Supreme Court: Change Your Morning Prayer

America has a serious problem of Christian privilege -- which starts at the Supreme Court with its morning prayer: "God save the United States and this honorable Court."

Under God" in the Pledge, "In God We Trust" as our motto and "So help me God" in oaths are serious violations of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. But don't expect these to change until the Court changes its prayer FIRST. 

In my opinion, this is where the American Humanist Association, Freedom From Religion Foundation, ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, etc. ought to focus their resources. 

Secularists cannot exterminate the Christian privilege of ceremonial deism unless and until the Supreme Court implements the First Amendment principle that government may not prefer one religion over another or religion over nonbelief. McCreary County v. ACLU of Ky., 545 U.S. 844, 860 (2005).

Mr. Chief Justice, how about: "Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! All persons having business before the Honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States, are admonished to give their attention, for the Court is now sitting.  May this Court have the wisdom to administer equal justice under the law." 

By: Robert V. Ritter, December 11, 2020

It is shocking that the U.S. Supreme Court commands us to murder, steal and commit adultery -- that's the English translation of the Adolph A. Weinman's bas-relief of Moses overlapping tablets on the South Wall Frieze of its courtroom: 

"Thou shall murder" (line 1), "Thou shall steal" (line 2) and "Commit adultery" (line 3). (Translation by Avrahaum Segol; verified at pp. 12-13 of the oral argument transcript of Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, Nov. 12, 2008.) (Photo: Steve Petteway, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States.)

By: Robert V. Ritter, Founder, Jefferson Madison Center for Religious Liberty

Agenda for Secular America

    I sincerely believe that black lives matter. As do LGBTQ lives. As do the lives of Atheists and all people. That is the foundation of our social contract -- all people are equal under the law.
    Blacks and LGBTQ have had their days in the Sun fighting for justice. It is time us to recognize Christian privilege and its injustice to Atheists and religious minorities..
    To this end, the Jefferson Madison Center for Religious Liberty today announces its Agenda for Secular America and a roadmap to stamp out Christian privilege.

1. the Supreme Court alter the prayer that opens each session -- G-d save the United States of America and this honorable Court
2. Amend 36 U.S. Code. § 302 by substituting "In People We Trust," "In Reason We Trust" or "United We Stand for "In G-d We Trust".
3. Repeal the 1954 addition of "under G-d" to the Pledge of Allegiance (4 U.S.C. § 4).
4. Repeal 36 U.S. Code § 119 directing the president to issue a National Day of Prayer proclamation annually on the first Thursday in May.
5. Prohibit military bands playing God Bless America.
6. Amend 5 U.S. Code § 3331 by removing "So help me G-d" from the oath taken by federal officials (except the president),
7. Amend 28 U.S. Code § 453 by removing "So help me G-d" from the oath taken by justices and judges.
8. naturalization oath
9. Religious Freedom Restoration Act 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb through 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-4 
10. No organization receiving funds from the United States of America shall discriminate with respect to the services they provide on the basis of religion or nonbelief., including reproductive services, adoption, food distribution or shelter..
11. Encourage politicians not to eonclude their speeches with "G-d bless America."
12. Move religious monuments to public property.
13. The Houses of Representatives and the Senate hire a secular chaplain or eliminate the chaplain position.
14. Repeal __ U.S. Code § __ (i.e. remove In G-d We Trust from U.S. currency). 
15. Repeal __ U.S. Code § __ (i.e. remove In G-d We Trust from U.S. coins).
16. Repeal the Boy Scouts of America national charter __ U.S. Code § __ if the organization does not eliminate its requirement for belief in a supreme being.
17. Encourage Little League Baseball and Softball and other quasi organizations to eliminate their requirement for belief in a supreme being.
18. Repeal I.R.C. § 107 (parsonage allowance).
19. Enforce the Johnson Amendment prohibiting houses of worship from endorsing a candidate for public office.

By: Robert V. Ritter, Founder, Jefferson Madison Center for Religious Liberty

Justice Amy Coney Barret cements Christian Privilege for an Activist Christian Nationalist Supreme Court

My fears of Christian Nationalism and Christian Privilege with the addition Justice Amy Coney Barrett are realized in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo -- a Supreme Court decision issued yesterday. In a 5-4 decision (Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett in the majority), the State of New York is enjoined from enforcing its #Covid-19 restrictions against churches based on a moronic interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. 

Under Employment Division v. Smith (1990), "the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a 'valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).' " 

So what did the gang of Christian nationalists do, they (1) failed to defer to state health officials with expertise and (2) falsely parsed the pool of secular comparables (i.e., instead of comparing churches to theaters, etc. where people are in close proximity for extended periods of time, the Court majority compared them to retail stores where people are more spread out and move about -- the former having greater restrictions, the latter less restrictive). 

Essentially, the Supreme Court has weaponized the Free Exercise Clause to promote Christian privilege.

By: Robert V. Ritter, Founder, Jefferson Madison Center for Religious Liberty, November 26, 2020

Senate Republican Hypocrisy on Religious Test for Public Office

I listened to the opening statements of Senators in the confirmation hearing of Judge Amy Barrett for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court and the judge's opening remarks.

Democratic Senators exclusively focused their remarks on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and Judge Barrett's opposition to it. Notably, they avoided commenting on her faith based speeches, writings and judicial opinions that are constitutionally problematic.

Democratic Senators also avoided the shameful hypocrisy of those who invoke the No Religious Test Clause of Article VI of Constitution.

Clause 3 of Article VI states in part: "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." In reality, it's as if there are "No Atheists" plaques at the entrances of Congress, the White House and the Supreme Court. Religious affiliation allows one to get in line, without it you need not apply.

As an Atheist, I strongly support the No Religious Test Clause (when coordinated with the Establishment Clause). Unfortunately, religious tests are often the standard, not the exception. For example, Christian privilege has eviscerated the clause with politicians ending their speeches with "God bless America and God bless the United States of America."

It is important to note that the clause does not exist in isolation. The clause must be balanced with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Establishment Clause prohibits government from preferring one religion over another, or religion over nonbelief

Judge Barrett's nomination raises a conflict between the two clauses. Do her religious views disqualify her from a seat on the Court? "Views," religious or not, do not disqualify a nominee from an appointment to the Court.  However, using religious views to decide one way or another would. Of particular concern is Judge Barret's view of Roe v. Wade and whether her Catholic faith would be the impetus for her voting to overturn Roe.

President Trump has said a number of times that he has a litmus test for nominating a justice to the Supreme Court. Specifically, Trump has said that he would not nominate a person who supports either Roe v. Wade or the Affordable Care Act. Because opposition to Roe (abortion) and the ACA (birth control) is based on religious tenets of the Catholic Church and certain other religions, Trump's nomination of Judge Barrett, in my opinion, violates the No Religious Test Clause because Trump used a religious test to choose her.

With respect to those Senators who oppose Judge Barrett's nomination on the basis of her speeches, writings and judicial opinions because they sincerely believe that a Justice Barret will use her position on the Court to advance her Catholic faith in violation of the Establishment Clause -- those objections are appropriate and not a violation of the No Religious Test Clause because Barrett's nomination itself is a violation of the clause. 

Indeed, failure to reject Barrett's nomination would mean that the Senators lack fidelity to the Constitution to protect and defended the Constitution against people like Judge Barrett (and the late Justice Scalia) whose Catholicism, when implemented thru her rulings, would undermine the Establishment Clause and our religious freedom.

By: Robert V. Ritter, Founder, Jefferson Madison Center for Religious Liberty, October 12, 2020

Establishment Clause: What's the test -- separation or neutrality?

The Supreme Court's June 30th decision in Espinoza v.Montana Department of Revenue:exposes the weakness of the Bill of Rights, namely, its vagueness. With respect to Espinoza, it's the vagueness of the religion Clauses that allows justices to interpret them according to .their own world views.

In the First Congress -- on June 8, 1789 -- Representative James Madison (Va.) proposed a bill of rights. A House committed on which Madison served considered his proposals, made some changes and the House its version of a bill of rights. The Senate took up the House bill and made some modifications. Madison served on the House-Senate conference committee and insisted on the House's version of the First Amendment. Senate negotiaters accepted the House's version of the First Amendment in exchange for some of its wording in other amendments. The states ratified ten of Congresses twelve proposals on December 15, 1791, including the religion clauses of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...

Madison promised during the ratification process of the Constitution that he would propose a bill of rights to fill a void that many felt was lacking in the Constitution.

The First Congress was very busy establishing a new form of government, leving little time for lower priority bill of rights. Tho there is little recorded of the committees discussions, one thing is clear that the Establishment Clause meant much more than prohibiting Congress from establishing a national religion. We know this because that proposal was voted down in the House committee.  Similarly, a proposal prohibiting Congress from enacing a law anything "touching religion" was likewise voted down. 

Where does that leave us as to the meaning of the Establishment Clause? Specifically, what does "an establishment of religion mean??

Textualism does not guuide us in interreting the Establiysment Clause because of its vaguendess. Secifically, "an establishment of religion" was not a phrase with establishmed meaning in 1789. What is clear, at least to me, is "an" is broad rather than narrow.

By: Robert V. Ritter, Founder, Jefferson Madison Center for Religious Liberty, July 11, 2020

Justice Breyer flip-flops on time makiing a wrong right

Justice Gorsuch, writing for the majority in McGirt v. Oklahoma, said today: "Unlawful acts, performed long enough and with sufficient vigor, are never enough to amend the law. To hold otherwise would be to elevate the most brazen and longstanding injustices over the law, both rewarding wrong and failing those in the right." 

I agree with both the Court's decision in McGirt and Justice Gorsuch's statement. Fifteen years ago, Justice Breyer, who signed on to Justice Gorsuch's opinion, had a different view in Van Orden v. Perry (2005). Justice Breyer concurred in the judgement in Van Orden, joining four Christian nationalist justices in holding that a 1961 Fraternal Order of Eagles Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol did not violate the Establishment Clause because it had been on the Capitol grounds for 44 years. 

In other words, in Van Orden, Justice Breyer opined that a wrong (i.e., a religious monument on public property) should be allowed to stay (i.e., go uncorrected) because the passage of time is an alchemy for making a wrong right (or, simply, let sleeping dogs lie). Hypocrisy at its finest -- in the Supreme Court of the United States. 

Bottom line: the Van Orden v. Perry decision is a blatant example of Christian privilege and needs to be reversed. It has resulted in 120 Eagles Ten Commandments monuments remaining on public property in violation of the First Amendment. 

By: Robert V. Ritter, Founder, Jefferson Madison Center for Religious Liberty, July 9, 2020

Still not "We The People" for everyone

I'm happy for the LGBTQ community for last Monday's Supreme Court decisions in Bostock v. Clayton County, Ga. and Altitude Express v. Zarda. 

It's now (actually past time) for the Court to strike down the last major form of discrimination in the United States -- that of Christian privilege of "In G-d We Trust", "under G-d" in the Pledge of Allegiance, oaths with "So Help Me G-d", etc. 

Unless the Court does so, We The People does NOT mean Everyone. 244 years and waiting for America to rid itself of Christian privilege and Christian nationalism.

By: Robert V. Ritter, Founder, Jefferson Madison Center for Religious Liberty, June 16, 2020

Trey Smith's "The Choice" - dramatic Christian Apologetics

In response to a comment that I posted on Facebook -- that the Bible is the greatest lie ever told -- one respondent asked me to watch a YouTube video "The Choice." https://youtu.be/S-SzIJngWqE

I watched the 22 minute video to which I replied:

I watched Trey Smith's video "The Choice: God in a Nutshell." I would ask you do what Trey asks at the end:-- "open your eyes." The video is pure Christian Apologetics fantasy. It rests on the false premise: "Yet by definition, the very definition of God with a capital G, is merely the intelligent source from which all creation extends to exist." From this false premise flows the unreality of Jesus as God. A lot of tearful graphics, such as a bloody Jesus on a cross and wolves tearing apart a human carcass, doesn't make any of it true. It just draws the gullible into the fold of misguided believers. For more than 50 of my 70 years I have not been aware of any credible evidence of the existence of a god. If you are aware of any credible evidence, I invite you to share it.

As a retired lawyer with a passion for observation, logic and verification -- reason and science -- evidence must meet a high bar of proof to be credible. Merely alleging that God created the Universe is not proof of the existence of God. Based on the lack of credible evidence of the existence of God, I conclude that the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God does not exist. However, should such evidence come to light before my demise, I will re-evaluate my belief. I do not intend to hold my breath in the meantime.