes those who do not believe in God or who have a different understanding of divinity.

As a SCOTUS Justice, what is your opinion?

There is a push to incorporate more Christianity into the mainstream public schools that serve the overwhelming majority of students, including those of other faiths.

And with the help of judicial appointees from Trump’s first presidential term, courts have begun to bless the notion of more religion in the public sphere, including in schools.

“The effect of even Trump being the president-elect, let alone the president again, is Christian nationalists are emboldened like never before,” said Rachel Laser, the president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

One wonders what Trump’s Jewish daughter, Ivanka, and his Jewish grandchildren, Arabella, Joseph, and Theodore Kushner, think about all this Christian nationalism.

Large numbers of Americans believe the founders intended the U.S. to be a Christian nation.

A smaller group, part of a movement widely called Christian nationalism, champions a fusion of American and Christian identity and believes the U.S. has a mandate to build a Christian society.

Many historians argue the opposite, claiming the framers created the United States as an alternative to European monarchies with official state churches and oppression of religious minorities.

Efforts to introduce more Christianity into classrooms have taken hold in several states.

In Louisiana, Republicans passed a law requiring every public school classroom to post the Ten Commandments. In Texas, officials approved a curriculum intertwining language arts with biblical lessons. And in Oklahoma, the state superintendent of education has called for lessons to incorporate the Bible from grades 5 through 12, a requirement schools have declined to follow. Utah state lawmakers designated the Ten Commandments a historical document, in the same category as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, so teachers could post it in their classrooms. And attorneys general from 17 GOP-led states recently filed a brief supporting Louisiana’s Ten Commandments mandate.

Schools are allowed — and even encouraged — to teach about religion and to expose students to religious texts. But some say the new measures are indoctrinating students, not educating them.

Some states have allowed teachers to use videos from Prager U, a nonprofit founded by a conservative talk show host, despite criticism that the videos positively highlight the spread of Christianity and include Christian nationalist talking points.

Trump commissioned the 1776 Project. It was panned by historians and scholars who said it credited Christianity for many of the positive turns in U.S. history without mentioning the religion’s role in perpetuating slavery, for example.

The project was developed into a curriculum and is now taught in a network of publicly funded charter schools supported. It also has influenced state standards in South Dakota.

Challenges to some state measures are now working their way through the courts, which have grown friendlier to religious interests thanks to Trump’s judicial appointments.

In 2022, a football coach was fired for praying with players at midfield after a game. The high court said a public school can’t restrict an employee’s religious activity just because it could be construed as an endorsement of religion, reversing a five-decade precedent.

“Could be construed” as an endorsement without actually being an endorsement? Who does the construing? What if a student construed it as an endorsement?

The ruling could pave the way for conservatives to introduce more Christianity in public schools, said Derek Black, a law professor at the University of South Carolina.  “Donald Trump’s judicial appointees have emboldened states” to test the separation of church and state, he said.

Joseph Davis of Becket, a public interest law firm focused on religious freedom that is defending Louisiana over its Ten Commandments mandate said the Supreme Court has endorsed the idea that “it’s OK to have religious expression in the public spaces,” Davis said, “and that we should sort of expect that … if it’s a big part of our history.”

But critics say some measures to introduce more historical references to Christianity in classrooms have taken things too far, inserting biblical references gratuitously, while erasing the role Christianity played in justifying atrocities perpetuated by Americans, like genocide of Native people and slavery.

The background for the “separation of church and state” is based on history. A theocracy, where religious leaders wield governmental power, inevitably suppresses dissent by claiming divine authority. Questioning the government becomes tantamount to questioning the divine.

The Inquisition and the Puritan witch trials are instances where religious authority was used to justify persecution and maintain control. (Ironically, Trump often claims his criminal trials were “witch trials.”)

The separation of church and state is a foundational concept that protects religious liberty for all, not just a few.

Ironically, again, the governments that now wish to include Christian teaching in publicly funded places also wish to ban a related concept called “woke.”

Woke culture emphasizes the importance of addressing and rectifying social injustices, including systemic racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination.

“Woke” advocates for equal rights and opportunities for all individuals, regardless of their background, and promotes inclusivity in various aspects of society.

It encourages individuals, especially those from privileged backgrounds, to support marginalized groups.

If Jesus were to speak on the concept of being “woke,” it’s likely that His message would focus on the same empathy, justice, and love for all individuals, regardless of their background or circumstances that woke does.

“Woke” would seem to be identical to the values expressed by Jesus and most religions. 

Yet, the most pious Christians oppose “woke” because they feel it is overly sensitive, divisive, excessive in political correctness, and most importantly, critical of white-supported slavery.

The Christian right interprets “religious freedom” as meaning freedom for Christians to rule America.

How would you, as a SCOTUS judge, interpret “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”?

In the next four years, interpretations of that simple sentence may become the most influential decisions by SCOTUS for America’s future democracy.

I’m interested in your opinion.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Monetary Sovereignty

Twitter: @rodgermitchell

Search #monetarysovereignty

Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell;

MUCK RACK: https://muckrack.com/rodger-malcolm-mitchell;

https://www.academia.edu/

……………………………………………………………………..

The Sole Purpose of Government Is to Improve and Protect the Lives of the People.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY