That's right, folks! Jeff Beauregard Session is hereby putting us on notice: He WILL not, sir, tolerate this " dangerous movement, undetected by many,... now challenging and eroding our great tradition of religious freedom" any longer! (Imagine this in a HEAVY Alabama accent, y'all!" The forces of secularism shall not prevail, saith he!
Oh, yeah, Jeff? What do you think would happen if we took ALL of our secular toys and departed, leaving this country to be run by you and your cronies? Wanna go back to them good ole days, do you?
Unsure whether this goes in Politics, Religion or Silly category. IS there an "All OF the Above Option"? Putting it in News. Grrrr.....
Whaaaaaat? Jeffie won't TOLERATE us? Why, bless his lil ol' hearrrrt!
Sessions, just like his boss, is a tool of Christian extremism, and this is part of a greater agenda. As Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove, himself a Baptist minister noted:
"In reality, these arguments boil down to one thing: discrimination. It is not enough for Christian nationalists to freely exercise their vision of a good life. In the name of 'liberty,' they want the right to discriminate against those with whom they disagree."
Strange that so many today suffer because they are not allowed to worship in the faith of their choice. These same people put a feast on the days of thanksgiving when it was days of prayer, then add the big dinner with the Indians. Imagine again that America is a Christian nation because these same folks left England because the mean old King would not let them practice their religion. It's all a borrowed story, folks. Borrowed just like most of the stories in the bible.
This regime is illegitimate and un-American. Sessions is a fascist and his boss is a traitor. Most people understand this. I think they are going to take quite a shellacking in the next election.
How can it be allowed to have this type of govt sponsored task force in a country founded on religious freedom and a separation of church and state. This is going way too far
I guess it doesn't take much more of a step from cherry picking bible quotes to doing the same with the Bill Of Rights, namely that pesky Ninth Amendment "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Which plays quite nicely into the First "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
I say we refocus our efforts into impeaching Jeff Sessions. This is a two strike Constitutional offense that can not be allowed to carry on, and should not have been allowed to begin.
I certainly agree with the sentiment, but I think there would be a price to pay in the coming election if Sessions were to be impeached. Not as big a price as it would be if we tried to impeach Trump, but still it might prevent us from taking the House. Also, it would play right into Trump's desire to replace him with someone who would stop the Mueller investigation.
@Flyingsaucesir Hmm,touche. Also plays into his pick for VP, the dreaded Pence.
I dread the prospect of religiously financed candidates (As Sessions wants to do away with the ability of the IRS to threaten tax exemption status to religious institutions cough evangelicals cough that donate too much money to a candidate), but I have a very faint, lingering, hope that the 'voice' of the voters will prevail, and pick a candidate that's not an obvious puppet of the church.
Then again we did vote trump in sooooo...... we'll just have to wait and see!
@BeardedWonder
Whichever way it goes the evangelicals are dead set on making this country a Christian theocracy. They are playing a long game in a race between science education and religious indoctrination. The religionists are implacable but there is reason for hope. 200 years ago there were no writers like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, or Daniel Dennet. I think we are in a process of halting progress, were we move forward by two steps, then back by one. I have faith that the truth will win out in the end. Science has a huge advantage over religion in this, because science factually accurate! ?
@Flyingsaucesir I admire your optimism, and I hope that it does come to fruition one of these days.
Let's be clear: all that the evangelicals are concerned with is their liberty to discriminate against everyone else. Their "liberty" to deny same-sex couples the right to marry... ideally the right to even openly be couples. Their "liberty" to openly hate. Their "liberty" to shut other religions, as well as atheists and agnostics, out of the public square. Their "liberty" to dictate public policy by controlling the party in power.
They already have the liberty to believe and do as they want under the law. The law forbids discrimination, because we are a secular society. They want us to be a religious society where "Christian" morality is the rule. And there's no such thing. "Christian" morality means you're free to discriminate against anyone who's not a Christian.
"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."
~Sinclair Lewis
They'd love to be able to take us down to the dungeon and torture us, for our own good of course.. bastards..
This sounds like a clear violation of the Establishment Clause to me.
Will the new supreme court see it thithis way? According to some the latest court might allow states to adopt state preferred religion. Conservative agenda is going to end this country.
Let’s hope that he falls down dead from a heart attack from eating too many gravy n biscuits.
Just to be clear, a lawmaker (I forget who) pointed out that the separation of church and state really doesn't protect atheism. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
I'm not sure how it would be interpreted if put to the supreme court, but IMO that wording protects religions and in no way protects non-religious entities or individuals. If there is something else I'm not aware of that does protect atheism I'd love to hear it.
@BookDeath Agreed, I'm just saying that if he's look at atheism as a problem then the same protections given to religions either need to be expanded or rewritten to include atheism as I don't think they currently do.