> They're not saying that all religion is bad. However, religions have their place, and it is not in positions of power. Historically, the religiously-motivated have used their power to enforce their brand of religious belief above others. All religion should be banned from government, period.
Do you think that religious people should be denied the right to vote or hold office? Because if you want "all religion should be banned from government, period," that's what you'll need to do. Otherwise, only actions can be controlled, not motivations.
If that’s what it takes, so be it (regarding holding office, at least - voting is not something I would restrict in that way). This government is not supposed to let religion dictate policy. If a person can’t demonstrate that they can consistently legislate or rule on law without letting their religion interfere, then we should not allow them to hold such positions. Human rights are what is important here, and we are seeing the result of unfettered access of organized religion to government - we roll back hard fought legal rulings. Look at the history of other nations that let religion rule the day - that power becomes useful then as a tool for oppression. Look at the modern world theocracies. They usually have abhorrent track records of human rights for women, homosexuals, people of the “wrong” ethnicity, and a whole range of other traditionally oppressed people.
> Shades of "you can vote for whoever you want to represent you, so long as they're a Communist who will govern according to the will of the party."
I don't follow. Removing people from the pool of eligible candidates because they want this nation to be a theocracy is not quite the same. We don't keep murder criminalized because God said so (although that was undoubtedly the reason murder laws were first codified in human history), we keep it criminalized because we understand that murder removes the agency of another person to remain alive.
> I think you have a serious misunderstanding of the establishment clause.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
If the only justifiable reason for a policy is religious, then it is on the face of it prohibiting the free exercise of religion (as the result of that policy should be a personal decision consistent with each individual's religious belief or lack thereof).
The Court is likely to revisit several precedents derived from Roe v Wade. Many of these precedents will likely be sexual or marriage related in nature. Griswold v Connecticut (the right to buy and use contraceptives), Lawrence v Texas (the right to be private in consensual sexual activity between adults), Obergefell v Hodges (the right of same-sex couples to marry) have been explicitly mentioned by Justice Thomas as decisions that should be revisited. This means that in the future, there will likely be a case related to each of those that ends up making its way to the Court.
Taken broadly, this decision basically guts the right to privacy. I expect this to get really bad and cast a much wider net than anyone expects, before it's over with.
Do you think that religious people should be denied the right to vote or hold office? Because if you want "all religion should be banned from government, period," that's what you'll need to do. Otherwise, only actions can be controlled, not motivations.