RepublicanConservativeChristian US politicians want to tear down the old wall separating church and state and claim that the separation of church and state is a “false doctrine”.
Republicans want to make America a Christian nation
João Ozorio de Melo, magic RepublicanConservativeChristian politicians in the US want to tear down the old wall that separates church from state. They preach that separation of church and state is a “false doctrine” and aim to make the country a Christian nation. Finally, “God has ordained that institutions and laws should favor Christianity,” it says.
These politicians have launched a legislative campaign to pass legislation that would force Christian nationalism into public life after the Supreme Court ruled last year (in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District) that a public school could not ban a coach’s prayers should be middle of the field.
For the school, releasing the prayers would be an endorsement of a religion and thus a violation of the constitutional clause that prohibits the establishment of a religion by law. But the court ruled by a vote of six (conservative) to three (liberal) that the ban violated the coach’s right to freedom of religion and expression.
Since then, 1,600 bills have been introduced into the legislature of Republicancontrolled states, including Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Idaho, Kentucky, and Texas, requiring specific practice of the Christian religion in various public institutions. who were most active.
PROCEED TO RECOMMENDATIONS
However, Texas is leading. The laws he has passed or is trying to pass have received the most attention lately and are all aimed at bringing Christianity into schools.
The Texas Crusade
Texas passed legislation in 2021 requiring schools to post “In God We Trust” signs in classrooms.
This year, the Texas Legislature considered over half a dozen PLs specifically for schools. First, schools will be required to prominently display donated posters of the “Ten Commandments” in their classrooms, in letters large and clear enough to be read by all students in the class.
Originating from the Senate, the PL was approved by the committees of the Chamber of Deputies. But it only made it to the plenary session of the Chamber on the last day of the legislature, along with other PLs. Instead of voting for the PL of the Ten Commandments, Democratic MPs made backtoback speeches until the deadline. It remains for the next legislative period.
Also pending in the Texas legislature is a bill that would authorize school districts to hire chaplains or accept their volunteer work, provided they are appointed by a religious organization and have a good background.
Unlicensed chaplains can replace educational counselors, psychologists and other licensed professionals and provide educational, psychological and emotional support to students supplemented by spiritual support (in Christian terms only).
Supporters of the PL claim that the role of chaplains, along with other religious initiatives, will restore morale in schools and prevent bad things like massacres of students (instead of gun control) and the growing acceptance of LGBTQ people.
Critics say ministers recruit students to Christianity. This is confirmed by the statements of the organization Mission Generation, which campaigned for the passage of the Pastoral Care Act, arguing, among other things, that they can evangelize children.
Republican politicians in Texas are also considering other legislative initiatives, such as beginningofschool prayer (like laws already passed in Idaho and Kentucky) and classroom Bible reading (similar to a PL in Missouri).
Opponents dispute the two initiatives. For example, they ask whether the children of Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist and other families have the right to say their own prayers and read their holy books. And which Bible is chosen considering that in the mid19th century dozens of people were killed or injured in a conflict between Catholics and Protestants over which Bible should be read in public schools.
Supreme Court decisions
In the Kennedy v. Bremerton, the Supreme Court made an important distinction that lawmakers turn a blind eye to. The court said the soccer coach’s onfield prayers were different from prayers in public school classrooms, which were “problematically compulsive.”
The ruling in that case overturned a precedent dating back to 1971 (Lemon v. Kurtzman) that established three parameters for determining violations of the religion substantiation clause: if the law has a religious purpose; when the principal effect of the law is to promote or hinder religion; when the law encourages excessive interdependence between government and religion.
In the Kennedy case, the court ruled that the analysis of the clause must be made “on the basis of historical practices, traditions and understandings of the constituents (the Founding Fathers)”.
In 1962, the Supreme Court commented on this “historical understanding” (in Lemon v. Kurtzman): “The first and most immediate purpose of historical understanding of the Establishment Clause rests on the belief that the union of government and religion tends to “to destroy government and debase religion.” And he declared prayer in public schools unconstitutional.
In 1963 he added to this statement (in Abington v. Schempp) that reading the Bible in the classroom was also unconstitutional.
In 1980 the court (in Stone v. Graham) ruled that posting the Ten Commandments in classrooms was unconstitutional. In 1985 he declared unconstitutional the law allowing a minute’s silence to meditate or pray (in the Wallace v. Jaffree case). In 1990 the same was decided in relation to prayers for ministers at graduation ceremonies (Lee v. Weisman). In 2000, prayers by schoolchildren at soccer games were banned [americano] violating the settlement clause (vs. Doe in the Santa Fe School District case).
As early as 1947, the Supreme Court ruled in Everson v. Board of Education that the Fourteenth Amendment’s residency clause applied to the states. And so, in both states, prayer and Bible reading violated that clause.
In 1948 it ruled (in the case of McCollum v. Board of Education) that a school policy allowing students, with parental consent, to attend religious instruction during school hours was unconstitutional.
position of politicians
In light of these Supreme Court rulings, it appears the bills in Texas and other states are unconstitutional. However, the Supreme Court has changed. And in recent years, court decisions have favored religious leaders and precedents have been overturned.
Additionally, Christian nationalist movements have become a strong trend in major factions of the Republican Party under the Trump administration.
A Public Religion Research Institute poll found that more than half of Republicans support or sympathize with pillars of Christian nationalism, including the view that the US should be a strictly Christian nation. And about half of those surveyed would support an authoritarian leader who could maintain Christian dominance in society.
There are politicians who share this belief and others who simply exploit it because it is a huge electoral factor. It is unknown what is the case of Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick. But he declared last year: “We are not a nation founded on the words of the voters, but on the words of God, for he wrote the constitution.”
For conservative Christian Republicans in the US, God is American.