#free exercise clause

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Revs. Jan Barnes and Krista Taves have logged hundreds of hours standing outside abortion clinics across Missouri and Illinois, going back to the mid-1980s. But unlike other clergy members around the country, they never pleaded with patients to turn back.

The sight of the two women in clerical collars holding up messages of love and support for people terminating a pregnancy “so infuriated the anti-abortion protesters that they would heap abuse on us and it drew the abuse away from the women,” recalled Taves, a minister at Eliot Unitarian Chapel in Kirkwood, Missouri, as she sat on a couch at Barnes’ stately church in this quiet suburb of St. Louis.

“I thought: ‘Whoa, these people really are not messing around.’ But then I thought, ‘Well, I’m not messing around either.’”

So when Missouri’s abortion ban took effect after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year, Barnes and Taves decided to fight back. Along with rabbis and ministers across several denominations, they joined a first-of-its-kind lawsuit arguing Missouri blurred the line between church and state, imposed a particular Christian idea of when life begins over the beliefs of other denominations, and threatened their ability to practice their religions.

As the nation nears the one year anniversary of the fall of Roe, the Missouri case is one of nearly a dozen challenges to abortion restrictions filed by clergy members and practitioners of everything from Judaism to Satanism that are now making their way through state and federal courts — a strategy that aims to restore access to the procedure and chip away at the assumption that all religious people oppose abortion.

In fact, many of the lawsuits are wielding religious protection laws enacted by anti-abortion state officials to target those officials’ own restrictions on the procedure.

In Indiana, a group of Jewish, Muslim and other religious plaintiffs sued over the state’s near-total abortion ban. Their argument: that it violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act signed into law in 2015 by then-Gov. Mike Pence. A lower court judge sided with them in December and blocked the state’s ban from taking effect — the most significant win the religious challengers have notched so far.

Then, earlier this month, the Indiana judge granted the challengers class action status, meaning a win for them could apply to anyone in the state whose religion supports abortion access in cases prohibited by state law.

“Even if the Religious Freedom law was intended by Mike Pence to discriminate against people, we thought: ‘Let’s use this for good instead,’” said Amalia Shifriss, a leader of Hoosier Jews for Choice, one of the Indiana plaintiffs. “It brings me joy to think how much this must upset him.”

A Pence spokesperson characterized the lawsuit as a “pursuit to legalize abortion up to and even after birth.” They added: “It will probably strike Americans as pretty tasteless to call the latest iteration of their abortion crusade as a cause ‘for good’ and a source of ‘joy.’”

Conservatives with a history of mounting their own religious challenges to state laws dismiss the effort as doomed to fail, arguing that even if people can prove the abortion bans violate their beliefs, it won’t be enough to halt enforcement.

“As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg explained in one Free Exercise case, the right to swing your arm ends just where the other man’s nose begins,” said Denise Harle, senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal group that has filed briefs defending state abortion restrictions, including from faith-based challenges in Wyoming and Florida. “Even if you have religious freedom, there is a line at which you are doing actual deadly harm and destroying human life, so it’s appropriate to limit what can be done in the name of religion.”

But with oral arguments and rulings in several of the cases expected this summer and fall, other legal experts say there’s a solid chance the challengers can persuade courts to grant religious exemptions to abortion bans if not strike them down altogether.

Shlomo C. Pill, a lecturer at the Emory University School of Law who specializes in religious rights, said the lawsuits have “a strong basis and should be successful,” particularly after a series of COVID-19-related cases paved the way for more religious exemptions. Pill pointed to multiple Supreme Court decisions during the pandemic that said whenever states create secular exemptions to laws — like indoor gathering restrictions or vaccine mandates — they have to justify not offering religious exemptions as well.

“So the fact that secularly-motivated exemptions to abortion bans exist — such as for rape and incest — means the legislature could also have to offer similar exemptions for people with religious objections,” he said.

‘REAL CHUTZPA’

Most of the cases, including those in Indiana, Kentucky, and Texas, are demanding exemptions from the bans for people whose religions support abortion rights. But a few, including the lawsuits in Florida, Missouri and Wyoming, are attempting to have the bans struck down entirely.

In Missouri, the plaintiffs argue that because lawmakers put religious language in the text of the abortion ban itself and made explicit religious appeals when voting on it, they violated the Establishment Clause.

“It took real chutzpah for the legislators to voice their own religious motivations, to wantonly and shamelessly purport to know what God wants or doesn’t want and to enshrine that into law,” said Rabbi James Bennett of Congregation Shaare Emeth in St. Louis, another plaintiff in the Missouri lawsuit. “They’re entitled to their interpretation of when life begins, but they’re not entitled to have the exclusive one.”

Last week, the group faced off in a St. Louis courtroom with state officials who are pushing to have the case thrown out. A ruling could come as soon as this summer.

In Florida, clergy representing Reform Judaism, Buddhism, the Episcopal Church, the United Church of Christ and the Unitarian Universalist Church sued in state court both to overturn the state’s 15-week abortion ban, and — if that fails — to secure religious exemptions. Their case makes free speech arguments as well — claiming that state bans on “aiding and abetting” abortions are muzzling clergy members who want to offer counseling to parishioners grappling with whether to terminate a pregnancy.

In Kentucky, three Jewish women are arguing that the state’s near-total abortion ban violates their belief that life only begins when a baby takes its first breath, saying it’s preventing them from pursuing pregnancy through in-vitro fertilization.

“To have someone else’s religious belief that an embryo is a human being imposed on me in a way that’s so personal, that prevents me from growing my family, is just rude and un-American,” Lisa Berlow, the lead plaintiff in that case, said in an interview. Berlow had one child through IVF and was planning to have another before Dobbs made her and her fellow plaintiffs fear prosecution. “Discarding non-viable embryos could now be criminalized, or I could miscarry and not know what type of medical care I would get or whether I would be investigated for causing the miscarriage,” she said.

The Satanic Temple is in federal court challenging abortion bans in Texas, Idaho and Indiana, arguing that the laws infringe upon their congregants’ belief in bodily autonomy and right to practice abortion as a religious ritual. A Texas District Court ruled against the Satanists last fall, saying they didn’t prove the need for a temporary restraining order blocking enforcement of the ban against its members. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is poised to rule on the challenge in the coming weeks.

These cases are unlikely to restore abortion rights at the federal level given the weaker religious rights protections in the U.S. Constitution compared to many state constitutions as well as the federal judiciary’s rightward tilt.

Elizabeth Reiner Platt, director of the Law, Rights, and Religion Project at Columbia Law School, stressed that the Supreme Court has a record of protecting the religious rights of some groups and not others, pointing to its back-to-back decisions in 2017 upholding the right of a Christian baker to refuse to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding and allowing the right of the Trump administration to deny entry to travelers from majority-Muslim countries.

“While I don’t like to read the tea leaves, I don’t have any hope that the current Supreme Court would, after ruling that there was no due process right or privacy right to abortion, would find a right under the Free Exercise Clause or the Establishment Clause,” Platt said.

Still, she and other legal experts see the state-level religious challenges as one of the best chances abortion-rights advocates have to chip away at bans on the procedure.

“The arguments are quite powerful for creating religious exemptions in the reproductive context under First Amendment doctrine and under state laws for Free Exercise,” said Micah Schwartzman, director of the Karsh Center for Law and Democracy at the University of Virginia Law School. “What Judges do with them is another story.”

In order to succeed, these lawsuits must prove: that the right to an abortion is central to the religious practices of the people suing; that they are sincere in their beliefs and have a track record of observing them; and that state abortion bans make it impossible for them to live according to their faith.

The cases challenging abortion restrictions in their entirety face an additional hurdle: proving that state officials stepped over the line separating church and state in crafting the bans.

“We have a really strong Establishment Clause argument because it’s clear that these bills were passed for religious reasons,” said Marci Hamilton, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Pennsylvania who is part of the legal team representing clergy in Florida. “The 15-week bill was signed in a church and members of the state legislature repeatedly referred to God when arguing why this had to be done.”

Other experts are skeptical, however, of the strength of these arguments.

“There are a million-and-one other explanations a state could give for their abortion restrictions,” Pill said. “They could argue it’s a matter of secular conscience, for example. And once you have any kind of secular justification, an Establishment Clause argument becomes more difficult.”

For their part, the states defending their abortion laws and the conservative legal groups supporting them have to prove that they have a compelling interest — unrelated to religion — in protecting fetal life, that they’re using the least restrictive means to protect that interest, and that the challengers’ claims are speculative and premature because none of them have actually sought an abortion or been blocked from obtaining one since the laws took effect.

“I think these are much more like political stunts than they are viable court cases,” said Lori Windham, a vice president and senior counsel at the Becket Fund, the legal firm behind the Hobby Lobby case that secured a Supreme Court ruling allowing many employers to opt out of covering certain forms of birth control for their workers due to a religious objection. “You can have a sincere political belief or policy preference, and it can be passionate and deeply held, but that doesn’t make it a religious practice.”

CITING SCRIPTURE

Judges have historically avoided questioning the sincerity of someone’s religious beliefs, but Becket and other groups have filed amicus briefs that do so.

To combat these accusations, the challengers point to scripture that lays out a case for abortion rights as well as support from religious leaders for their claims.

The Jewish challengers in Kentucky cite religious texts including the Mishnah that say life begins when a baby takes its first breath, not when it is conceived, and if medical issues arise during pregnancy, the pregnant person’s life “comes before the life of [the child].” They also submitted to the court letters from rabbis arguing that current state exemptions for life-threatening medical emergencies aren’t enough, saying Jewish law permits, and in some cases requires, an abortion when there is “a risk of poverty, abuse, addiction, or mental illness.”

The case challenging Missouri’s ban cites the United Church of Christ’s vote in 1971 to acknowledge the right to abortion and members’ “autonomy to determine what happens to their own bodies,” as well as the Episcopal Church’s “long-standing opposition” to any government attempt to infringe on reproductive choices.

“There’s a tendency to see these cases as kind of a clever, legal switcheroo. Like, here’s a way to take these laws that are often thought of as very conservative and use them to protect abortion rights,” Platt said. “But the idea of reproductive rights as a religious liberty issue is absolutely not something that came from lawyers. It’s how faith communities themselves have been talking about their approach to reproductive rights for literally decades.”

#us politics #news #politico #2023 #abortions #abortion bans #reproductive rights #reproductive health #Missouri #Indiana #Religious Freedom Restoration Act #mike pence #Hoosier Jews for Choice #Alliance Defending Freedom #free exercise clause #religious exemptions #Kentucky #Texas #Florida #Wyoming #Establishment Clause #us constitution #in-vitro fertilization #Judaism #Episcopal Church #United Church of Christ #Unitarian Universalist Church #organized religion #religious freedom #the satanic temple

[pscottm]

As reported by HR Dive, the EEOC announced yesterday that it has reached a settlement in a religious discrimination suit it had filed against a Conway, Arkansas Kroger store for failing to accommodate two employees who refused to wear the company's apron which features a four-color heart symbol. Kroger developed the symbol as part of a campaign emphasizing the company's four service-based commitments. The employees insisted that the symbol promotes the LGBT community which the employees' religious beliefs preclude them from doing. (See prior posting.) Under the settlement, Kroger will pay each employee $20,000 in back pay plus $52,000 each in additional damages.  Another $36,000 in damages is apparently for attorneys' fees.  Kroger has also agreed to create a religious accommodation policy and will give additional religious discrimination training to store manage­ment.

#Repeal the Free Exercise Clause

[lirational]

Hello, I just found your blog, and as a fan of PTN, I wanted to see if you would be interest in indulging a request of mine.

Said request is a poor reader revealing their rather desperate financial situation to Chelsea or Eirene by accident, namely by accidentally showing them their crumbling apartment home or hinting they can't afford their medicine.

I also hope you don't mind if I decide to make my own take on the requests and suggestions I send you when I get the chance, orif I share them with others, as I have made a similar suggestion to a fic writer in ao3.

Regardless, I hope you take care and stay safe, and I wish you good luck in PTN my fellow Chief.

Thank you for the request, and gladly, go ahead and do your own take ^^ after all more fics in PtN is always good!

—

Chelsea x Reader and Eirene x Reader (separate)

Content warnings: might contain a bit of financial manipulation (particularly Eirene’s, though nothing NSFW. Regardless, exercise caution.

Countess Chelsea:

She found out when you got an unexpected call from your insurance provider when you both were on a date, notifying you that they would stop covering the cost for one of your meds.

You were always adamant about not relying on her for anything, and she was fond of this part of you, but still, you insisted that it’s alright, you can take care of yourself, and you will find a way out of this mess the way you always did whenever a similar problem came up.

This earns you a pinch of your cheek and a teasing remark, and she stopped mentioning it up to the end of your date.

Later at night, you receive a call, saying that there was a policy mistake and you’ll get your meds covered again.

Chelsea was evasive about it when asked directly, however, your guess was practically confirmed from the way she acts. She’s more demanding for cuddles, more willing to tease you for more affection. Part of this was from habit, as she would usually ask her sugar babies to do som embarassing things in exchange for her money, but for the most part? She wants you close.

I believe that Sitri would actually push you closer to her while you two were cuddling. Having a gem cat press on your back or body is certainly interesting, to say the least.

One thing is clear, after this, Chelsea will start paying more attention to you :)

Eirene:

There is no way that she wouldn’t have found out eventually. As the CEO of a supermassive company, she has to keep an eye on those she cherishes, or risk those people getting harmed by her competitors.

However, she is a businesswoman through and through, and it shows with the ‘aid’ she gave you. When you got drenched late at night as your roof gave way, she immediately responded, ordering her employees to take you to the best hotel right away. You thanked her afterwards, and she did bask in your gratitude, however, she keeps a ledger of the aid she gave you.

She takes time to visit under pretense of checking the hotel’s accomodation. In her words, a business under her company should always provide the best accomodation at all times and this was just a surprise inspection. However, you can just sense that she wanted an excuse to visit you.

Point this out, however, and all of a sudden, a vase in a corner somewhere would turn into a pile of dust, while her demeanor remained the same.

She loves you, truly, but a combination of wanting to keep you safe and her desire to have you culminates in giving you a contract, promising you will never want for anything as long as you work for her. Under several dozen pages of legalese, she hid a clause that you would surrender your entire being to her.

All the aid she gives are not free, and she keeps a ledger of how much you owe her. Write your name on the dotted line, and your life will become all that much easier~

#path to nowhere #path to nowhere x reader #path to nowhere headcanons #ptn eirene x reader #ptn chelsea x reader #countess chelsea x reader #eirene x reader #chelsea x reader

[fiddlestickstwo]

The phrase many Americans use to describe religious freedom, “separation of church and state” is not found in either the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. In 1802 Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury, Connecticut Baptist Convention in which he presented his views on the relationship between religion and the role of the state in the new nation. Basing his views on the establishment clause of the First Amendment which said that there should be “no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” Jefferson stated that there must be a “wall of separation” that clearly limited the involvement of religious denominations and religious leaders in matters related to national governance.

Jefferson, like many other of the early leaders of the United States, was committed to what is commonly called a secular state, in which citizens can openly hold religious beliefs and participate in religious services, but not seek to influence the direction of the state on matters of national policy. It is important to note that the words God, Jesus, and Christianity are not mentioned in the Constitution as evidence that the writers of this basic governing document wanted to put up a strong wall of separation.

#separation of church and state

[contemplatingoutlander]

As The New Republic reports, “Alito is complaining that people who oppose homosexuality were being unfairly branded as bigots, despite that being a dictionary definition of bigotry.” On Tuesday, agreeing the Court should not take a case, Alito wrote he is “concerned” that a lower court’s reasoning “may spread.” He notes that the lower court “reasoned that a person who still holds traditional religious views on questions of sexual morality is presumptively unfit to serve on a jury in a case involving a party who is a lesbian.” In that case, several jurors who acknowledged they held anti-LGBTQ views were released from serving on the trial. “That holding exemplifies the danger that I anticipated in 'Obergefell v. Hodges' … namely, that Americans who do not hide their adherence to traditional religious beliefs about homosexual conduct will be ‘labeled as bigots and treated as such’ by the government.'” Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern writes, “Alito suggests that a trial court violates the free exercise and equal protection clauses when it allows an attorney who represents a gay client to strike potential jurors because they express overt bigotry against gay people.” [...] Attorney Max Kennerly posits, “If we followed Alito’s reasoning that religious beliefs can never serve as a basis to strike a juror, we’d instantly run into a collision with jurors who believe, on religious grounds, the death penalty is wrong. Any guesses how Alito would rule on that? Yeah, exactly.”

Why the condemnation of homosexual behavior by some (NOT all) religious conservatives might legitimately raise questions of bigotry

It seems to me that Alito is acting as if "traditional religious views" about homosexuality are uniform.

Alito doesn't seem to acknowledge (or perhaps is not fully aware) that there are some interpretations of scripture that do not support the condemnation of homosexual behavior or even of same-sex unions. In fact there are some mainstream Christian denominations that allow for blessings of same-sex couples (including recently the very "traditional" Roman Catholic Church). Furthermore, Reconstructionist, Reform and Conservative Jewish sects also allow the blessing of same-sex unions.

Given all of the above, one might reasonably wonder why some (not all) conservative Christians or Jews seem to prefer to accept anti-LGBTQ+ translations/ interpretations of scripture, when other translations/ interpretations that are more sympathetic to homosexual behavior are available.

Of course the primary group of religious people in the U.S. that condemns homosexual behavior consists of some (not all) right-wing "Christians" from various denominations. But one also might wonder why these same right-wing "Christians" DON'T seem to want to pass laws banning divorce, adultery, usury, lying, etc., but they DO want to pass anti-LGBTQ+ legislation? After all, behaviors like divorce, adultery, usury, and lying are clearly condemned in various parts of the Bible.

One might also ask, why do some of these same right-wing "Christians" who think it is okay to condemn the LGBTQ+ community, not also condemn a prominent politician like Trump, who has been divorced multiple times, committed adultery multiple times, and who lies almost every time he opens his mouth?

It is the picking and choosing of what to condemn, and the hyperfocus on using the law to allow those with certain "religious views" to deny the rights of the LGBTQ+ community (while not choosing to deny the rights of other kinds of so-called "sinners"--NOT that I support that either) that suggests it might be legitimate to question whether some on the religious right use religion as an excuse to hold bigoted beliefs about and/or to discriminate against the LGBTQ+ community.

[edited]

#samuel alito #right-wing religious views #right-wing christians #anti-lgbtq+ religious beliefs #bigotry #lgbtq+ rights #the new civil rights movement #the new republic

[mudwerks]

(via AZ panel votes to ban Satan displays from public property)

Arizona’s legislature is STILL a bunch of anti-constitution religious nuts:

PHOENIX — Calling Satan “an explicit enemy of God,’’ a state senator is pushing to keep displays of him, by any name, off of public property.

Just Satan. Christmas trees and menorahs would still be allowed.

”It is a desecration of our public property in the United States of America and in the state of Arizona for a satanic display, memorial, altar, etc., to be on public property,’’ said Sen. Jake Hoffman, a Queen Creek Republican.

He pushed the measure through the Senate Government Committee Wednesday on a 5-1 party-line vote.

All that drew questions.

”It is because it’s insulting to your religion?’’ asked Sen. Juan Mendez, D-Tempe.

Hoffman said that’s not his motive.

The legal issue goes beyond that.

The Satanic Temple has been recognized by the Internal Revenue Service as a religion and entitled to the same charitable status as any other.

“I am genuinely impressed that in only 25 words this bill seems to violate three separate clauses of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,’’ testified Micah Mangione, an individual who showed up to testify against the bill.

These, he said, are prohibiting the government from establishing a religion, barring government interference with the free exercise of religion, and guaranteeing the right to free speech. He warned the Republicans there are implications for their support of SB 1279.

”If you can go after the Satanic Temple, which is a religion, what about paganism next?’’ Mangione asked. “What about Judaism next? How about Islam? How about LDS?’’

What the legislation does is declare that only Christian values matter, he said.

Hoffman said he doesn’t see it that way.

”It is legally and constitutionally suspect to argue that Satan, someone who is universally known to be an explicit enemy of God, is somehow a religion,’’ he said. “That is an absolutely ludicrous statement to make.’’

Another individual testifying against the bill, Tonia Francis, told Hoffman what he is proposing interferes with her First Amendment rights.

Hoffman disagreed, saying she remains free to practice whatever she wants — just as long as nothing is erected on public property. Any arguments beyond that are off base, he said.

”So you think that it’s both legally and constitutionally OK to argue that Satan … who is universally known to be explicitly the enemy of God, antithetical to God, you think that’s targeting your religion?’’ Hoffman asked.

”Universally known to you?’’ Francis asked.

”To, literally, everyone,’’ Hoffman responded. “That’s not a point that’s debatable. Would you not say that Satan is the enemy of God?

”No,’’ Francis said.

Hoffman called her testimony “disingenuous.’’

Mendez called the legislation “a straight-up attack on the rights of people and religion.’’

Hoffman can’t even imagine that other people don’t believe in his chosen religion’s world view. 

And he’s an elected legislator?!?!

#politics #AZ #legislature #trying to remove freedom of religion from AZ

[gayboyrocklee]

She Wisconsin on my Yoder until I free exercise clause

#rian’s slay compilation

[vague-humanoid]

A federal judge has told a group of anti-trans parents to mind their own business after the group filed a lawsuit challenging an Ohio school district’s bathroom policy.

The attempts to meddle do not “pass legal muster,” he wrote in his ruling, saying that the group has no reason to sue.

“Not every contentious debate concerning matters of public importance presents a cognizable federal lawsuit,” Judge Michael Newman wrote, denying their petition to stop the Bethel Local School District’s policy that allows a single transgender middle school student to use the restroom that aligns with her gender identity.

While the girl was initially forced to use the faculty or nurse’s bathrooms because they were single occupancy, they were frequently occupied. She “felt ostracized, humiliated, and targeted by other students who taunted her for using the separate bathroom.” School administrators and board members accommodated the student by allowing her to go to the girls’ room.

The parents sued with various constitutional claims, from religious freedom to a right to raise their children as they see fit. But the judge wasn’t impressed with their attempts to set school policy based on their personal beliefs.

“Although parents have the right to make decisions about where to send their children to school, they do not have a constitutional right to revoke a school’s policy on student bathroom usage… let alone show that the possible presence of a transgender student in the bathroom is a ‘substantial burden’ to the Plaintiffs’ Free Exercise Clause rights,” he wrote in the opinion.

[scorchieart]

His Desire, His Fear, His Misbelief.

A Character Study - Part I: Jin, Chevalier, Clavis, Leon

A brief character study of the IkePrinces on the basis of their internal conflicts pushing their journeys forward.

Based on the "Desire, Fear, Misbelief" character template detailed by Abbie Emmons. In short, identifying a character's potential growth in their story arc by defining the key driving forces at the start of their journey in terms of:

Their desire, or the nonnegotiable goal they are trying to accomplish.

Their fear, or the person/thing/idea that's preventing them from achieving their goal.

Their misbelief, or the "bubble" they crafted around their world for the purpose of achieving their goal while avoiding their fear at all costs.

The life-changing event that lined these three up, typically occurring in childhood.

**Disclaimer: I am not a professional writer nor a literary analyst. I have also not read all of the content for these characters in either the English or Japanese versions. I am mostly going off of what we learn from the main story routes and some events. This is merely an exercise in character study that I thought some of you might find interesting ^^

**Also, obvious SPOILER WARNING for pretty much all the Rhodolitian princes' routes, and all the trigger warnings that come with them. Ok, let's begin!

Jin Grandet

His Desire?

To be untethered by responsibility and watch his brothers grow up happy and free from heartbreak.

His Fear?

That history will repeat itself in the next Belle Selection, resulting in at least one of his brothers turning into a “fallen beast” and a new generation of unloved royal children. 

His Misbelief?

That love cannot and should not exist between different classes. 

His Life-changing Event?

Watching the king turn into a fallen beast at the news of his mother’s death.

What does he do to achieve his goal while avoiding his fear?

Growing up, Jin watched how so-called “true love” destroyed his parents’ happiness and consequently that of his brothers. To him, true love can only result in tragedy, so he lives his life free from the restrictions and complications that come with attachment, and he develops his womanizing noncommittal lifestyle to protect himself. Family is the exception as his brothers are the only people he admits to loving. And while he harbors no interest in the throne, he believes it is his duty as the eldest to protect the princes from the same tragic fate of his parents, thus resulting in the instatement of Clause 99.

Chevalier Michel

His Desire?

To protect and ensure the continuation of Rhodolite as the next king.

His Fear?

That he will never be loved and never experience love like a human.

His Misbelief?

If the world can only see him as an emotionless beast, then that is who he will become.

His Life-changing Event?

His first murder of an assassin.

What does he do to achieve his goal while avoiding his fear?

From an early age Chevalier understood that he was different from others, both mentally and emotionally. He watched as the conversations people had behind his back turned from veneration to fear, but it wasn’t until his mother declared that no one could ever love him that he fully accepted there was no hope. While he claims that love would only get in the way of achieving his goal (like Jin, he witnessed first-hand the consequences of an existence wholly-dependent on love) it is still something he is interested in, as evidenced by his romance novel collection, his tolerance and trust in Clavis, and his curiosity in Belle’s philosophies.

Clavis Lelouch

His Desire?

To be loved and recognized by all as he is.

His Fear?

That if he were to ever let someone into his heart again, they would abandon him.

His Misbelief?

Love is a transaction. In order to guarantee the least heartbreak, he must always pay out more than he receives.

His Life-changing Event?

His mother’s suicide.

What does he do to achieve his goal while avoiding his fear?

Clavis makes a name for himself doing what he wants because he can, despite the odds or backlash. One could make the argument that his goal is to best Chevalier or to experience the “ultimate pleasure” in all things, but his decisions and actions point to a cry for attention from a boy who was denied except by his mother. Following her death, Clavis developed a warped definition of love and fails to recognize how to properly convey his feelings (i.e. playing pranks, participating in dangerous & illegal operations for his “friends”) and accept that of others (i.e. Chevalier’s trust, Belle’s concern.) Clavis inserts himself into a bunch of circles to gain any allies, knowledge, advantages, and entertainment he needs while always maintaining a comfortable emotional distance.

Leon Dompteur

His Desire?

For people from all walks of life to be given a chance and be able to live happily and freely as they please.

His Fear?

That he will fail to fulfill his promise to his people and the real Leon as the fourth prince, the leader of the domestic faction, and the King of Rhodolite.

His Misbelief?

He needs to survive the palace and master princehood. To do this, he must hide his secret and dawn the mask of a beast.

His Life-changing Event?

Learning about the existence of royalty and that there are those who could never experience such a life.

What does he do to achieve his goal while avoiding his fear?

Leon understands the danger his position as a fake prince presents. Following the deaths of all in the palace who knew of his secret, he is truly on his own and cannot trust anyone, not even his own “brothers”. Rather than lash out on the people who thrust him into this situation, he recognizes the unique opportunity he is presented with and how it could help him achieve his goal. As such, he suppresses his feelings, works hard, and develops the personality of the charming, talented prince beloved by all. But he didn’t account for growing attached to the other princes and his people, so each day it becomes harder for him to keep up the facade and he yearns for someone to confide in.

**Final Notes: This is a heavily condensed version of notes I've been taking on these guys over the past year that I just wanted to organize better for writing.

Do I think the writers planned all this when crafting these characters? Not really! At least, not so much and especially not in the earlier routes. This was just a fun little experiment to see how we could categorize the motivations and intentions of the characters to make sense of where they stood at the beginning of their internal journeys and the choices and actions they made in their routes.

If there is something you'd like to add or something you disagree with here, do let me know! Like I said, I only have a limited understanding of these guys and it's always fun to debate and discuss.

Hope you found some entertainment in there! Part II with Yves, Licht, Nokto, and Luke.

#ikemen series #ikemen prince #ikepri #jin grandet #chevalier michel #clavis lelouch #leon dompteur #ikepri jin #ikepri chevalier #ikepri clavis #ikepri leon #character analysis #contemplations and speculations

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Mike Pence said yesterday on Fox Business that the First Amendment to the Constitution doesn’t provide “freedom from religion,” the idea that people shouldn’t have other people’s religious beliefs forced on them.

Host Larry Kudlow told Pence that “far-left progressives… will not allow God into the conversation, will not allow religion into the conversation. Not just the conversation, the schools, the communities, the workplace… I mean, no one is allowed to talk about the Ten Commandments or the importance of moral values.”

People are allowed to talk about the Ten Commandments and morality in the U.S.

“How can we have a truly great nation? These lefties want to scrap religion, Mike Pence, and I think it’s a terrible mistake,” Kudlow said.

Pence waited a bit – possibly to see if Kudlow was actually going to ask a question – and responded: “Well, the radical left believes that the freedom of religion is the freedom from religion. But it’s nothing the American founders ever thought of or generations of Americans fought to defend.”

“The good news is that after four years of the Trump-Pence administration, I’m confident that we have a pro-religious freedom majority on the Supreme Court of the United States,” he continued.

Despite Pence’s insistence, the First Amendment comes with two parts. He and Kudlow appeared to be familiar with the Free Exercise Clause, which says “Congress shall make no law… prohibiting the free exercise” of religion.

But there’s also the Establishment Clause, which says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

In other words, the First Amendment gives people both freedom of and freedom from religion.

America’s founders were opposed to the government forcing religion on people, especially considering the religious oppression and wars that had plagued Europe in the centuries leading up to the writing of the Constitution.

“No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities,” Thomas Jefferson wrote in the constitution of Virginia, showing that freedom from religion was definitely something that the founders were thinking of.

“The settled opinion here is that religion is essentially distinct from Civil Government, and exempt from its cognizance; that a connexion between them is injurious to both; that there are causes in the human breast, which ensure the perpetuity of religion without the aid of the law,” James Madison wrote in a letter in 1819. “A legal establishment of religion without a toleration could not be thought of, and with toleration, is no security for public quiet and harmony, but rather a source itself of discord and animosity.”

Pence’s views on the establishment of a national religion could be of national importance in a few years. He has suggested that he’s considering a 2024 presidential run and, as he noted in the interview with Kudlow, the president can appoint judges who can rule against freedom from religion.

#us politics #news #LGBTQ nation #2022 #2024 election #2024 elections #2024 presidential race #gop #conservatives #Republicans #mike pence #freedom of religion #freedom from religion #first amendment #1st amendment #fox business #larry kudlow #youtube #video #Free Exercise Clause #Establishment Clause #quotes #us constitution #president thomas jefferson #president james Madison #us supreme court #scouts

[pscottm]

In New York, a group of yeshivas and two organizations have sued challenging the state Board of Regents recently adopted guidelines implementing NY Education Law §3204(2) which requires instruction in nonpublic schools to be at least "substantially equivalent" to that in public schools in the same city or district. The complaint (full text) in In re Parents for Educational and Religious Liberty in Schools, (Albany County Sup. Ct., filed 10/9/2022), alleges in part:

... [T]he New York State Education  Department... has spent the last half decade seeking to impose greater requirements and heightened oversight on these schools than are imposed on other schools in New York, whether public or private....

First, the New Regulations violate the New York State Administrative Procedures Act ... because the public comment process was a sham.... Here, NYSED received more than 300,000 comments in opposition to the proposed regulations but did not truly consider them and did not make any substantive revisions....

Second, the New Regulations violate SAPA by imposing on yeshivas obligations and restrictions not found in other schools. Only yeshivas ... will be prohibited from offering instruction ... in a student’s home language....

Third, the New Regulations create an impermissible de facto licensing requirement through the review and determination process....

The New Regulations frustrate the Petitioners’ constitutionally protected rights to the free exercise of religion and free speech, and violate their due process rights and right to equal protection.

Hamodia reports on the lawsuit.

These chucklefucks are pissed they have to provide their children with an education. These Jews are no better than those Muslim madrassas that only teach memorization of the Koran.

#Repeal the Free Exercise Clause

[politicalprof]

And so the Supreme Court has ruled that Maine violated the free exercise clause by refusing to provide state support for religious schools.

Or, put another way, the establishment clause barring state sanction of a religion is now unconstitutional since the Court has now held that unless the state facilitates religious practice it is violating one’s right to freely exercise one’s religion.

Have fun everyone!

[tmblrcensors]

FACT #1: "The Supreme Law of the Land”

All states joined the Union based on the Constitution being recognized as "the supreme law of the land." This is, therefore, the basis by which the states and the people of the United States are united as a nation. Without this, our federal government has no authority over the states and the people.

Constitutional Citation: Article VI, Clause 2 – The Supremacy Clause.

FACT #2: Defending the Integrity of the Vote

Protecting the integrity of the voting process as the primary means by which the people exercise their authority is fundamental to defending the Constitutional rights of citizens. It is, therefore, the Constitutional right of the citizens of the United States to have uniform, free, fair, efficient, and accurate elections, with procedures that are transparent, result in accurate vote counting, and protect the rights of citizens by requiring government-recognized identification to verify only citizens’ votes are counted.

Any action that would dilute the authority of the vote by any means is voter fraud. This includes hindering citizens from voting, allowing non-citizens to vote, or not accurately counting votes cast. Voter fraud should be considered a felony, a treasonous act against the Republic, and must be prosecuted with all diligence as a basic duty of the Attorney General of the United States, as well as the Attorneys General of all the states. Those found guilty should lose their citizenship and be incarcerated for not less than ten years.

Constitutional Citation: Article I, Section 4 and the 15th Amendment.

FACT #3: Defense is the Highest Priority of the Federal Government

It is the Constitutional right of the citizens of the United States to require the federal government to keep as its highest priority the defense and protection of its citizens at home and abroad, the homeland and all territorial possessions, and electronic domains and networks; and to secure its borders so as to repel any who would seek to enter the United States or its territories by means other than the lawful immigration procedures and laws of the United States.

Constitutional Citation: Article I, II & III – Separation of Powers and authority of the three branches of government.

FACT #4: Competence of All Who Serve in Government

It is the Constitutional right of the citizens of the United States to ensure that every office holder, elected or appointed, and every government official possess the knowledge required to comply with the Constitution of the United States and the laws and duties related to the position they hold, as well as to competently manage the duties and responsibilities of the office or position they hold.

Constitutional Citation: Article II, Section 1 – The Oath.

FACT #5: A Fair and Impartial Justice System

The justices, judges, and all other legal workers in the Judicial system must swear to comply with the Constitution as “the supreme law of the land,” and equally and impartially enforce compliance with the Constitution and the laws of the land.

Any violation of the uniform application of the Constitution and laws of the land is to be considered a felony, prosecuted as a civil rights violation of those harmed. Any violation that shows favoritism to some or prejudice toward any person or group based on race, religion, or politics is to be prosecuted as an assault on the Constitution and considered a civil rights violation of the people.

Constitutional Citation: Article III and the 14th Amendment – Equal Protection.

FACT #6: The Federal Government Staying Within Its Constitutional Boundaries

The Constitution places boundaries on federal government, as defined by the Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

The federal government has drifted far from its Constitutional moorings and usurped the Constitutional authority of states and the people. This must be reversed with due haste, as each transgression has been costly, causing increasingly severe crises for the United States.

It is, therefore, the right of the states and people to demand representatives, officers, or officials in any branch of the federal government reverse all encroachments by the federal government on the powers of the states and the people, and return the federal government back within boundaries set by the Constitution.

Constitutional Citation: 10th Amendment.

FACT #7: Government Operating Within Its Financial Means

It is the Constitutional right of the citizens of the United States to require leadership to operate within its financial means, except when necessary in a declared national emergency.

Government representatives, officers, and officials who are responsible for the government’s budget and economic leadership must be competent to understand and abide by sound economic management principles, direct national affairs with wisdom and efficiency, and must expediently pay off any debt incurred.

Constitutional Citation: Article I, Section 8 – Fiscal powers granted to Congress.

FACT #8: Truthfulness in Government

Because it is against the law for a citizen of the United States to lie to Congress, it must be against the law for any member of Congress, officer, or government official to lie to citizens of the United States. Everyone representing the people of the United States in any government capacity must be above reproach, and devoted to truth and transparency, with the highest standards of integrity.

Intentional lying must be prosecuted as the serious fraud that it is, with prison time mandatory for not less than one year, and for up to life in prison without parole for serious and damaging lies told to the government, or for any government official or representative lying to the public.

Constitutional Citation: Preamble’s aim to "establish Justice" and "insure domestic Tranquility."

FACT #9: Clarity and Simplicity in Legal Language

Founder Alexander Hamilton wrote, “It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow.”

Founder Thomas Jefferson wrote, “Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding, and should therefore be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense.”

Legalese is code developed by lawyers so that it can only be understood by other lawyers, thereby magnifying their control over the business of government and the people.

Therefore, it should be mandated by law that all business in the Republic, and the future work of those who have so fraudulently abused their place of unelected influence and control over virtually every aspect of our lives, must henceforth be written concisely and with plain simplicity in the language of the people of the United States: English. Translations into other languages would communicate with the same simplicity and conciseness.

Constitutional Citation: Principle of clear communication inferred from the Preamble.

FACT #10: Accountability in Lawmaking

President Ronald Reagan said he would not pass any law that he could not read and understand. This should be the standard of all whom the people elect to represent their interests. Any resistance to clarity and simplicity of communication in all public business must be rejected vehemently as an inroad for confusion and evil intent.

Constitutional Citation: Article I, Section 1 – Legislative powers of Congress.

[yesyoubelonghere]

Gay Rights Ruling

Supreme Court Backs Web Designer Opposed to Same-Sex Marriage

The decision appeared to suggest that the rights of L.G.B.T.Q. people, including to same-sex marriage, are on more vulnerable legal footing, particularly when they are at odds with claims of religious freedom.

Here’s what to know about the gay rights decision.

The Supreme Court on Friday sided with a web designer in Colorado who said she had a First Amendment right to refuse to provide services for same-sex marriages despite a state law that forbids discrimination against gay people.

In a 6 to 3 vote, split along ideological lines, the court held that the First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion.

The case, though framed as a clash between free speech and gay rights, was the latest in a series of decisions in favor of religious people and groups, notably conservative Christians.

The decision also appeared to suggest that the rights of L.G.B.T.Q. people, including to same-sex marriage, are on more vulnerable legal footing, particularly when they are at odds with claims of religious freedom. At the same time, the ruling limited the ability of the governments to enforce anti-discrimination laws.

The designer, Lorie Smith, said her Christian faith requires her to turn away customers seeking wedding-related services to celebrate same-sex unions. She added that she intends to post a message saying the company’s policy is a product of her religious convictions.

A Colorado law forbids discrimination against gay people by businesses open to the public as well as statements announcing such discrimination. Ms. Smith, who has not begun the wedding business or posted the proposed statement for fear of running afoul of the law, sued to challenge it, saying it violated her rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion.

But when the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, 303 Creative L.L.C. v. Elenis, No. 21-476, it agreed to decide only one question: “whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment.”

Here’s what else to know:

The case, framed as a clash between free speech and gay rights, is the latest in a series of decisions in favor of religious people and groups, notably Christians.

Both sides have said that the consequences of the court’s ruling could be enormous, though for different reasons. Ms. Smith’s supporters said a decision for the state would allow the government to force all sorts of artists to state things at odds with their beliefs.

Her opponents said a ruling in her favor would blow a hole through anti-discrimination laws and allow businesses engaged in expression to refuse service to, for example, Black people or Muslims based on odious but sincerely held convictions.

The decision could affect how states enforce their anti-discrimination laws.

Lower courts have generally sided with gay and lesbian couples who were refused service by bakeries, florists and others, ruling that potential customers are entitled to equal treatment, at least in parts of the country with laws forbidding discrimination based on sexual orientation.

This report is from the New York Times.

************

So, basically, the Supreme Court has said... You cannot discriminate against who someone is, but what they do. (???) If it involves YOUR artistic expression. (!!??)

The woman who brought up the case stated in an on air interview, she was fine with gay people. She just doesn't like what they do. What they do!? (LBGTQ+ do the same things as everyone else! They vote, have hobbies, go to work, go on vacation, pay taxes, have sex and get married etc... ) And by doing web site design for them is against her Christian beliefs and her First Amendment Rights as it involves her artistic expression. This woman had NOT been sued. She was trying to prevent her from being sued based on her religious beliefs as based on her First Amendment Rights.

Her Christian beliefs!? Sigh...

I feel, if she truly embraces being a "Christian" then she should embrace tolerance and let those she disagrees with, be "judged" after death, just as she will be "judged" after death.

It seems the First Amendment is being used as a shield to discriminate.

The Supreme Court has now opened Pandora's Box!

******

You may agree or disagree. But be respectful in your interaction.

I am a straight male.

[todaysdocument]

It’s Bill of Rights Day! Articles 3 through 12 were ratified on 12/15/1791, and became the first ten amendments to the Constitution. Article 2 became the 27th Amendment in 1992! 

Record Group 11: General Records of the United States Government

Series: Enrolled Acts and Resolutions of Congress

Image description:

A zoomed-in portion of the document, reading:

No law, varying the compensa--

Congress shall make no law resp--

--asemble, and to petition the Gov--

A well regulated militia, bein--

Transcription:

Congress of the United States began and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine. 

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution. 

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz. 

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution. 

Article the first... After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons. 

Article the second... No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened. 

Article the third... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 

Article the fourth... A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. 

Article the fifth... No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. 

Article the sixth... The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. 

Article the seventh... No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. 

Article the eighth... In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. 

Article the ninth... In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. 

Article the tenth... Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. 

Article the eleventh... The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. 

Article the twelfth... The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. 

ATTEST, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, Speaker of the House of Representatives John Adams, Vice-President of the United States, and President of the Senate John Beckley, Clerk of the House of Representatives. Sam. A Otis Secretary of the Senate

#archivesgov #December 15 #1791 #1700s #Early America #Bill of Rights #Bill of Rights Day #Constitution #Amendments #Freedom of speech #freedom of assembly #freedom of religion #right to petition the government for a redress of grievances #right to bear arms #search and seizure #right to a speedy and public trial #right to trial by an impartial jury #cruel and unusual punishment

[nicklloydnow]

“Mr. Garland’s memo did acknowledge that “spirited debate about policy matters is protected under our Constitution.” That is true but doesn’t go nearly far enough. Education is mostly speech, and parents have a constitutional right to choose the speech with which their children will be educated. They therefore cannot constitutionally be compelled, or even pressured, to make their children a captive audience for government indoctrination.

Public education in America has always attempted to homogenize and mold the identity of children. Since its largely nativist beginnings around 1840, public education has been valued for corralling most of the poor and middle class into institutions where their religious and ethnic differences could be ironed out in pursuit of common “American” values.

The goal was not merely a shared civic culture. Well into the 20th century, much of the political support for public schooling was driven by a fear of Catholicism and an ambition to Protestantize Catholic children. Many Catholics and other minorities escaped the indoctrination of their children by sending them to private schools.

Nativists found that intolerable. Beginning around 1920, they organized to force Catholic children into public education. The success of such a measure in Oregon (with Democratic votes and Ku Klux Klan leadership) prompted the Supreme Court to hold compulsory public education unconstitutional.

The case, Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925), was brought by a religious school, not a parent. The justices therefore framed their ruling around the threat to the school’s economic rights. But Pierce says that parents can educate their children outside state schools in accord with the parents’ moral and religious views.

Although the exact nature of this parental freedom is much disputed, it is grounded in the First Amendment. When religious parents claim the freedom, religious liberty seems an especially strong foundation. But the freedom of parents in educating their children belongs to all parents, not only the faithful. Freedom of speech more completely explains this educational liberty.

(…)

The public school system, by design, pressures parents to substitute government educational speech for their own. Public education is a benefit tied to an unconstitutional condition. Parents get subsidized education on the condition that they accept government educational speech in lieu of home or private schooling.

(…)

To be sure, Pierce doesn’t guarantee private education. It merely acknowledges the right of parents to provide it with their own resources. And one may protest that economic pressure is not force. But the Supreme Court has often ruled otherwise.

(…)

When government makes education compulsory and offers it free of charge, it crowds out parental freedom in educational speech. The poorer the parents, the more profound the pressure—and that is by design. Nativists intended to pressure poor and middle-class parents into substituting government educational speech for their own, and their unconstitutional project largely succeeded.

Most parents can’t afford to turn down public schooling. They therefore can’t adopt speech expressive of their own views in educating their children, whether by paying for a private school or dropping out of work to home-school. So they are constrained to adopt government educational speech in place of their own, in violation of the First Amendment.

A long line of Establishment Clause decisions recognize the risk of coercion in public-school messages. In Grand Rapids School District v. Ball (1985), the high court condemned private religious teaching in rooms leased from public schools. “Such indoctrination, if permitted to occur, would have devastating effects on the right of each individual voluntarily to determine what to believe (and what not to believe) free of any coercive pressures from the State,” Justice William Brennan wrote for the majority.

Coercion seemed central in such cases because of the vulnerability of children to indoctrination. Summarizing the court’s jurisprudence, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, concurring in Wallace v. Jaffree (1985), observed that “when government-sponsored religious exercises are directed at impressionable children who are required to attend school, . . . government endorsement is much more likely to result in coerced religious beliefs.”

(…)

Rights are “exceptions” to power, James Madison observed. That is, rights defeat power. But contemporary judicial doctrine allows power to defeat rights—at least when government asserts what is called a compelling interest. One might think that a state’s compelling interest in public education overpowers any parental speech right. Yet because such analysis allows power to subdue rights, it is important to evaluate whether the claimed government interest is really compelling.

The U.S. was founded in an era when almost all schooling was private and religious, and that already suggests that any government interest in public education is neither necessary nor compelling. Further, the idea that public education is a central government interest was popularized by anti-Catholic nativists. Beginning in the mid-19th century, they elevated the public school as a key American institution in their campaign against Catholicism.

In their vision, public schools were essential for inculcating American principles so that children could become independent-minded citizens and thinking voters. The education reformer and politician Horace Mann said that without public schools, American politics would bend toward “those whom ignorance and imbecility have prepared to become slaves.”

That sounds wholesome in the abstract. In practice, it meant that Catholics were mentally enslaved to their priests, and public education was necessary to get to the next generation, imbuing them with Protestant-style ideas so that when they reached adulthood, they would vote more like Protestants.

(…)

The inevitably homogenizing, even indoctrinating, effect of public schools confirms the danger of finding a compelling government interest in them. A 1904 nativist tract grimly declared that the public school is “a great paper mill, into which are cast rags of all kinds and colors, but which lose their special identity and come out white paper, having a common identity. So we want the children of the state, of whatever nationality, color or religion, to pass through this great moral, intellectual and patriotic mill, or transforming process.”

The idea of a common civic culture among children is appealing when it develops voluntarily, but not when state-approved identities and messages are “stamped upon their minds,” as the 1904 tract put it. Far from being a compelling government interest, the project of pressing children into a majority or government mold is a path toward tyranny.

The shared civic culture of 18th-century America was highly civilized, and it developed entirely in private schools. The schools, like the parents who supported them, were diverse in curriculum and their religious outlook, including every shade of Protestantism, plus Judaism, Catholicism, deism and religious indifference.

In their freedom, the 18th-century schools established a common culture. In contrast, public-school coercion has always stimulated division. It was long used to grind down the papalism of Catholic children into something more like Protestantism. Since then, there has been a shift in the beliefs that public schools seek to eradicate. But the schools remain a means by which some Americans force their beliefs on others. That’s why they are still a source of discord. The temptation to indoctrinate the children of others—to impose a common culture by coercion—is an obstacle to working out a genuine common culture.

There is no excuse for maintaining the nativist fiction that public schools are the glue that hold the nation together. They have become the focal point for all that is tearing the nation apart. However good some public schools may be, the system as a whole, being coercive, is a threat to our ability to find common ground. That is the opposite of a compelling government interest.

The public school system therefore is unconstitutional, at least as applied to parents who are pressured to abandon their own educational speech choices and instead adopt the government’s.

Parents should begin by asking judges to recognize—at least in declaratory judgments—that the current system is profoundly unconstitutional. Once that is clear, states will be obliged to figure out solutions. Some may choose to offer tax exemptions for dissenting parents; others may provide vouchers. Either way, states cannot deprive parents of their right to educational speech by pushing children into government schools.”

#education #public education #public schools #private schools #compulsory education #first amendment #freedom of speech #libertarian #libertarianism #catholocism #anticlericalism #constitution #unconstitutional