Paganism

Editorial: “One religion, one god” is dangerous rhetoric – and a worrying tendency in the Supreme Court

Manny Moreno By |

Last night, Michael Flynn – formerly the National Security Advisor under Donald Trump and a retired lieutenant general – called for the United States to be held to a single religion.

“If we are going to have one nation under God, which we must, we have to have one religion,” Flynn said while speaking on Reawaken America. “One nation under God, and one religion under God.”

“Their White, evangelical nation doesn’t include Jews, Muslims or Mormons,” one commenter replied on Twitter. It doesn’t include Pagans either.

Flynn is busy trying to resurrect his reputation. Flynn lasted 22 days in the Trump administration after he misled Vice President Mike Pence and others about the nature and the content of his communications with Sergey Kislyak, the Russian ambassador. He then retroactively registered as a foreign agent, confirming he had been paid to lobby on behalf of the Turkish government. He had previously been paid $45,000 to deliver a speech in Moscow at the tenth anniversary of RT, the state-controlled Russian international television network.

Flynn’s follow-up accomplishments included pledging an oath to QAnon and suggesting President Trump should suspend the Constitution, silence the press, and hold a new election under military authority. Trump subsequently pardoned Flynn, who later embarked on a still-ongoing media tour.

Flynn has drawn some ire from conspiracy theorists as well. Last month, Flynn was accused of praying to Satan and signing on with the Christian Devil by conspiracy YouTubers like Paul Oebel.

This bit of trouble began on September 17 when Flynn led a prayer event at Lord of Hosts Church in Nebraska. “We are your instrument of those sevenfold rays and all your archangels, all of them,” Flynn prayed then added, “We will be the instrument of your will, whatever it is. In your name, and in the name of your legions, we are freeborn, and we shall remain freeborn, and we shall not be enslaved by any foe.”

“Sevenfold rays” and “legions” are evangelical trigger words. But the prayer echoed the words of Elizabeth Clare Prophet, the deceased leader of an anti-communist doomsday cult gripped with visions of nuclear war.

Flynn refuted the claims of Satanic association and continues his grifter tour and embrace of the evangelical movement while asking his followers to worry about George Soros and the Deep State plans to put the COVID vaccine in your salad dressing.

While Flynn’s comments and his follower present a serious threat to religious freedom, this type of story wouldn’t stay long on my radar. I mean, who among his followers is eating salads?

Supreme Court. Image: Wikimedia Commons.

U.S. Supreme Court [Wikimedia Commons]

The Flynn story broke last night in the context of a more serious story in the week about religious freedom – or more precisely, the release of US Supreme Court transcripts of a case citing religious freedoms.

On July 19, 2004, John Henry Ramirez and two co-defendants (Angela Rodriguez and Christina Chavez) robbed 46-year-old Pablo Castro for $1.25 then murdered him by stabbing him 29 times. Ramirez was tried and sentenced to death. The co-defendants were convicted on lesser charges.

In September, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked John Henry Ramirez’s execution about three hours after he could have been executed. The death row inmate won his reprieve by arguing that the state was violating his First Amendment rights to practice his religion by not allowing his longtime minister, Pastor Dana Moore, to lay hands on him during his lethal injection. Ramirez’s lawyer referred to the state’s decision as a spiritual “gag order.”

In April, because of previous concerns about clergy, the Texas prison system reversed earlier decisions that included a two-year ban on spiritual advisors in the death chamber after the U.S. Supreme Court halted a previous execution after Texas refused to allow Buddhist clergy to support the prisoner.

“What the State may not do, in my view,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote, “is allow Christian or Muslim inmates but not Buddhist inmates to have a religious adviser of their religion in the execution room.”

In Ramirez’s case, however, things got tricky during oral arguments at the high court. Rather than focus on the U.S. constitution, conservative justices began to question whether Ramirez was sincere in his beliefs.

“Counsel, has Mr. Ramirez always requested that hands be laid on him?” asked Justice Clarence Thomas.” Ramirez’s attorney responded yes and noted a confusion about the pastor’s affidavit. Justice Thomas then added, “If we think that Mr. Ramirez has changed his request a number of times and has filed last-minute complaints […] and if we assume that that’s some indication of gaming the system, what should we do with that with respect to assessing the sincerity of his beliefs?”

Justice Thomas returned to the same point on the issue of filing grievances, claiming that “in some instances, they’re gaming the system.”

Justice Thomas wasn’t alone in this. Justice Brett Kavanaugh worried that if the court ruled in favor of Ramirez, “then there will be the next case after that and the next case after that where people are moving the goalposts on their claims in order to delay executions.”

Justice Samuel Alito also raised the question of sincere beliefs, noting there may be an “unending stream of variations forthcoming”  in stays of execution. “You have told us you would be satisfied if Pastor Moore touches Mr. Ramirez’s foot,” said Alito. “But what’s going to happen when the next prisoner says that I have a religious belief that he should touch my knee? He should hold my hand? He should put his hand over my heart? He should be able to put his hand on my head? We’re going to have to go through the whole human anatomy with a series of cases.”

Justice Alito noted that there may need to be tailoring of decisions to different religious beliefs. But he returned to the question of sincerity and even piety. “Can the prisoner say, well, yes, I’m a Catholic, but I have my own personal beliefs about this? Would we not have to honor that person’s own sincere individual, perhaps unique religious beliefs?”

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not engage this line of questioning, and Justice Neil Gorsuch asked nothing.

Nevertheless, Ramirez’s objection is clearly distasteful to some justices and their line of questions to express their disfavor is provocative and dangerous. Alito, Kavanaugh, and Thomas are exposing multiple hypocrisies.

First, they are raising concerns about the validity of religious objections, suggesting spiritual beliefs must pass a legal test of sincerity.

Second, they open a question about the veracity of ritual and whether certain religious acts are parallel and truthful.

Finally, they raise a question about whether personal spiritual beliefs have equal weight to established religious practice.

All three should leave any religious minority concerned because, and perhaps most sobering, the justices have engaged a line of questions that imply limits to religious freedom when they cannot clearly recognize belief as they understand it.

While Flynn’s provocative “one god and one religion” speech is more likely to grab headlines, these attacks on religious liberty by the Supreme Court are altogether more concerning to Pagans and other religious minorities.

The Wild Hunt is not responsible for links to external content.

To join a conversation on this post:

Visit our The Wild Hunt subreddit! Point your favorite browser to https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Wild_Hunt_News/, then click “JOIN”. Make sure to click the bell, too, to be notified of new articles posted to our subreddit.

Comments are closed.