Who’s religious liberty?


In his own words, Alito APPEARS to admit that it was his religious beliefs and not the law that pushed him to write the Dobbs opinion.

In his mind, ONLY Christian liberty matters and the others be damned. – IMO

I would like to remind him that without Judaism, Christianity doesn’t exist. His apparent dismissal of other religions over his own is bad precedent. Freedom FROM religion is a cornerstone of this country. First Amendment means nothing to him.

He blames societal changes in the decline of Christianity. Perhaps he should consider the many scandals that have been plaguing the Christian Church and the people being disgusted by it.

19 thoughts on “Who’s religious liberty?

    1. First line from the First Amendment:

      “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,”…

      What you find abhorrent, Dr. Semantics, is enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Line ONE!

      Liked by 1 person

        1. Your idiocy is on full display. What part of the First Amendment do you NOT understand? The “Establishment clause” says that no religion is to be established by the government and FORCED on the people. Freedom OF religion, meaning being free to worship how one sees fit, is one of the things that makes this country special. Freedom FROM religion BY THE GOVERNMENT is the LAW.

          You, Boebert, Alito, MTG, et al., want a Christian ONLY nation. To that I say, “Please move to Russia”, as you indicated in an earlier thread. Those of us who are not Christian want you to pray however you like and for us to be allowed to do the same without Government interference. Or to be bothered by those who feel we are “heathens”.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. RE: “Freedom FROM religion BY THE GOVERNMENT is the LAW.”

          Not really. While our government cannot mandate religion, neither can government exclude it. Accordingly, a Supreme Court justice, a member of Congress, a president is quite free to allow his religious beliefs to influence the performance of his office.

          The freedom FROM religion which you claim to exist is actually impossible.


          1. “Not really.”

            Yes, really. The subject is state-sponsored religion. It is forbidden. Period. It was something that the Founders were familiar with and knew to be actual “abhorrent.”

            We have many violations of the Establishment clause going on routinely. The most significant is the tax advantages given to churches. We need some “originalists” on SCOTUS to make it stop.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. “Accordingly, a Supreme Court justice, a member of Congress, a president is quite free to allow his religious beliefs to influence the performance of his office.”

            Performance of one’s office should be based on the law. Personal use of religion to assist in deciding on something is fine. BUT this is talking about using one’s religion to write the law. Basically “My religion says this, so you have to do what I say because I am SCOTUS and I have put MY religious doctrine into law. YOUR religious doctrine is overruled”.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. “Not really.”

            Yes, REALLY. State sponsored religion is verboten by 1A. Instead of using PART of what I said (cherry picker), The freedom FROM religion is the law of the land. Repeal the First Amendment if you think otherwise.


    2. “I don’t think so. In fact, the very sentiment is abhorrent.”

      Think again.

      Freedom OF religion means you can worship as you please. It does not mean that you can use the government to make me worship as YOU please.


      Liked by 1 person

      1. RE: “It does not mean that you can use the government to make me worship as YOU please.”

        No, it doesn’t. It also doesn’t mean that you have a right to not encounter any religious beliefs I may have.


        1. Encounter is one thing. To have it shoved in my face repeatedly, told by others (not necessarily you) that my religion is wrong, or I am a heathen. I have had those things done to me in this country. By every one from shipmates to neighbors, to those that think I need to be “saved”. I’m CHOSEN. I don’t need saving.

          The theocrat in you us showing. You can deny it all you want. But you have yet to say that this nation is NOT a Christian only one.

          Liked by 1 person

  1. Seeing things that don’t exist and making wild commentary about delusions again? Alito made no reference to Christianity at all. He said “religion”. If you want to parody something like pencil neck Schiff likes to do, it doesnt make putting words in someones mouth truth.


    1. Not my problem of your comprehension is not as keen as mine.

      “Alito, a Roman Catholic, has been perhaps the court’s most ardent advocate of religious rights, at times casting believers as aggrieved for abiding by their faith. He said in his latest remarks that Christians had been persecuted for centuries,”…

      Ain’t no parody when he proclaims his religious beliefs guided his decision and NOT the law. A pretty cut-and-dry example of a theocrat.

      I got news for the good Justice. He needs to go back and read his Bible, the entire Bible and not just the NEW part. And then review world history concerning the abuses heaped on Jews throughout the centuries by almost every single civilization that had Jews in it. He makes up his phony “persecution” while ignoring things like the Holocaust, and from a religious standpoint, The Inquisition.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Not my problem you can’t read. Keen comprehension takes reading, not introducing political suspicion as you are doing. He said religion, as in all religion, including yours. Get a grip.


        1. If you truly believe that Alito is talking about all religions, with regards to his decision, you are as full of it as he is. He based his decision in Dobbs on HIS beliefs. He did not take into account those whose religions believe differently and he ignored the law over his own beliefs.

          As far as keen, you display little keenness in your opinions. And your comprehension skills go as far as a right wing’s views of life and reality.


  2. “Unless the people can be convinced that robust religious liberty is worth protecting, it will not endure,”

    What is robust religious liberty?

    We either have it or we don’t.

    I think Americans are not forgoing faith but rather the organized, bureaucratic style of various sects. At some point the importance of the structure is more important than the message and the spiritual health of the adherents.

    Sexual predation in the guise of religious authority is not just a crime it is an abomination. Using the faithful’s money for private jets is a similar smear on the messages of all the mainline religions and their sects. And all these “benefits” for the leaders are protected by the First Amendment.

    It is not the churches which are beset with outside efforts to damage or destroy them. It is their own internal workings that have left God’s messages in the dust in favor of politics, wealth and scandal.

    Or as the common expression goes: “I didn’t leave the church, the church left me.” I think the founders knew this at the time also.

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s