Before the 2016 presidential election, white evangelicals such as Franklin Graham had endeavored to convince their followers that the issues that truly mattered were abortion, sexual orientation, religious freedoms, military readiness and socialism, and that the power to select the right U.S. Supreme Court justices was critical to win on those issues.  Of the two presidential candidates, Trump was the only “Christian” choice to them even though it was no secret that his conduct was grossly inconsistent with their own definition of Christian morality.  Trump went on to win the election and was eventually quite successful in two areas:  He passed a massive tax cut that has been criticized for only benefiting the rich, and he changed the balance in the Supreme Court by installing three conservative justices.  The new conservative Supreme Court, so far, has delighted conservative Christians but has thrown the nation into major turmoil.

The Democrats apparently were caught by surprise as they had not, like the Republicans, worked out a strategy leading to control of the Supreme Court.  But the single-minded focus of the Republicans on achieving that goal raises questions about their idea of justice: Is the purpose of the courts to maintain justice and the rule of law or to impose the will of a segment of the population?  Obviously, the Republicans’ objective is not to promote a robust and honest debate on legal matters.  When Mitch McConnell manipulated Senate rules to get as many conservative judges as he could, he fully expected that the judges’ decisions would consistently be aligned with his own worldview.  That is exactly what he is getting.  Considering that he is known as a shrewd politician who uses any means necessary to win and maintain power, rather than a model of intellectual and moral integrity, it is difficult to see how his goals would be good for a diverse nation such as the United States.

In this article, I will limit my discussion to three recent Supreme Court decisions that have led to much outrage in the nation: the gun law in New York, the ruling on school prayer and the repeal of Roe v. Wade.

On June 23, 2022, gun rights advocates had a major victory when the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 ruling, struck down a New York state law that required applicants for a license to carry a gun outside of their homes to have a “proper cause” to do so.  Justice Thomas, writing for the majority, stated that the law violated the Second Amendment which, according to him, protects a broad right to carry a gun outside the home for self-defense.  He also argued that gun restrictions, in the future, should only be upheld by courts if there is a tradition of such regulation in U.S. history.

With this ruling, the Second Amendment which, in its original form, was written with militia in mind but was turned into an individual right to carry firearms in 2008, is now a right to carry concealed weapons with almost no restrictions.

It is interesting that the New York law had been in existence since 1911, and other states, including California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Jersey, happen to have similar laws.  But Thomas’ interpretation of the Second Amendment makes no room for such precedents.  In his dissent, Justice Breyer noted that 45,000 Americans were killed by guns in 2020 and that states had attempted to reduce gun violence “by passing laws that limit, in various ways, who may purchase, carry, or use firearms of different kinds.”  He criticized the majority for reaching its decision “without considering the State’s compelling interest in preventing gun violence and protecting the safety of its citizens, and without considering the potentially deadly consequences of its decision.”

Justice Alito responded to Breyer, essentially saying that his comments were irrelevant and that “many Americans have good reason to fear that they will be victimized if they are unable to protect themselves.”  According to Alito, the Second Amendment allows those Americans to protect themselves.

In other words, what we see in western movies, where everybody carries a gun and is ready to use it to settle disputes, is the appropriate model for the rule of law in the United States of America.  It does not matter that this attitude has made gun violence a unique American problem that is not seen anywhere else in the world.  Conservatives usually tend to push for state rights and less interference from the federal government.  But the right of an individual to carry a firearm is so important to them that conservative justices do not even mind having the Federal government interfere with the authority of states to regulate it.  And the conservative justices were definitely not going to be swayed by the fact that six weeks before their ruling a gunman killed 10 Black people at a Buffalo supermarket, and less than a month before the ruling, 21 people – 19 children and two teachers – were shot to death at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas.  So what!

Gun rights advocates often claim that the best thing against a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun.  However, recent findings about the shooting in Uvalde present a picture that contradicts this claim.  According to the Texas Tribune,

“A Texas House panel report found that 376 law enforcement officers from several agencies descended on the scene in a chaotic, uncoordinated response that stretched for 73 more minutes before the gunman was confronted and killed.

The House panel’s report echoed criticisms made previously by police tactics experts: that instead of following the accepted doctrine that officers immediately confront active shooters, police at Robb Elementary retreated after coming under fire and then waited for backup. By the time the shooter was killed, 376 law enforcement officers from several local, state and federal agencies had shown up to the scene.”

Reacting to these revelations and the accompanying video, Senator Chris Murphy, who recently led Senate efforts to pass a bill that imposes modest restrictions to gun access, tweeted that the video puts to bed the question of whether the way to deal with bad guys with guns is to make sure there are more good guys with guns.  Indeed, there were certainly many “good guys” with guns at the school.  That did not help the 21 people who died.

The justices who oppose gun control laws, along with most Republicans in Congress, are presumably conservative Christians who self-identify as Catholics or as conservative Protestants.  Legal arguments at the Supreme Court are won by the number of votes rather than pure merit.  It is therefore appropriate to ask: How do these conservatives morally justify their attitude toward guns?  How does a Christian who claims to follow Christ, the so-called Prince of Peace, justify such devotion to the Second Amendment?  As I have discussed before (See Gun Violence and the Second Amendment and Mass Shootings, Gun Violence and the Second Amendment: An American Problem), there is nothing Christian about the Second Amendment.  But perhaps these questions have no relevance since some evangelical leaders have actually declared that a Christ-like leader is not what America needs today.  As Pastor Robert Jeffreys once said,

“When I’m looking for a leader who’s going to fight ISIS and keep this nation secure, I don’t want some meek and mild leader or somebody who’s going to turn the other cheek. I’ve said I want the meanest, toughest SOB I can find to protect this nation.”

Of course, this implies that being a “Christian” and being a follower of Christ are not the same thing.

As mentioned above, white evangelical leaders such as Graham have also been strong advocates of what they call religious freedoms.  But they certainly do not include religions other than their own in their idea of freedom.  Indeed, it is not unusual to hear conservative Christians denouncing religions such as Islam or Hinduism as demonic.  Conservative Christians who happen to be Christian nationalists believe their religion is part of the very fabric of America as a nation.  When they talk about religious freedom, they are usually trying to secure preferential treatment for themselves.  That is obviously in conflict with the constitutional notion of separation of state and religion.

When public schools refuse to encourage prayer in school, it is precisely because they do not want to show preference to one religion at the detriment of other religions.  Therefore, the recent Supreme Court decision on Kennedy v. Bremerton School District is another case where the court’s interpretation of the Constitution raises serious questions.  Pamela Paul, writing in the New York Times, describes the case:

“Imagine your boss fervently proclaiming his religious beliefs at the end of a companywide meeting, inviting everyone on the team who shares those beliefs to join in. You’re surrounded by colleagues and other higher-ups. Everyone is watching to see who participates and who holds back, knowing that whatever each of you does could make or break your job and even your career, whether you share his convictions or not. But hey, totally up to you!

That’s what Joseph Kennedy, a former assistant coach in Kitsap County, Wash., did with his team — only he did it with public-school students at a high-school football game. When the superintendent made clear that by actively inviting players to join him at the 50-yard line for postgame Christian prayers, he was violating school policy and, by the way, the Constitution’s Establishment Clause, Kennedy took to the media, turning a small town’s school sporting event into a three-ring circus and ugly social media sideshow, with students effectively forced to perform or suffer the consequences.”

Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch decided that Kennedy had a constitutional right to pray in the field.  As stated by Pamela Paul,

“Overturning precedent and in a cynical elision of fact, Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for a 6-to-3 majority, affirmed Kennedy’s assertion that his proselytizing on government property during a public-school function was ‘private,’ ‘personal’ and ‘quiet.’”

But Paul explains that Gorsuch’s conclusion completely disregards the facts that were presented:

“It was nothing of the kind. In easily observable fact, Kennedy’s religious display was public, vocal and coercive, as demonstrated by testimony from football players and other community members and by video and photographs of the coach surrounded by crowds of people on bent knee. According to an amicus brief filed by one of Kennedy’s football players and seven other members of the community on behalf of the school district, participation in Kennedy’s prayers was ‘expected.’ Students were explicitly encouraged by him to ask the other teams’ coaches and players to join in, something Kennedy himself boasted about.”

Why then would the Supreme Court conservative justices use the words “private,” “personal” and “quiet” in a situation where those adjectives seem completely out of place?  Paul explains:

“But this court’s right-wing majority is following the dictum of our Trumpian age: Objective truth doesn’t matter. Subjective belief — specifically the beliefs of the court’s religious-right majority — does. The Kennedy decision wasn’t based on the facts but on belief in the face of facts. Moreover, those six justices are determined to foist their beliefs on the rest of the country.

In allowing for greater ‘religious expression,’ the court curtailed the liberty of those whose prayers take other forms, Americans who practice non-Christian faiths and people who do not practice religion at all. Kitsap County is home to a variety of religions, including Judaism, Islam, Sikhism, Hinduism and Baha’ism. A coach-led Christian prayer on the playing field is necessarily exclusionary.

Students who walked off the field rather than take part in Kennedy’s prayers may have risked losing playing time and perhaps a path to a football scholarship. No athlete on a public-school team should have to pray to play.”

It is easy to imagine the outrage from the religious right if the praying coach had been a Muslim.  Would Justice Gorsuch have been willing to affirm the religious freedom of such a coach?  I sincerely doubt that.  Furthermore, as a Christian, I believe that trying to give my religion, through manipulation of human laws, an unfair advantage over other religions is a sign of insecurity.  Religions should be able to compete fairly.  Furthermore, the message of Christ is meant to transform individuals with the help of the Holy Spirit rather than rely on the legal system for coercion.  That’s what Jesus means when he says “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again” and then “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit” (John 3:3,5).  I am aware that conservative Christians usually assume Jesus’ statement refers to baptism.  However, it is known that the prophet who baptized with water had explained that Jesus’ unique contribution would be baptism of the Holy Spirit, which implies an inner transformation.  Furthermore, Jesus was talking to Nicodemus, a “good” Pharisee who was presumably already observing the law.  But Jesus was implying that Nicodemus would remain outside of the kingdom of God unless he became a new person who is, as the apostle Paul puts it, “clothed with Christ” (Galatians 3:27).  Therefore, I always wonder why conservative Christians have convinced themselves that they are accomplishing something for Christ by using coercion through laws.

In one of my previous discussions, I showed that Christianity was initially persecuted by the Roman Empire.  It subsequently became the only allowed religion in the Empire and lost its authenticity in the process.  Current efforts to use the legal system to impose the views of the religious right are reminiscent of the misguided fusion of God and Caesar in Rome.

In a previous article, I reviewed Justice Alito’s reasoning for the repeal of Roe v. Wade, as presented in his leaked draft.  Similar reasoning appears in his actual opinion: He argues that abortion is not a right granted by the constitution, and that it was wrong to derive a right to abortion from the Fourteenth Amendment which guarantees the rights to life, liberty, property and due process of law.  He also argues that the history of the courts shows that they have consistently treated abortion as a crime.

Alito’s critics, as I discussed in the above article, make a case to invalidate his conclusions.  More recently, a paper was published to offer an interpretation of history that contradicts Alito’s.  The title of the paper is Abortion decision cherry-picks history – when the US Constitution was ratified, women had much more autonomy over abortion decisions than during 19th century.  Again, I will not dive into the details.  Of interest to me is the fact that Alito felt compelled to explain that his conclusions on abortion did not, in any way, apply to other rights derived from the Fourteenth Amendment:

“To ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right. Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.”

But Justice Thomas had a different take on the scope of the decision.  In his concurring opinion, he argued that Alito’s legal rationale could also be used to repeal other precedents, including those that legalized gay marriage, barred the criminalization of consensual homosexual conduct, and protected the rights of married people to have access to contraception.  Clearly, if Thomas is right, then Alito is wrong, and vice versa.

But there is more: As many legal experts have pointed out, Thomas conveniently failed to mention another right that falls into the above category.  Specifically, he did not mention  Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court’s 1967 decision that says that laws banning interracial marriage violate the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  Thomas happens to be in an interracial marriage.  Should we use the word hypocrisy?  Or maybe we should just recognize the fact that we are dealing with opinions that reflect the ideological preferences of an activist court rather than something objective called “the law.”

The repeal of Roe v. Wade puts the states in charge of their own abortion regulations.  While the conservative justices denied states such as New York the right to regulate gun ownership, they did not feel that the right of women to make decisions concerning their own bodies was important enough to be protected against attacks by many states.  The result is a chaotic situation in which blue states and red states have different regulations and will be fighting each other on interstate matters, as they try to advance conflicting agendas on women’s reproductive rights.  A report from NPR explains how red states had already prepared for a future without Roe v. Wade:

“Several states — among them Mississippi, North Carolina, and Wisconsin — still have decades-old abortion bans on their books; with Roe overturned, those states could revert to a pre-Roe environment. Officials in such states could seek to enforce old laws, or ask the courts to reinstate them. For example, a Michigan law dating back to 1931 would make abortion a felony. Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat, has been working to try to block that law.

Another path to banning abortion involves ‘trigger bans,’ newer laws pushed through by anti-abortion rights legislators in many states in anticipation of the Supreme Court’s action. Some 15 states – in the South, West and Midwest – have such laws in place, according to CRR and Guttmacher, but they fall into different categories.

Some states will act quickly to ban abortion. According to a new analysis by the Guttmacher Institute, South Dakota, Kentucky and Louisiana have laws in place that lawmakers designed explicitly to take effect immediately upon the fall of the Roe precedent. Idaho, Tennessee, and Texas – where most abortions are already illegal after about six weeks of pregnancy – have similar laws, which would take effect after 30 days. Guttmacher says seven other ‘trigger ban’ states have laws that would require state officials such as governors or attorneys general to take action to implement them.”

Sadly, the conservative justices, with their focus on ideology, paid no attention to the social consequences of a return to a pre-Roe state of affairs.  The case of a 10-year-old girl who became pregnant after being raped has been at the center of an ugly debate in recent days.  Unable to get an abortion in Ohio, she had to travel to Indiana to get one.  The Ohio law has no exception for rape or incest and prohibits abortion after a heartbeat is detected, which is assumed to be 6 weeks.  The current Indiana law – which could be changed soon – allows abortion for a period of 22 weeks of pregnancy.

It is reported that the National Right to Life organization has written a model law for legislatures considering the implementation of more restrictive abortion laws for the post-Roe era.  The model law only allows for an exception if the pregnant person’s life is in danger.  Asked about the 10-year-old Ohio girl, the general counsel of the organization said:

“She would have had the baby, and as many women who have had babies as a result of rape, we would hope that she would understand the reason and ultimately the benefit of having the child.”

The thought that the decision on abortion matters belongs to this man rather than the rape victim and her parents is frightening.  Taking away the girl’s right to an abortion cannot be separated from imposing on her the burden of carrying in her undeveloped body the product of her being raped.  That amounts to nothing less than punishment on top of the rape.

But even though this case has been widely debated, it does not happen to be unique.  It is reported that 4460 girls under the age of 15 were pregnant in 2017, and 44% of them had an abortion.  Should the fate of pregnant young girls, in the future, be determined by National Right to Life or by the girls, their parents and their doctors?

More generally, the Supreme Court decision on abortion creates uncertainty on matters related to the health of women.  In Texas, a 28-year-old woman who had had 3 previous miscarriages and surgery for cervical cancer, but desired to have a child, was full of hope after she became pregnant again.  Unfortunately, after her 16th week of pregnancy, an ultrasound revealed to her that the child was unhealthy and was not going to survive.  Furthermore, doctors warned her of serious health complications that could put her at risk.  She was told she had no options in Texas where a recent law bans abortion of a fetus with a detectable heartbeat.  Eventually, she was able to get an abortion in New Mexico.

This situation is also not uncommon, and there are stories about women who cannot get abortions simply because their doctors are afraid of being sued if they cannot prove that the women’s lives are in immediate danger.  Furthermore, doctors are afraid that performing procedures such as in vitro fertilization (IVF), which are meant to induce pregnancy rather than abortion, may leave them vulnerable to litigation.  Indeed, such procedures often rely on embryo selection and screening for success, and there is a push among anti-abortion advocates to treat embryos as persons.

These are just a few examples of the uncertainty and confusion resulting from the Supreme Court repeal of Roe v. Wade.  The debate will only get more heated with time.

In one of my previous posts, I discussed the fact that the Religious Right’s adoption of the abortion issue was politically driven.  In the 1970’s and 1980’s, the so-called Moral Majority decided to adopt abortion as an issue because it could not openly talk about an issue it was more concerned about: The repeal by the IRS of the tax-exempt status of segregationist institutions such as Bob Jones University.

Later, the anti-abortion movement found it advantageous to call itself pro-life.  However, its positions on other issues have always made outsiders question its real commitment to life.  Examples include positions held by anti-abortionists on guns as discussed above, on warfare and the death penalty, and their unwillingness to support programs designed to improve living conditions for children and adults.

Samuel Perry, who has done much research on American Christianity and Christian nationalism, recently posted the chart below, which compares the views of anti-abortionists to those of Americans who want to keep abortion legal.  The chart shows that anti-abortionists are more likely to support the use of violence in various aspects of life.  That does not look like a pro-life stance.