Church vs State
“... but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
-- Article VI, Clause 6; U.S. Constitution
Charles Pinckney of South Carolina introduced this clause to Article VI, because he was aware of the dangers that “religious tests” posed to true democracy. He understood this, because he had witnessed not only the experience of the Church of England's control, but also various states – including his own – restrictions. These included allowing only christians, often only Protestants, and sometimes only conservative Protestants, to hold office.
While Clause 6 only applied to the federal government at that time, it serves as definitive proof that the Founding Fathers sought to build a wall between church and state. The clause was passed without any serious opposition, despite the fact that Pinckney did not promise that Mexico would pay for the wall. Thus, even before the Establishment Clause of Amendment 1, we see that the framers of the Constitution were intent upon separating church and state in terms of the federal government.
Today, we are witnessing the gross violation of this original intent. Despite White House puppets saying that Trump is not asking potential Supreme Court Injustices about Roe v Wade, it is well-documented that he is picking from a list of candidates that were approved by the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation. Both of these groups favor only those who share their religious views on abortion. More, Trump himself said that overturning Roe v Wade would be the inevitable outcome of his selecting Justices.
Clearly, any objective person would recognize this as a violation of Clause 6. And it bends the Establishment Clause to the breaking point. It seeks to impose a minority's religious views upon the majority, including religious and non-religious citizens. It is, in a literal sense, no different than if President Kennedy had sought to make the Catholic Church's rule of “no meat on Fridays” a federal law, by having the Knights of Columbus screen potential nominees. (Luckily, God changed his mind about that dietary restriction.)
Women's health care is not an issue for religious fundamentalists to decide. That includes access to abortion, as well as birth control. By their very nature, fundamentalists have very unhealthy beliefs on sexuality – starting with their own, and spilling over onto everyone else's. But a combined church and state never stops at a woman's vigina. It seeks to dictate everything from the bedroom to foreign policy.
If I am facing a medical crisis – or even basic health care – I'd much prefer the doctor goes by science than religion. If I am involved in a legal battle, I would prefer that it is determined by criminal or civil law, than by someone's religious beliefs. That provided justice in Muhammad Ali's Supreme Court victory over Uncle Sam, where fundamentalist christians sought to impose their rigid belief system upon a man with sincere minority beliefs. And, considering the long history of “religious” wars, I damned sure do not want fundamentalist religious beliefs determining US foreign policy in, say, the Middle East.
For these reasons, I am doing everything I can to stop Trump from packing the US Supreme Court.
Peace,
H2O Man
= new reply since forum marked as read
There will be no undo or GOTV for this one. The only way out after that is war. 
Thanks for posting! 
