American crusade How the Supreme Court is weaponizing religious freedom

Attorney and activist Seidel writes a timely and poignant follow-up to his book The Founding Myth: Why Christian Nationalism is Un-American with a specific eye on today's U.S. Supreme Court. Whatever side of the political spectrum readers finds themselves on, it is an objective truth that the Court has recently been packed with a set of conservative Justices that make no secret of their strong Christian beliefs. Seidel argues that these Christian biases in the Court are not only unconstitutional but dangerous. Seidel's in-depth research breaks downs several well-known and more obscure cases that have come across the Court as well as supplementary information about the Justices' personal affiliations to make his case. Although he has a clear and biased narrative that he is trying to convey, Seidel does so in a balanced way, while also making the depths of "legalese" accessible and engaging to the general public. This work might not change minds but does present solid evidence for his argument that is sure to inspire debate. VERDICT As an in-depth legal analysis written for the general population, this work will stir controversy and debate and likely be on many readers' lists whether they agree or disagree with Siedel's arguments.--Kelly Karst

The law is lines. Lines between permissible and not, between legal and illegal. Most of the time, it's clear where the lines must curve and meander. Murder and Jesus taking the wheel on that side. Growing a slightly longer beard and not standing for the Pledge of Allegiance on this side. To understand religious freedom, we must understand three basic lines. First, we distinguish between belief and action. Your right to believe is absolute; your right to act on that belief is not. Second, we draw a line between actions that can and should be regulated, even if religiously motivated, and those that shouldn't. If your action harms someone else or impacts their rights, it can be regulated, regardless of religious motivation. Third, we draw a line between government power and personal religion; you don't get to use the machinery of the state to amplify or impose your religion.             These lines cut through the maze of religious freedom cases and provide clear solutions to issues that are often much simpler than the Crusaders and the court make out. . . .   Line #3: State and Church The third line ensures that people do not use government power or resources to swing their religion. Extending the reach of one's religion with governmental power is not part of religious freedom, is specifically prohibited in our Constitution, and violates the religious freedom of every other citizen.             Citizens are free to pray all they want. That's religious freedom. They can even pray on public property. That's religious freedom, too. But they don't get to broadcast the prayer over a government PA system.             This line protects religious freedom. Every one of us gives up a few rights, a little bit of personal liberty and sovereignty, in return for living in a civilized society governed by laws. Our government has no religion to exercise. It is an abuse of power for officials to promote or impose their religion with that power. People holding public office are free to worship and preach and promote their god and holy book in their personal capacity, but not in their official capacity. Mr. Johnson might pray every night, but Sheriff Johnson should not be leading prayers at staff meetings or with prisoners--that is an abuse of power.             This abuse of public power is sadly common. We decry similar power abuses when politicians abuse official power to line their pockets, or sexually harass staff, or benefit partisan political campaigns. But when the abuse of power promotes Christianity, people are silent.             Every American has a right to a secular government as a matter of personal religious liberty. In a case striking down school-organized prayer at a public school graduation, several justices explained that mixing government and religion is "a threat to free government" because it excludes a class of people as unfavored. The case was decided before the courts were broken and the Crusaders were powerful, but some were involved, and they lost: "A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some. Religious freedom prevents the entire government from promoting religion. The Crusaders understand this when government power is promoting another god. Crusaders don't want non-Christian beliefs anywhere near their government. In Taking America Back for God , Andrew Whitehead and Sam Perry show that while Christian nationalists pay lip service to religious liberty, they "drew a distinct line, however, at whether these same people [non-Christians] should be allowed to bring their sincerely held beliefs into the public sphere in order to influence civil society. .  Excerpted from American Crusade: How the Supreme Court Is Weaponizing Religious Freedom by Andrew L. Seidel All rights reserved by the original copyright owners. Excerpts are provided for display purposes only and may not be reproduced, reprinted or distributed without the written permission of the publisher.