Trump to create religious office in White House, target 'anti-Christian bias'.

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Also, the establishment clause doesn't specifically say "cannot favor one religion over the other", that was an interpretation added later. While I agree that government shouldn't favor one religion over the other, this EO was broad in scope, but did focus on the anti Christian sentiment which has pervaded our country recently.

So what ?Interpretations matter. It's called case law. It carries the force of law/

Still waiting to hear what this anti Christian sentiment really is -what it looks like -how it is manifested? What Biden did

 

[ThisIsMe]

And you still have not explained what those allegedly anti Christian stances were

I didn't say anything about bidens anti Christian stance, trump did.

This is what HE said:

The previous Administration engaged in an egregious pattern of targeting peaceful Christians, while ignoring violent, anti-Christian offenses," the order states. "The Biden Department of Justice sought to squelch faith in the public square by bringing Federal criminal charges and obtaining in numerous cases multi-year prison sentences against nearly two dozen peaceful pro-life Christians for praying and demonstrating outside abortion facilities."

 

[ThisIsMe]

Abortion? That's it? That is all you have to say in response to my extensive analysis of the EO?

You said it yourself, as of yet, he isn't discriminating against other religions. He was inclusive of all religions.

Until he does discriminate against other religions, your point stands.

That and your mention of abortion rights were the two points of your post

Correction, you mentioned care for LGBT adoption and foster care. Look, just like abortion, these things are not in the purview of the federal government. You are looking at an EO targeted at religious protections and are expecting him to use it for LGBT assistance. That's not what the EO is.


You also give a lot of "could be" and "what if" type analysis, but as you said at the beginning, it's, so far, not anything exclusionary.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I didn't say anything about bidens anti Christian stance, trump did.

This is what HE said:

The previous Administration engaged in an egregious pattern of targeting peaceful Christians, while ignoring violent, anti-Christian offenses," the order states. "The Biden Department of Justice sought to squelch faith in the public square by bringing Federal criminal charges and obtaining in numerous cases multi-year prison sentences against nearly two dozen peaceful pro-life Christians for praying and demonstrating outside abortion facilities."

First of all , You did say it without referencing Trump

Secondly, it sounds like a bunch of horseshit as is usually the case with Trump . There is no context provided but I suspect that those so called peaceful protesters were illegally blocking access to those clinics

 

[ThisIsMe]

Wrong! It's a government action which is withing the meaning of the interpretation of the amendment

But you cite Lemon, which, In the "lemon test", says it has to be "excessive entanglement" as one of the 3 points. I don't see this as being excessive, and as you pointed out, it's an inclusive EO

 

[ThisIsMe]

First of all , You did say it without referencing Trump

Secondly, it sounds like a bunch of horseshit as is usually the case with Trump . There is no context provided but I suspect that those so called peaceful protesters were illegally blocking access to those clinics

I've looked and I can't find the recent images of people blockading the entrance to an abortion clinic. Mind sharing those images?

My initial reference was always to the reasons why trump issued the EO, sorry if it didn't come across like that but it was.

As far as blockading, we has antifa blocking the entrance to an emergency room in LA after an officer had been shot, and them saying they hope he died. We're any of those people arrested?

 

[ThisIsMe]

So what ?Interpretations matter. It's called case law. It carries the force of law/

Still waiting to hear what this anti Christian sentiment really is -what it looks like -how it is manifested? What Biden did

I tend to be an originalist and think intent matters. If our founding document is continually up for interpretation then why even have a cotus at all, since, you can just change its meaning by court interpretation?

That document, in order to have any meaning at all, cannot be up for reinterpretation on a whim.

 

[bdtex]

Definitely a change....

###

Trump to create religious office in White House, target 'anti-Christian bias'.
By Reuters.
02/07/2025.

Trump to create religious office in White House, target 'anti-Christian bias'

US President Donald Trump said on Thursday he would create a White House faith office and direct Attorney Gene

www.jpost.com

That's not gonna get Trump out of an eternal afterlife in the infernal region.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

But you cite Lemon, which, In the "lemon test", says it has to be "excessive entanglement" as one of the 3 points. I don't see this as being excessive, and as you pointed out, it's an inclusive EO

Just because you don't see it as excessive entanglement , it does not mean that there is not excessive entanglement .

Yest I did say that on the surface most of the EO appears to be inclusive and passes the smell test But I also pointed out problems with the language , especially when viewed in relation to what we know Trumps goals and beliefs are. Try dealing with that .

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I've looked and I can't find the recent images of people blockading the entrance to an abortion clinic. Mind sharing those images?

My initial reference was always to the reasons why trump issued the EO, sorry if it didn't come across like that but it was.

As far as blockading, we has antifa blocking the entrance to an emergency room in LA after an officer had been shot, and them saying they hope he died. We're any of those people arrested?

Give me a fucking break!

 

[ThisIsMe]

Just because you don't see it as excessive entanglement , it does not mean that there is not excessive entanglement .

Yest I did say that on the surface most of the EO appears to be inclusive and passes the smell test But I also pointed out problems with the language , especially when viewed in relation to what we know Trumps goals and beliefs are. Try dealing with that .

So at the end of the day, all we can do is see what the result is. If trump does not uphold religious liberty for everyone, then I'd agree, he favored one religion, but we'll have to wait and see

 

[ThisIsMe]

Give me a fucking break!

So, are you saying....some blockading is ok but not others? I need more context to your response.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

So, are you saying....some blockading is ok but not others? I need more context to your response.

I'm saying that it takes a special kind of stupid to believe Trump saying that peaceful protesters were sent to jail for years and years

That Antifa shit is just a red herring logical fallacy

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You said it yourself, as of yet, he isn't discriminating against other religions. He was inclusive of all religions.

Until he does discriminate against other religions, your point stands.

That and your mention of abortion rights were the two points of your post

Correction, you mentioned care for LGBT adoption and foster care. Look, just like abortion, these things are not in the purview of the federal government. You are looking at an EO targeted at religious protections and are expecting him to use it for LGBT assistance. That's not what the EO is.


You also give a lot of "could be" and "what if" type analysis, but as you said at the beginning, it's, so far, not anything exclusionary.

I said that on the surface it appears that it is not discriminatory. A deeper dive raises concerns about how it will be applied and to who. I will add that discrimination does not always take the form of a negative action against a particular group. It may also be manifested as favoritism towards one group to the exclusion of others. He specifically mentioned the goal of combatting anti -Semitism and anti Christian voices while failing to mention any other religion. In announcing the order, he only mentions the goal of fighting “anti Christian Rhetoric” ( I have you to see an example of such rhetoric )

As far as LGBT adoption and Abortion are concerned , they are very much in the purview of the federal government-as are many other things that are primarily a state matter- whenever laws are passed that violate persons civil rights. However, I am not expecting Trump to use the EO or anything else to help gays or women. I would have to be really stupid to think that he would. My concern is that he will use the flowery language and a bastardized interpretation of religious freedom to hurt them

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I tend to be an originalist and think intent matters. If our founding document is continually up for interpretation then why even have a cotus at all, since, you can just change its meaning by court interpretation?

That document, in order to have any meaning at all, cannot be up for reinterpretation on a whim.

And there in lies the problem that we’re having. I believe in a living constitution that is adaptable to changing times- everything from societal norms and values to technology and science. I believe that the founder know that there would be great changes to come that they could not fathom, and were smart enough o know that the constitution had to be flexible. That’s why much of the constitution and the amendments are vague.

Consider : Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857): Used an originalist interpretation to deny citizenship to African Americans

Brown v. Board of Education (1954): Used a living constitutionalist interpretation to overturn segregation

 

[ThisIsMe]

I said that on the surface it appears that it is not discriminatory. A deeper dive raises concerns about how it will be applied and to who. I will add that discrimination does not always take the form of a negative action against a particular group. It may also be manifested as favoritism towards one group to the exclusion of others. He specifically mentioned the goal of combatting anti -Semitism and anti Christian voices while failing to mention any other religion. In announcing the order, he only mentions the goal of fighting “anti Christian Rhetoric” ( I have you to see an example of such rhetoric )

As far as LGBT adoption and Abortion are concerned , they are very much in the purview of the federal government-as are many other things that are primarily a state matter- whenever laws are passed that violate persons civil rights. However, I am not expecting Trump to use the EO or anything else to help gays or women. I would have to be really stupid to think that he would. My concern is that he will use the flowery language and a bastardized interpretation of religious freedom to hurt them

A deeper dive raises concerns about how it will be applied and to who.

Maybe,but you could also be reading too much into it. Like you said, on the surface, it appears to be legitimate. Maybe the surface reflects what's underneath.

It may also be manifested as favoritism towards one group to the exclusion of others.

But he did make the EO pretty broad in mentioning all religious liberty.

He specifically mentioned the goal of combatting anti -Semitism and anti Christian voices while failing to mention any other religion

He mentioned the religions he feels are currently under attack by our politicians. He mentions the one specifically. Islam is not under attack by anyone in government, but it is included in this EO, even if not named specifically.

As far as LGBT adoption and Abortion are concerned , they are very much in the purview of the federal government

There are a great many things our government does, that the cotus does not extend it the power to do.

However, I am not expecting Trump to use the EO or anything else to help gays or women

This was not an EO aimed at that, however, using your logic that discrimination can also happen by excluding references to things in his EO, then if he doesn't make any EOs against LGBT people, then that would indicate support for it.

My concern is that he will use the flowery language and a bastardized interpretation of religious freedom to hurt them

This will depend on your definition of "hurt". If he specifically tries to pass laws or EOs targeting anyone who is LGBT, I'd say he, and the government has no right to interfere, as it is not a power of the government to do. If, however, he does like he did in roe, and sends any legislation about it back to the states, that's not hurting them, that's restoring the government to its rightful place.

I think people get so emotional about this because, we've expanded the power of the government so far beyond what it was ever intended to be, that when someone wants to roll back some of that power, it makes people go crazy. If we had just stuck to what the cotus said, none of this would be an issue.

 

[PeterPilot]

If you remove Christianity from government, you have atheism by default. That's why the notion of separation of church and state is impossible unless you have an atheist government. And we've seen what a disaster atheist regimes have been. 100 million murdered in the last century.

No, if you remove Christianity or any other religion from government, you have a neutral and secular government.

Many humans do not need some priest or church to understand the difference between right and wrong.

 

[Mashmont]

No, if you remove Christianity or any other religion from government, you have a neutral and secular government.

Many humans do not need some priest or church to understand the difference between right and wrong.

OK, well let me ask you this question. What is the 'secular' position on abortion?

 

[PeterPilot]

OK, well let me ask you this question. What is the 'secular' position on abortion?

I'm just an ordinary citizen, so we're just talking in generalities. The secular position on abortion might be what the Ninth Amendment details. Though the right to abortion is not enumerated in the founding document, neither are countless other rights. A woman has a right to do as she pleases with her body, no matter how unpleasant any given action might be.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

If you remove Christianity from government, you have atheism by default. That's why the notion of separation of church and state is impossible unless you have an atheist government. And we've seen what a disaster atheist regimes have been. 100 million murdered in the last century.

Holy shit on a shingle! WHAT! Let;s try for a second to fathum the absurdity of the statement that "If you remove Christianity from government, you have atheism by default. " So you're saying that the only religion is Christianity? You're either Christian or an Atheist? Listen to your self! I will add that even those who do not adhere to a particular religion are not necessarily atheists . Some ate agnostic. Some of the founders of this country were Theists who believed in a higher power but were not Christians''

As far as atheist regimes who killed people. I assume that you are thinking about places like and the former Soviet Union . That has nothing to do with the absence of Christianity and everything to do with the presence of totalitarian regimes that have little regard for human rights and freedom
Christians have killed a lot of people in the name of God

Army of God (terrorist organization) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Army of God (AOG) is an American Christian terrorist organization,[1] members of which have perpetrated anti-abortion violence.[2] According to the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security's joint Terrorism Knowledge Base, the Army of God is an active underground terrorist organization in the United States.

https://www.amazon.com/Army-God-Joseph-Central-Africa/dp/161039299X?tag=usmb-20

It started with a visit from spirits. In 1991, Kony claimed that spiritual beings had come to him with instructions: he was to lead his group of rebels, the Lord's Resistance Army, in a series of brutal raids against ordinary Ugandan civilians. Decades later, Kony has sown chaos throughout Central Africa, kidnapping and terrorizing countless innocents -- especially children. Yet despite an enormous global outcry, the Kony 2012 movement, and an international military intervention, the carnage has continued. Drawn from on-the-ground reporting by war correspondent David Axe and starkly illustrated by Tim Hamilton, Army of God is the first-ever graphic account of the global phenomenon surrounding Kony -- from the devastation he has left behind to the long campaign to defeat him for good.