S6, Ep. 01: The Supreme Court is back … and so are we

To kick off season 6 of Respecting Religion, Amanda Tyler and Holly Hollman take stock of the Supreme Court. There is no religion case on the docket – yet – for this term, but there are several cases that do impact religion. They review the most important things we saw out of last year’s term – from the “Trump docket” to the abortion cases – and they talk about how the Rahimi decision about a gun regulation illustrates the trouble with the Court’s new “history and tradition” test. Plus, this is the last episode before the release of Amanda’s book How to End Christian Nationalism, and they preview the upcoming book tour and how you can participate. 

SHOW NOTES
Segment 1 (starting at 00:37): Back together after a tumultuous summer

Amanda talked with  Ava Kofman for her feature article in the New York Times Magazine: How Two Billionaire Preachers Remade Texas Politics

Amanda mentioned an article by Russell Gold for Texas Monthly, titled The Billionaire Bully Who Wants to Turn Texas Into a Christian Theocracy

 

Segment 2 (starting at 08:02): The Supreme Court is back, but why are people still talking about the past term? 

Amanda and Holly mentioned the upcoming case of U.S. v. Skrmetti, which will examine gender-affirming care. They talked about previous cases involving the definition of “sex” in Episode 17 of season 1, titled “A landmark case for LGBTQ rights: What’s next for religious liberty?”

Amanda and Holly discussed the intersection of religion and the law in the two abortion cases in Episode 28 of season 5, titled “Conscience protections in SCOTUS abortion cases.”

Read Holly’s column in BJC’s fall magazine, which discusses the impact of the Rahimi case: The Court at a crossroads

Amanda and Holly discussed the Supreme Court’s obsession with history in the context of legislative prayer in the Greece v. Galloway decision in Episode 3 of season 5, titled “SCOTUS is fixated on history. What’s prayer got to do with it?”

 

Segment 3 (starting 37:37): Come see Amanda in a city near you!

How to End Christian Nationalism is the new book by Amanda Tyler. It releases on October 22, and you can pre-order it now from Amazon, your local bookstore, or anywhere you buy books. 

Visit EndChristianNationalism.com for more information on the book and on the book tour, which includes stops in California, Minnesota, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Virginia, Texas, and more. 

Learn more about BJC’s Christians Against Christian Nationalism campaign at ChristiansAgainstChristianNationalism.org. 

Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC’s generous donors. You can support these conversations with a gift to BJC.

Transcript: Season 6, Episode 01: The Supreme Court is back … and so are we (some parts of this transcript have been edited for clarity)    

 

AMANDA: My big concern, Holly, is if and when a case comes to this Court under the history and tradition test of the Establishment Clause — 

HOLLY: It seems to give a lot of free rein to those who are not so concerned about religious freedom for all.

 

Segment 1: Back together after a tumultuous summer (starting at 00:21)

AMANDA: Welcome to Respecting Religion, a BJC podcast series where we look at religion, the law, and what’s at stake for faith freedom today. I’m Amanda Tyler, executive director of BJC.

HOLLY: And I’m general counsel Holly Hollman. We’re back!  This is the first episode of season 6 of Respecting Religion, and it’s so good to be back together and back with all of you, our listeners.

We really loved hearing from you this summer, both in person and via email, and we appreciate the show ideas that you shared and the encouragement as we begin a new season, sitting down to look at issues impacting faith freedom for all.

AMANDA: Welcome back, Holly.

HOLLY: Good to see you.

AMANDA: Yeah. So we are back around our small table on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., and, you know, we did most of our season 5 remotely last year, so it is a real treat to be in person and to have the headphones on again.

Last season, season 5, ended in May, but the Supreme Court was not done in May, so we’ve got a lot to catch up on, including the end of the past term and the kick-off of the new term, which began just last week.

HOLLY: That’s right. And in between Supreme Court terms, what a summer!

AMANDA: Yeah. One could say a few headlines came across.

HOLLY: It’s been pretty rapidly moving here on the faith freedom and just overall political front, for sure.

AMANDA: That’s right.

HOLLY: Big news was the really revealing further understanding of Project 2025. It’s been a presidential election cycle like none other, with the sitting president dropping out of a bid for reelection, and then quickly the naming of a new nominee. We’ve seen the terrifying assassination attempts of the former president.

And on the religious freedom beat: News about public schools continues to raise concerns with Louisiana’s passage of a bill that requires classrooms to post the Ten Commandments in every classroom, Oklahoma superintendent of schools Ryan Walters issuing an edict that all public schools must include Bible in their curriculum, and, of course, we keep seeing these troubling school chaplain proposals.

So our work continues in the midst of a much larger news scene, dealing with politics and, of course, continuing war in our world as well as natural disasters and so much going on.

AMANDA: Yeah. And, of course, over the last several months, we’ve both been on the road quite a bit, not just with time off or family vacations, but with work that’s related to our day jobs at Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty and our leadership of the Christians Against Christian Nationalism campaign.

So, you know, as you were kind of ticking through those news events, I was present for some of this presidential politics this summer. I actually spoke at satellite events to both the Republican National Convention and the Democratic National Convention —

HOLLY: Terrific. Yes.

AMANDA: — this summer. I was in Milwaukee when that awful news of the assassination attempt came through and kind of saw overnight the intensification of the security perimeter around the convention center where the convention was about to begin.

I was in the hall in Chicago when Kamala Harris accepted the Democratic nomination from the convention, so —

HOLLY: And you had that front-row seat, as well as an opportunity to engage people in both places, in many places, and specifically about religious freedom, and we appreciate that.

AMANDA: That’s right. And sharing the word about our campaign, and then, you know, also sharing the word about religious freedom for all and how Christians are standing up against Christian nationalism in my home state of Texas.

You know, you went through all of those developments in the area of religion in the public schools in the neighboring states of Louisiana and Oklahoma. But in Texas, we also have a really troubling curriculum that’s been proposed that would include the teaching of Bible stories to kids as young as kindergarten.

And we will be talking on an upcoming episode much more in depth about all of these news stories and all of these developments. I’m looking forward to that conversation, because there really is a lot to go over, Holly.

HOLLY: There is. And I’m so glad, Amanda, that you talked to the ProPublica investigative journalist Ava Kofman recently. She spoke with you in her reporting on the very extreme nature of what’s going on in Texas that ran in the October 6 issue of The New York Times Magazine under the title, “How Two Billionaire Preachers Remade Texas Politics.”

AMANDA: Yeah. Excellent article. We’ll link to it in show notes, and really fantastic journalism from Ava Kofman, building on journalism from other people in Texas, like Russell Gold who wrote for Texas Monthly a similar story about the influence of money and how that’s furthering a Christian nationalist agenda.

HOLLY: Well, if you are new to this show, you might be catching up, enjoying the chitchat, but trying to figure out exactly where we’re coming from. And let me just be clear. This podcast is called Respecting Religion, and the things that we talk about often are about religion or religious takes on certain matters.

But as Christians and lawyers specializing in constitutional law, particularly the religion clauses and laws related to that, policies related to religion and other intersecting issues of public policy, we can confidently say that these things that we just rattled off are developments that do not respect religion.

In fact, we call this Respecting Religion, because the word “respecting” is in the First Amendment. And what we’re interested in is respect for religious freedom.

AMANDA: That’s right, Holly. Our constitutional promise of religious freedom for all means you don’t have to practice a certain religion or claim a certain religious identity or even be religious at all to be a full citizen in this country.

And so, Holly, it’s because we respect religion so much that we want it treated fairly and evenly in society, so learning about religion in public schools, having a certain level of religious literacy, not just about Christianity but about all world religions, is an important part, I think, of participating fully in the country.

But these other legislative encroachments are of a different kind. The government is taking the place of religious institutions and trying to teach religion or indoctrinate young children into a religion in ways that interfere with everyone’s religious freedom, including those of us who are of the majority faith in this country, Christianity.

HOLLY: Yeah. So I’m glad that we will come back to that in a later episode. We can take a really close look at a sort of microcosm by looking at what’s going on in your home state of Texas, Amanda, but also thinking about how that relates to what’s happening all across the country and what we can do about it.

But today what we really want to do is kick off this season as we often do by looking at what is happening just across the street over there at the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

 

Segment 2: The Supreme Court is back, but why are people still talking about the past term? (starting at 8:02)

 

AMANDA: The first Monday in October is always the beginning of the U.S. Supreme Court term, and for cases that the Supreme Court considers that impact religious freedom, we like to look very closely at those decisions and hopefully help listeners have a more complete understanding of what’s at stake and go through, for instance, oral arguments and other arguments that are being made and then, of course, break down any decisions that eventually come down.

But, you know, this year, like last year’s term, we don’t see a religion case on the docket yet.

HOLLY: They’re probably so tired, because they’ve done so much in the recent terms, Amanda. What do you think? They’re taking a break? I don’t know.

AMANDA: Well, I kind of hope so, actually, given the damage that they’ve done recently to our understanding of how religious freedom is protected in this country. But there’s still a lot going on and things that will impact our society in general in ways that we are watching and will break down for our audience this season when appropriate.

HOLLY: That’s right. But looking ahead, I have skimmed the Court’s docket, because, of course, we want to be Court-watchers — we all need to, particularly with this Supreme Court — to understand what’s going on, and as many people have noted, this Supreme Court affects individual people in their day-to-day lives more and more, and more so than in times that people can remember. And so it’s important that we see what cases they take on and how they might affect us.

Skimming the Court’s docket so far for this new term, there are cases, lots of different cases, some relating to employment laws governing wages, particularly differential pay issues in the military for those on active duty. There’s another minimum wage and overtime case, and then in other employee rights, a case dealing with ability to sue regarding benefits under the ADA, burdens on free speech that also come up and deal with restrictions to protect minors.

There is an immigration case, and, of course, the ones that we’ve been hearing about and thinking about more that get a lot of attention, a gun case which the Court heard in the very first week of oral arguments about a regulation that goes back to an early gun control act — so it’s not really about the Second Amendment, but very much about the concern of the need to regulate firearms, in that case looking at a regulation aimed at so-called “ghost guns,” guns that are put together in pieces.

So, of course, that’s important. And there’s a death penalty case. That will get some attention. And then there’s one case that we know will get a lot of attention, is already starting to, that deals with restriction on medical care for transgender people.

AMANDA: Right. This case, which is called United States v. Skrmetti is getting a lot of attention, and it’s being put into the category of a, quote/unquote, “culture war case.” And often these decisions that are put into this general category do implicate religion in some way, because they often implicate different views that people have based on their religion on human sexuality and gender.

And these often can divide communities quite a bit. And this is a very consequential case, because it’s challenging a law that relates to medical procedures and gender identity, and there are laws in — I think I read in one article, about 24 states that are similar in nature. So while this case is coming out of the state of Tennessee, it could have widespread implications for laws in about half the country.

And we also know that in addition to cases involving medical treatment and transgender people, that we’ve also seen a lot of other anti-trans legislation across the country. And so how the Court considers and determines this case could have a very far-reaching implication — not just for the people who are seeking this medical treatment but for states and how we’re considering these issues of gender nationwide.

HOLLY: The specific question presented in the case is whether this Tennessee law, which prohibits all medical treatments intended to allow, quote, “a minor to identify with or live as a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex,” or to treat, quote, “purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity,” whether this kind of statute violates Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

And I read that, Amanda, just because I know people listening to this might remember or think about the difficult or complex legal issues that have to do with the definition of sex and civil rights laws. You note here the words “minor,” so this is in a specific context, so people will be thinking about parents. And then, you know, this is just in the broad area of thinking about regulations that are between individuals and the medical profession, which, of course, that’s been on our mind from things that the Supreme Court has done.

So I agree that we will — that we should follow this closely, that it will impact what other states do. It involves a lot of intersecting issues and concerns that are worth paying attention to.

AMANDA: It’s also interesting to me, Holly, as I think about this case and how it relates to some other cases that the Court has been considering when it comes to women’s health and reproductive freedom around the right to an abortion.

So, you know, in the wake of the Dobbs decision, which removed a constitutional right to abortion, we have seen in states across the country, you know, an unequal system where depending on where you live really depends the level of rights that you have.

And so it’s very interesting to me that these petitioners are bringing this case under the Equal Protection Clause. It’s really raising this issue again about what rights do we have because we’re Americans and what rights are really dependent on where in the United States we’re living in.

And I think this is really striking me because of where I live in the United States — in Texas, where there have been a lot of restrictions placed not just on reproductive freedom but in a lot of other ways, again going back to that article in The New York Times Magazine, this real attempt to impose a certain religious view on everyone in that state and how that leads to a different way of life than in many other states in the country.

HOLLY: Interestingly, at the beginning of this term, mostly, Amanda, I’m finding that people are still talking about the impact of last term. And maybe, you know, noting some of what you said, the abortion cases that we talked about a bit in last season, it really was a truly blockbuster term that ended this summer. It went all the way into July. It was a very busy summer for anyone who wanted to read and dissect the Court’s term-ending decisions.

AMANDA: Or for those who thought about them while they were also following the news about the Court in general.

HOLLY: That’s right.

AMANDA: I mean, remember the flag controversy about what flags were flying above Justice Alito’s houses or trips that they may have taken, and then as is often the case, justices were out on book tours over the summer as well. So lots of Court-adjacent stories happening, as well as stories about the important decisions that were coming out of the Court.

So, Holly, as you had some time over our summer, summer break, and you looked at the term and followed the commentary, what would you say were some of the most important things out of last year’s term? What were some concerns that you had or takeaways?

HOLLY: Yeah. I think the two big things that, you know, grabbed the headline, that grabbed everyone’s attention were the cases dealing with the so-called “administrative state,” the overturning finally in very clear terms — I say, finally, because people who work in that area of the law have been seeing it coming — but the overturning of the Chevron case. And then, of course, the big immunity case about former President Trump.

You’re right, Amanda. Even when I could enjoy a break from having to be fully involved in dissecting a religion case, it is important to follow the Court and look for the trends and see what the different justices — how they’re approaching the issues that come before them.

And so looking at the term, I listened to conservatives. I listened to progressives, and I listened to a very balanced panel of the D.C. bar as I reviewed this last term. And what struck me most was that they did notice most of the same things.

There were these themes, the disregard of administrative agencies in relation to courts themselves, you know, the Court really kind of taking on the idea that, We will say what the law is; we will not defer to the experts in the field and administrative agencies, which is something that many people would assume they should do, that when there are certain questions, you defer to those that are closest to that area. But that’s not the perspective of this Court.

Of course, the, quote/unquote “Trump docket” was of importance this term and particularly the historic immunity case of Trump v. U.S. That is the case that recognized broad powers of the president and created this new multi-tier process that determines when a president is immune from prosecution. And, you know, the case was terrifying for some.

Others would say, oh, this is such a particular case that this will never happen again. I heard Paul Clement say, you know, it’s especially interesting, because this is a textualist Court, and they’re tackling a decision without text.

But any way you look at it, one important thing to note that we’ve learned since this case was decided is that the prosecution of the former president continues, because Jack Smith more recently, in early October, released a new indictment and for the first time revealed evidence that the American public had not seen that looks like it is aimed more clearly to fit within that multi-tier process that might allow a continuing prosecution of former President Trump, of course depending how the election turns out.

AMANDA: Yeah. I mean, I would definitely say that case was the most troubling case from last term for a number of reasons. I mean, for one — and there was reporting out of The New York Times this summer to this effect — that it looked like Chief Justice Roberts made this case more partisan and more broad immunity than he even needed to, that, you know, one of the justices in the majority, Justice Barrett, had a less extreme view of immunity that could have been the view that the Court’s majority had gone with, and that was not the broad immunity that was granted by this Court.

And so I think that has been a continuing theme for the Court in recent terms, really throwing its objectivity into question and also really harming its credibility in the meantime.

HOLLY: That’s right.

AMANDA: Of course, this is not just an academic exercise about, oh, I wonder what if a president was ever prosecuted and what —

HOLLY: Right.

AMANDA: — whether they would be immune. I mean, this president has had more than 90 criminal charges brought against him. He has been convicted already of a number of those charges and is awaiting sentencing. And the time that it took the Court to write and issue this opinion, this opinion that was issued on the very last day of its term, in July of this year, meant that from a practical standpoint, that these trials would not happen before this presidential election, and that certainly has impacted justice in this case and when these trials will happen and frankly, if these trials will happen if the president is reelected.

The impact on democracy and on the rule of law is really extreme, and I think that has really called into question, again, the credibility of this Court in ways that we don’t know the full impact that will have, especially in this year that — there is a lot of concern about free and fair elections this year, and frankly, whether this Court will be called on to decide the election, as it has, of course, in the past.

In the year 2000, this Court decided the election, and so if that happens again and this Court has jeopardized its nonpartisanship and its independence, I think then that is a concern.

HOLLY: Well, and I think what you point out, Amanda, is just that we’ll continue to look at the decisions of the Court, alongside conversations about the Court itself. And perhaps to that note, the Court is aware of its unpopularity, particularly after the Dobbs decision, and so in this past term, I think it’s fair to say they sort of sidestepped the two abortion cases that were before it.

And we talked some about them in our last season, about these abortion cases, and they come in very complex procedural postures, and if the Court thought that they were going to get out of the abortion business by deciding Dobbs, taking away that constitutional right, sending it to the states, they were wrong.

There is strong federal interest in protecting women and in providing health care, according to our complex health care system, and so those two cases that we talked about last year were decided in ways that temporarily favor the Biden administration’s efforts to protect abortion access, but they will come back.

And I think as we continue to look at the Court as a whole and think about it, you know, we can just note that this is the third term of the 6-3 breakdown, if you want to call it, and so, you know, that’s time to sort of develop a little bit of what impact it has, but also give a little more time to see what those new justices, the justices appointed by Trump, what impact they’re going to make.

And a lot of the commentators also noted a little bit of change and strengthening voice of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, and we certainly are following that with interest.

AMANDA: Yeah. And on the two major abortion cases that we talked about last term — right? We previewed and kind of broke down some of those arguments before the decisions came out.

I think in the case that came out of Texas and the 5th Circuit, the case that was really challenging the right to medical abortions and whether those prescriptions would be available to all people, you know, that was dismissed on lack of standing, and I think was an important victory for reproductive rights and for access to abortion in states that still have access — right? — and not trying to impose bans nationwide.

And then the other case that was out of the state of Idaho, that was really a sidestep. That was really a case that went back down to the 9th Circuit to decide, kind of delaying for the time being the Supreme Court weighing in.

And if I can put on my skeptical hat again a little bit, you know, that does have an impact on the election, because if the Court had weighed in on the side of Idaho in that case and had said, you know, that those women were not allowed to have —

HOLLY: In emergency situations?

AMANDA: — in emergency situations, I think that would have had a real backlash to the Republican ticket and the election, in making that even a more front and center issue for voters nationwide. So I think it’s a good result for the time being, as far as that we don’t have even more restrictive bans in place and bans that are really harming the health and life of women across this country.

But it’s also, I think, you know, again, throwing into question the impartiality of the Court and perhaps the ways that they are influencing the election in the ways they decide and when they decide cases.

So, Holly, for our magazine, Report from the Capital, you wrote a great piece for our readers, and we want to share that with our listeners here as well. The title of the piece is “The Court at a crossroads.” And I wanted to give you a chance to talk about this piece a little for the podcast.

HOLLY: In the piece, I address one of the cases we haven’t mentioned, the Rahimi case that came out of the 5th Circuit. But first I have to joke about the title, “The Court at a crossroads.” As we’ve been talking, it would be fair for someone to say, Hey, Holly, the Court has already crossed that road.

AMANDA: Yeah. True.

HOLLY: But I wanted to be fair and look at the fact that some of this turn toward looking at laws or looking at the Constitution through what seems to be a very strict, even though it is a malleable standard of history and tradition, you know, is not over.

That game’s not over, so they started down this path, and as I noted before, we’ve got new justices. And getting them all on the same page, even if they’re all heading in the same direction, may not be as easy as people presume.

And so the piece that I wrote was really just looking at the Court and being happy that there was no additional damage to religious freedom, but noting that it’s still — as we’ve been talking about — a very important term and that it’s highly consequential, and this Court continues to make decisions that will have a real impact on everyday lives.

You know, these administrative cases, those have to do with clean air and water and, you know, all kind of environmental and other important regulatory concerns. And then I really wanted to see if there was anything we could learn from one of the decisions where they actually reversed the 5th Circuit. And, Amanda, you know something about the 5th Circuit.

So I really wanted to focus on United States v. Rahimi, where the Court addressed and somewhat refined its newly adopted “history and tradition test” in Second Amendment jurisprudence.

AMANDA: Yeah. The 5th Circuit’s, I think, an important foil for the U.S. Supreme Court, because if someone thinks that the U.S. Supreme Court is the most conservative court in the land, oh, no. Just come to the 5th Circuit, which, of course, covers cases that come out of the Federal District Courts in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.

And this court has really — the 5th Circuit has really pushed the line in ways that the Supreme Court has overruled a number of cases coming out of the 5th Circuit.

HOLLY: Yeah. And so we’re not going to sit here and say, Yay, nothing to worry about the Supreme Court; they will pull back and really push back against any court that pushes the line, this line that the Court itself keeps moving in ways that, you know, can really be harmful.

But in the Rahimi case, the justices voted eight to one, correcting an egregious lower court decision out of the Fifth Circuit. There were all these multiple concurrences that I wanted to point out, showing the serious disagreement among the justices.

The Court in that case upheld a federal law as consistent with the nation’s history and tradition of firearms regulation to stop individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms. So at issue was a law that had been challenged successfully in the lower courts by a very violent abuser with really horrendous factual circumstances that exposed the extreme nature of the ends to which the Court’s history test could be pushed.

It was a law that prohibited people who were under domestic violence protective orders from having access to guns, and that got challenged below as saying, oh, well, there’s no similar regulation of such concerns in history. And, you know, importantly, the Court said, Wait a minute; you’re taking what we said in the Bruin case, the one that really set this new standard in Second Amendment cases, too far; you’re reading it wrong. And so I think we should appreciate that the Court made that correction.

AMANDA: Yeah. And in the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts said that nothing in the Bruin case or in the use of the history test was, quote, “not meant to suggest a law trapped in amber,” end quote. And he said, instead, the proper question is, quote, “whether the new law is relevantly similar to laws that our tradition has understood to permit applying faithfully the balance struck by the founding generation to modern circumstances,” end quote.

And so, I mean, I think this raises still even more questions. A very good and important result — that this particular law was upheld to protect people who are the victims of domestic violence and to protect them from further threat and harm. But this “relevantly similar” language is also, I think, still pretty general — right? — and open to interpretation.

And, I mean, that’s the problem with the history and tradition test in general — right? — that history can be read many different ways, and it can still feel pretty outcome determinative to use this test as the exclusive test. Right?

Holly, and I think you do a really great job in your piece of explaining why history is something that is important to consider, but if we only consider history, that it can sometimes lead to the wrong result. And I think this Rahimi case is important, because it shows there is a limit to the use of the history test. And the Fifth Circuit really pushed that limit, and the Supreme Court pulled back.

But we also know, relevant to our conversations here on Respecting Religion, that this history and tradition test has been imported by the justices to considering the limits of the Establishment Clause as well, and we think that while it is one consideration, if we make it the only consideration, then it can be used in a really outcome-determinative way that does not serve religious freedom for all people.

HOLLY: That’s right. I wanted to note that we often look at history, because we know that the religion clauses came out of an important historical experience and that, you know, there is history supporting that the Founders put in this language of “no establishment” along with “free exercise” because of historical experiences that they had. And so that helps inform what the clauses mean.

So we often rely on history in our arguments but never to the exclusion of all else — never to be divorced from the law or the situation, the government act in front of the Court. I think that all justices would say that history is an important part of judicial analysis.

As I wrote, while history is very important, we also know there are dangers to a rigid adherence and narrow telling of history in our flawed country. It inevitably leaves people out of the promises of our Constitution and undercuts the fight for freedom and justice, which, of course, is what our commitment to religious freedom is based on.

AMANDA: I mean, I think my big concern, Holly, is if and when a case comes to this Court under the history and tradition test of the Establishment Clause, that they may very well be tempted to go to, as you put it, this narrow telling of history.

There’s a way to tell the history that uses cherry-picked quotes from the Founders or really zeroes in on one particular aspect of the history but misses the big picture.

HOLLY: That’s right. And we’ve talked about that a little bit, because the history test or, you know, the idea that in First Amendment religion clause cases, the Court should look to history and tradition, came out of this case dealing with legislative prayer, and so we saw that.

That’s where it started, and we addressed that and how that was then sort of expanded and, we would say, distorted and kind of warps to expand the constitutionality of such actions in local government settings.

And, you know, for those of you who are hearing this for the first time and want to think about that, you can go back to season 5, episode 3, where we talked about Greece v. Galloway, which was a 2014 case, I think, Amanda, but that was sort of the beginning of the Court moving away from tests that they had used in interpreting the meaning of the Establishment Clause to this more amorphous history and tradition test.

And then we’ve seen the Court go much farther on that, so it was good to see in Rahimi at least some understanding that you can’t just throw it out there and assume that you’re going to get the right answer, even among those who are on the same kind of side or the same leaning on the Court.

AMANDA: Yeah. And right now we’re seeing advocates in states and localities across the country really running with this history and tradition test to try to justify new laws that really harm religious freedom for all. And in addition — I’m so glad you pointed out the Greece v. Galloway case.

But in addition, we’ve also seen this Court ignore history when it comes to the bans on public funds for religion that were at the very heart of what disestablishment was all about in their recent cases that have permitted more and more government funding of religion.

So I am just concerned that this Court has a very selective reading of history that is more about getting to the result that they want than about a more faithful and broad reading of the history of disestablishment of religion in this country.

HOLLY: I think one thing that’s very clear, Amanda, is the Court, by announcing that undefined standard and throwing out other standards that have the values that have been around a long time, that come out of our understanding of what it means to have free exercise and no establishment as the basis for our religious freedom in the country, it really just opens the door.

It’s like the Court has said, We don’t apply — we’re abandoning those tests. And as you note, it seems to give a lot of free rein to those who are not so concerned about religious freedom for all but pursuing a very particular religious agenda through state action.

AMANDA: That’s right. So while we don’t have a religion clause case at the Court yet this term, we do know that the Court still has about a third of its docket left to fill up. So we’ll be watching, and should there be a religion and the law case that comes to the Court, we will be talking about here on Respecting Religion this season.

 

 

Segment 3: Come see Amanda in a city near you! (starting at 37:37)

HOLLY: Well, while we follow the Court, we are not on any kind of break. We know that the threats to faith freedom for all are many, and as we’ve talked about, they come in many different places, many different ways.

Amanda, this is a good time to remind our listeners that your book which addresses the problem of Christian nationalism — it’s, in fact, called How to End Christian Nationalism — will be released on October 22. It is already available for preorder, and you’re going to be out on tour so that more people will be able to engage with us in this fight against Christian nationalism.

It’s an important outgrowth of the Christians Against Christian Nationalism campaign, and people can find out more and order now, preorder the book — that’d be very helpful — at EndChristianNationalism.com. There’s information about the book there. There’ll be information about your book tour, and we welcome our Respecting Religion listeners to reach out to us and let us know if you want to host an event and how you can engage your community in this fight against Christian nationalism.

AMANDA: Yes. Thank you, Holly. It’s really exciting. It’s been a lot of work, not just in the process of writing this book, but all the work that we’ve been doing around the campaign for the last five years that led to it. So it’s exciting that next week, October 22, the book will be out in the world.

And, yes. I would love listeners to preorder the book. That really helps other people find it. And, you know, as the title suggests, it is not just a book to read but a call to action. And in the book, I really try to give ideas and strategies for people who are asking that question: What can I do?

There are things you can do, and, you know, one thing is to buy and share the book with other people. But second is to really take it to heart. And so when I go out on the book tour, I will be in local communities, working with groups that are working on the ground who will be making calls to action at every book tour stop, so that people can actually get more actively involved in the multi-faith, multiethnic, multiracial coalitions that are pushing back against Christian nationalism on the ground.

So thank you. Very exciting. I am spending a lot of time podcasting these days, Holly, just not always on Respecting Religion, so I’m going to be talking to a lot of other podcast hosts about the book, which means that we aren’t going to be podcasting quite as often as we did last season.

We are going to a schedule of twice a month for this season to make time for all of these other activities that are happening on the road. So, please, listeners, look out in your feeds for our episodes. And so this one is releasing on Thursday, October 17, and so our next episode is going to be on Halloween, October 31. So tune in this fall for new episodes from Respecting Religion.

HOLLY: Well, that brings us to the close of this episode of Respecting Religion. Thanks for joining us as we kick off season 6. For more information on what we discussed, visit our website at RespectingReligion.org for show notes and a transcript of this program.

AMANDA: Respecting Religion is produced and edited by Cherilyn Guy. Learn more about our work at BJC, defending faith freedom for all, by visiting our website at BJConline.org.

HOLLY: We’d love to hear from you. You can send both of us an email by writing to [email protected].

AMANDA: We’re also on social media @BJContheHill, and you can follow me on X, formerly known as Twitter, @AmandaTylerBJC.

HOLLY: And if you enjoyed the show, please share it with others. Take a moment to leave us a review or a five-star rating, and that will help more people find us.

AMANDA: Also, thank you for supporting this podcast. You can donate to these conversations by visiting the link in our show notes.

HOLLY: Join us on Thursdays for new conversations Respecting Religion.