Justice Neil Gorsuch says no-one can sue to stop the government from establishing religion

I'm sorry PO1 Tony Holland, but the article is a load of manure. If one wants to criticize J. Gorsuch, I don't have a problem with it, but the article is weak on facts and heavily critical of President Trump and the conservative position. Instead of cheap comments and insults, the author would be better served by laying out facts.

My many previous debates on RP in the past regarding religious subjects usually inspires me to "move along"...but I feel I need to comment on this one. To do so, I'll have to be long-winded, and I ask for you patience. I presume if a subject of this weight is worth bringing up... it's worth the patience to do due diligence.

Being a person of faith, my personal beliefs are that truth (and justice) are not subjective. For truth to be objective, it has to be infallible. I believe in one truth... others believe in their own. Naturally, it would be illogical for me to be bothered if my truth was chosen over another. That being said, one of the great things about the founding of this nation is that we began with the concept of individual liberty; though we've moved far beyond that (again, in my opinion) since. When the "Establishment Clause" was written, we lived in a world where the questions regarding government and faith were vital-after all, we had fought a revolution against a monarchical head of state who also claimed to be head of the national religion, and ordained by God. For a British subject living in the late 18th Century, the English Civil War was only about as far removed as our own today...and among its many causes was the argument over "which" sect of Christianity was to reign, and whether or not the monarch cast the deciding vote. What was guaranteed within the First Amendment was that the "choice" would come down to individual conviction, as opposed to collective opinion, let alone governmental sanction. Lest we forget, the predominant belief at the time among all involved parties was in fact, Christianity.

Some two and a quarter centuries on, the issues are vastly different, though they often appear to be the same. There is no law that I'm aware of that compels someone to affirm or swear allegiance to a specific faith, if any faith at all. From government leaders, to individual employers in the private sector, we have numerous laws and practices in place aimed at protecting a citizen's right to follow their own beliefs, and to ensure that no one else can force their beliefs upon another. In my personal and professional experience, I've seen little or no breach of these laws and practices.

As with most perceived "problems" relating to faith and government in our nation, much hay is made from Thomas Jefferson's letter of 1801 to the Danbury Baptists. Here is the critical excerpt thereof:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

Clearly, Jefferson was of the opinion that "rights of conscience" were paramount in a free society. His comments also belie his own faith-I find it difficult to believe that a man who expressed "sovereign reverence" was in opposition to religion.

Where the conflict persists today is not with the question of whether or not we have the right to believe as we choose, but whether or not expression of belief within the public sector constitutes a violation of same. For that to be so, these public expressions would (by needs) have to compel, under pain of law, the abstaining party to pay homage to, and/or affirm their belief in, the concepts being expressed. I cannot see how a cross, a statue, a plaque, or a prayer constitute such a threat. I've joined Muslims in their morning prayers... respecting their inherent right to their beliefs, while never being asked to compromise my own. I've prayed in the company of atheists... and neither had my beliefs magically "threatened" by their abstinence, nor their "conversion" required for my prayers to be valid. Others may try to prosthelytize me into their beliefs... or I they; but I've yet to encounter a law that requires either party to submit.

All too often, what I think is being asked (by both sides) is that one belief be silenced because it is "uncomfortable" for those of another.

Tyranny never arises without cause. The Church of England was formed, and the monarch made its titular head due to the overriding authority of the Roman Catholic Church over the affairs (both political and literal) of the English state. This "convenience" to the King would herald in the wholesale persecution of Catholics (and later, Puritans) for generations thereafter, culminating in the Jacobite rebellions, and perhaps... our own. It's no surprise that our Founding Fathers, most all of whom would've understood the implications first, or at least second-hand, enshrined religious choice within our laws.

If such a tyranny ever rises again, it may be the direct result of attempts by either part to completely suppress their opposition. We Christians could not demand a society where Judeo-Christian theology formed the basis of law without demanding that behavior departing from that pattern be made "illegal". Neither could any other party demand a society where Christianity, or any other religion was completely removed without making such beliefs "illegal". Again, does a century-old cross erected as a memorial to the dead actually constitute such a threat? Does a balanced Supreme Court, where tradition, belief, and morality are considered as much as "progress" offer any different?

I believe that many, if not most Christians believe as I do... that all things of this world will pass away, and that the "kingdom" we're working towards is in Heaven, and not on earth. For this reason, I see no "grand conspiracy" on the part of the "Christian Right" to take over our nation and impose "religious law". Frankly, I think most of us would find that inconvenient as compared to the "personal" relationship we have with God through salvation in Jesus Christ. However, I share the concerns of many of the same that there are those among us who would, for the sake of their ideologies, see Christianity, and perhaps other views, suppressed by law. Let's not forget, while you need no longer swear upon the Bible to become President... you can't pray in public school.

If we are to move away from this conflict, towards stability and peace... it's probably not a bad idea that people on either "side" re-read Jefferson's statements for what they were; affirmation that in the United States, conscience and liberty are the basis of law.

"Theocrat Gorsuch says no American can challenge a Christian religious display on government property."
Great way to start off with some bias and cherry picking sentences that actually isn't that provocative (and not provide the source, so let's just take his word for how "dangerous" this truly is...). Going to need more context or else I'm going to have to brush this off as political hysteria.