Between Lauren Boebert & SCOTUS, The Removal Of The Separation Of Church & State Seems Inevitable
And sadly it appears the Democratic Party has purchased tickets for this train ride into Disneyhell willingly.
Well, here we are once again.
Though Democratic candidate Adam Frisch put up a valiant fight—doing much better than anyone anticipated—it appears that the Colorado 3rd congressional district race has been called, signifying a win for alleged former sex worker Lauren Boebert. That's the bad news. The worse news comes from the fact that this term she won't just be fucking one or two clients at a time while on the clock, but rather the entire nation at once.
Because of this victory, Boebert can rest a little easier in knowing she has a few more years to continue her work as the preeminent elected voice of God in our nation's capital; well, in her own mind anyway. This mind of hers, clearly being filled with all kinds of celestial-based mental distortions, has led Boebert down the path of thinking that the separation of church and state simply has to go. Though religious freedom/independence/autonomy is a cornerstone of our nation, to Boebert and those of her ilk, this separation is nothing more than a liberal construct. A liberal construct designed as a justification to kill God and allow immorality to run amok. In her world (assuming the sex worker allegations are true), if she was able to use the power of Christ to raise her from depravity, then it HAS to work for everyone else.
But in reality, how much impact will Boebert have? How much separation of church and state is currently happening in America? We know that the Supreme Court has completely ignored this separation with their bible-based rulings when it comes to reproductive rights, so is Boebert really going to be the groundbreaking architect of a glorious monument to God via legislative chicanery? Or have all the foundations already been laid?
All of Boebert’s intentions became headline fodder in June of this year, while, during her campaign, she made her feelings about the separation of church and state crystal clear. “I’m tired of this separation of church and state junk that’s not in the Constitution." She continued, “The church is supposed to direct the government. The government is not supposed to direct the church. That is not how our Founding Fathers intended it.” And, say what you will about the woman, she lives her convictions. This was never more evident when she broke this separation of church and state by giving a speech at a Christian Bible College conference in Woodland Park—while actively campaigning—where she said, “We need God back at the center of our country. It’s time for us to position ourselves, and rise up, and take our place in Christ, and influence this nation as we were called to do.”
Even though it appeared (to anyone with a brain) that her statements were hyperbolic rhetoric designed to work up the GOP base, the confidence with which she made them was on a different plane. And if you've been paying attention to the Supreme Court rulings of 2022, it's easy to see why she was filled with that level of bravado.
In two cases decided this year, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court made it abundantly clear that there’s little room for the separation of church and state in its regressive constitutional framework. In Carson v. Makin, the court held for the first time that a state MUST fund religious activity as part of an educational aid program. One week later, it did the same in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, in which the court ruled in favor of a Christian public school football coach who prayed with his players while on duty. Though the court had recognized for over a half-century that merely forcing students to choose between participating in teacher-led prayer, protesting, or avoiding certain school activities where official prayer occurs is inherently coercive and therefore unconstitutional, this is no more.
Taken together, the court’s rulings in Carson and Kennedy lead “us to a place where separation of church and state becomes a constitutional violation,” as Justice Sonia Sotomayor recognized in her Carson dissent. She's right. These rulings suggest that enforcement of the Establishment Clause—the clause which prevents excessive entanglement between government and religion—is somehow hostile to religion itself.
Remember earlier when said there was “worse news?” Unfortunately, there’s another layer to this cake of repugnance; this time coming from across the political aisle.
During a Senate vote earlier this month, I was thrilled to see H.R.8404: Respect for Marriage Act pass. After the reversal of Roe, many political pundits have made mention that gay marriage could be next on the chopping block—I agreed. Unfortunately, the joy I felt was soon erased when I found that 12 Republicans voted in favor of the act, thereby breaking the filibuster; I knew something was amiss. While digging deeper into the bill, I found that the version which passed the Senate included an amendment that grants some exemptions to religious groups. According to the amendment, religious organizations “shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage.” In essence, religious organizations don’t have to recognize the union on any level, for any business or other entity they might own—which directly contradicts the federal anti-discrimination laws currently in place. Anyone up for Hobby Lobby Part 2?
There’s more …
In October, Beto O’Rourke, a Democrat, and Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, a Republican, visited different churches where pastors praised them and allowed them to give speeches about the upcoming election. This was in violation of federal law, according to tax law experts. Known as the Johnson Amendment, the law bars tax-exempt organizations from intervening in political campaigns. One of O’Rourke’s church stops was particularly memorable when, at St. Luke “Community” United Methodist Church in Dallas on the morning of October 23rd, pastor Richie Butler introduced O’Rourke to his congregation as “the next Governor of Texas.”
As we all know, religious leaders have always been lining the pockets of Republican politicians. However, these two examples show that Democrat leaders are not only aware of this religious domination coming to the forefront of American politics, but they are also helping to enable it. For the group that likes to throw around the phrase, “when they go low, we go high,” it seems that none of these moves by the Democrats are going to raise the party to the next plateau. At best, it’s a side-step. If they really wanted an actionable way that shows their legitimacy towards keeping church and state separate, I say removing the tax-exempt status from religions that are found to violate the Johnson Amendment—with ferocity—would be a good start. I’m sure with how much Boebert wants the church and state to be bedfellows, she wouldn’t object.
Speaking of …
When it comes to Boebert, I honestly believe her re-election is just a stepping stone in the grand scheme of things. If you follow conservative politics, then you know that no matter what the future of the relationship between church and state looks like, the attention she’s garnered from her highly vocal, high-profile ramblings will most certainly assure that the outcome will be part of her legacy. There’s no other option as conservative history has painted Boebert and her religious zealotry as completely intertwined. Though she’d been a conservative stalwart that would capture headlines on occasion for years, it was when she started to really focus her agenda on the removal of the separation that her star status with the rank-and-file GOP members began reaching Taylor Swift heights. For days after she made the comments I mentioned earlier about the church directing the government, conservative talk radio was focused on her and her messaging for large chunks of each pundit’s shows. Still to this day, whenever she makes some outrageous claim about the church and state, she gets ample coverage. It’s clear that with this level of clout, I have no doubts that in a few years she’s going to try and run for higher-profile offices.
Yet, until the time comes for her to make that leap, she will continue to be a mainstream mouthpiece for a movement that is quietly destroying one of our nation’s cornerstones through legislative and judicial subterfuge. And with the apparent help from the Democrats, it feels like this decimation will hardly be an inconvenience.