PDF Summary:American Crusade, by Andrew L. Seidel

In American Crusade, Andrew L. Seidel examines the Supreme Court's pattern of favoring conservative Christian beliefs and issuing decisions that privilege Christianity over other faiths and non-religious views. He argues that a network of well-funded Christian legal organizations are exploiting religious freedom laws to impose their beliefs on others, often to discriminate against LGBTQ+ individuals.

Seidel contends that recent Court rulings are steadily dismantling foundational principles of religious liberty established by the First Amendment. He warns that these cases, driven by a conservative Christian agenda, are eroding the separation of church and state and promoting religious exemptions from laws designed to protect civil rights.

(continued)...

Using Anti-Religion Sentiment to Advance Crusade

Seidel argues that the Supreme Court has co-opted the concept of “hostility toward religion" to advance the Crusaders' aim of prioritizing Christianity. While both the Crusaders and the justices rely on the seminal Santeria case (Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye against the City of Hialeah) for the definition of hostility, this case is atypical. The blatant targeting of the Santeria Church in Hialeah is unusual historically in the United States, as our legal system traditionally has avoided such overt religious discrimination.

Instead of ensuring a similar level of protection for all religions facing hostility, the court has used the notion of hostility to promote Christian privilege. This manipulation erodes genuine religious liberty and undermines the concept of equality under the law.

Genuine Legal Animus Toward Faiths Uncommon in US History

Seidel argues that the Hialeah Santeria case is an outlier, an extreme example of overt government hostility and legislative discrimination that rarely occurs in modern American jurisprudence. Before that ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court had never determined that a government or its officials had acted with hostility towards a religion. Since that case, few additional examples of such blatant hostility have emerged, particularly against major denominations like Christianity.

Recent court trends of applying or even manufacturing hostility in a growing number of cases, most often in Christian contexts, illustrate how rare this type of conflict really is. If hostility to Christianity were actually as widespread as the court suggests, there should be more cases that actually resemble the Santeria case, with overt attempts to suppress worship and discriminate through law. While some groups, such as Muslims, encounter true animosity, this rarely manifests as legal suppression.

Other Perspectives

• The Hialeah Santeria case may not be as much of an outlier as Seidel suggests, considering the historical context of religious discrimination in the U.S., such as the persecution of Mormons in the 19th century or the anti-Catholic sentiment that has been present at various times.
• The idea of hostility could be a narrative constructed by interest groups to mobilize support or resist certain legal outcomes, rather than an objective assessment of the courts' intentions or actions.
• The legal system may have inherent biases that prevent the recognition or successful litigation of cases involving hostility towards Christianity.
• While it may be true that legal suppression is rare, the impact of social animosity can be pervasive and damaging in ways that do not always involve the legal system but still affect the rights and quality of life for Muslim communities.

Creating "Animosity" in Christian Cases, Ignoring Other Faiths' Targets

Seidel argues that, since packing the court with conservative Christians as sympathizers, recent decisions have either manufactured animosity against Christians or chosen to overlook cases where the animosity was real but directed at non-Christians. For example, in the Masterpiece Cakeshop cake case, the court identified hostility against the bakery based on mild comments by commissioners in a civil rights proceeding where the commissioners were doing their job and enforcing state law.

In contrast, the court overlooked the blatant hostility expressed by Trump and his advisors, as well as the clear discrimination against Muslims embodied in the various versions of the Muslim ban. This double standard reveals a politically motivated judiciary that prefers Christian claims while disregarding or even denying those of different faiths.

Other Perspectives

• The focus on cases involving Christians might reflect the demographic reality that Christianity is the majority religion in the country, and thus more likely to be involved in legal disputes that reach higher courts.
• The court's decision to focus on the comments by the commissioners does not automatically imply a disregard for cases involving non-Christians but could be a reflection of the specific legal questions and evidence presented in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.
• The judiciary may have grounds to argue that the executive orders on immigration were within the President's authority on matters of national security, which is separate from any perceived animosity in their presentation or development.
• The court may have found that the revised versions of the ban, which included non-Muslim majority countries and exempted various categories of individuals, addressed earlier concerns of discrimination.

Labeling Challenges to Laws Restricting Religion As "Hostility"

Seidel argues that the court has begun redefining any attempts to enforce laws that restrict or fail to privilege religion as hostility towards religion. By equating equality under the law with hostility, the court undermines the division between government and religion and seeks to privilege Christianity above other religions and non-religious beliefs. This approach creates a framework of laws where the slightest inconvenience for Christians is perceived as discrimination and hostility, allowing conservative Christians to claim victimhood, thus gaining additional legal protection.

Seidel uses examples such as the Montana neo-voucher case and the New Jersey church funding case to highlight this trend. In both situations, the state judiciary correctly ruled that these funding schemes violated state constitutional provisions prohibiting funding of religious institutions. However, in the Montana case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that upholding these protections against taxpayer funding of religion amounted to discrimination and hostility, striking down the state's Blaine Amendment, and three conservative justices signaled their desire to overturn the compelled support principle entirely.

Practical Tips

• You can start a reading group focused on court decisions related to the separation of church and state to better understand the implications. Gather a diverse group of individuals interested in civics and law, and together, analyze recent court cases to see how the decisions align or conflict with the concept of separation. This will help you develop a nuanced understanding of the issue and its real-world applications.
• Create a personal blog or vlog series documenting visits to different places of worship. Use this platform to share experiences, highlight the commonalities and differences, and educate others on the importance of religious diversity and equality.
• Create a support network with like-minded individuals who share your beliefs and concerns. Use social media or community forums to connect with others, share experiences, and offer mutual support. This network can act as a collective voice to advocate for legal protections and to assist members who encounter discrimination.
• Write an op-ed or a blog post analyzing the effects of the Supreme Court's decision from a local perspective. Research and present how the ruling could influence local educational institutions, public funding, and community values, thereby contributing to the public discourse and informing others.
• Start a blog or social media page dedicated to breaking down complex legal topics into layman's terms. This helps demystify legal principles for the general public and fosters informed discussions. For instance, if a court case addresses the compelled support principle, you could create content that explains what this principle entails and how the potential changes might affect individuals.

Using the RFRA to Promote Conservative Beliefs and Establish Christian Dominance

Seidel claims that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), initially backed by both liberals and conservatives, has been taken over by the Crusaders to promote Christian dominance in religious liberty jurisprudence. Rather than restoring the religious freedom rights supposedly lost in the case of Employment Division v. Smith (the drug counselor case), RFRA has become a tool to impose a conservative Christian agenda on all Americans, allowing believers to claim exemptions from virtually any law based on sincerely held religious convictions.

The Crusaders’ long-term strategy appears to be to use RFRA as a stepping-stone to reshape First Amendment religious liberty protections. If this effort is successful, religious freedom will prioritize conservative Christian beliefs.

Why the RFRA Was Passed

The RFRA was meant to "restore" a standard of religious freedom supposedly undermined by the Supreme Court's 1990 decision in Employment Division v. Smith, the drug counselor case. Despite the title and legislative intent, RFRA did not restore a previously existing standard, but instead offered a fresh interpretation of religious freedom that has proven more problematic than anyone originally anticipated.

Liberals and Conservatives Join to Oppose Genuine Religious Freedom Ruling by the Judiciary

The 1990 drug counselor case decision, written by the notorious conservative justice Antonin Scalia, was criticized by liberals and conservatives for different reasons. Liberals criticized Scalia’s opinion for its ethnocentric tone, claiming that it prioritized Christianity over Indigenous religions. Conservatives disliked the decision because it upheld long-standing legal precedent that prevented religions from claiming exemptions for every law. This strange coalition, united against an unpopular opinion, pressured Congress to pass a new law that "restored" religious freedom and gave religion the ability to get an exemption from laws and government regulations.

Practical Tips

• Engage in a book swap with friends or community members, focusing on literature that explores Indigenous religions and spiritualities. By reading and discussing these books, you can cultivate a more inclusive understanding of spirituality that recognizes the value of diverse religious perspectives beyond the dominant narratives.
• You can foster bipartisan support for issues you care about by starting a local discussion group with diverse political views. Invite friends, family, or neighbors with varying political beliefs to meet regularly and discuss topics related to religious freedom or other issues of mutual concern. The goal is to find common ground and understand each other's perspectives, which can lead to collective action or advocacy.
• Create a simple newsletter or blog to share information about legal exemptions with your religious community. This can be a way to keep others informed about their rights and any new developments. For instance, if an exemption is granted for a particular law, you could explain the process and outcome, providing a template for others to follow.

Restoring a Flawed Standard Ignoring “Lord’s Day” Imposition

The standard RFRA "restored" drew from several unemployment benefits lawsuits where the court awarded benefits to religious workers after describing their denial as the state making individuals pick between religious beliefs and economic necessity. This standard was flawed because it ignored the constitutional issue underlying Sherbert v. Verner: the Supreme Court didn't properly address Sunday closing laws.

These laws, which required all businesses to close on Sundays in recognition of the Christian Sabbath, infringed upon the First Amendment rights of non-Christians in a way that led to Adele Sherbert's initial firing. Her employer had to mandate Saturday shifts because the work week expanded and Sunday closings were law. Seidel concludes: RFRA didn't restore a high standard, but something deceptively worthless.

Practical Tips

• Engage in community discussions or online forums focused on the intersection of economics and personal beliefs. Share your experiences and learn from others about how they navigate conflicts between financial necessity and their values. This exchange of ideas can provide you with new perspectives and strategies for balancing economic needs with your personal convictions.
• Enhance your critical thinking by writing a blog or social media posts analyzing current legal disputes and their constitutional implications. Use Sherbert v. Verner as a benchmark to evaluate whether current cases are considering the constitutional issues adequately. This activity will not only improve your analytical skills but also educate others on the importance of constitutional considerations in legal matters.
• Engage in consumer behavior that reflects your stance on Sunday closing laws. If you believe that such laws are outdated, choose to support businesses that are pushing for change by remaining open on Sundays or that offer alternative services that don't conflict with these laws. Your spending habits can serve as a form of silent protest and can influence the market and potentially lead to a reevaluation of the laws.
• Create a "No-Spend Sunday" challenge with friends or family to explore the effects of a day without financial transactions. This can foster a sense of community and shared experience, as well as provide insights into consumption habits. Each participant could share their experiences and what they learned about their spending habits and the value they place on activities that don't involve money.
• You can educate yourself on the First Amendment by reading court cases and legal analyses that involve freedom of religion and speech. By understanding the legal precedents and arguments, you'll be better equipped to recognize when laws may be infringing upon these rights. For example, look up landmark cases like Engel v. Vitale or Lemon v. Kurtzman to see how the Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment in the context of religion and education.
• Create a personal contingency plan by identifying alternative income sources or skill sets that could be useful if your job were affected by sudden regulatory changes. Start by listing your skills and interests, then research online platforms where you can offer freelance services or take courses to enhance your employability in different fields.
• Create a personal contingency plan for unexpected work schedule changes. Start by identifying your non-negotiable commitments, like family events or personal appointments, and communicate these to your employer in advance. Then, establish a flexible routine that allows you to shift tasks around if you're required to work on days you didn't expect to, ensuring you can still fulfill your personal responsibilities.

Crusaders Leverage the RFRA

Seidel claims that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) has become a weapon the Crusaders are using to undermine the government’s capacity to care for its citizens and advance equality. In this new interpretation of religious liberty, the concept no longer functions as a universal human right protecting conscience but as a tool for a small elite to impose their beliefs on others. Seidel emphasizes that RFRA, with its ability to trump all other laws, is an ideal solution for the “right type” of Christian to avoid the consequences of following legislation that contradicts right-wing Christian beliefs.

Expanding Religious Rights for For-Profit Companies, Overlooking Business Law on Separate Entities

The Crusaders successfully used RFRA to redefine the legal concept of a private company and in doing so pushed religious liberty beyond what most liberals had envisioned when they supported the law’s passage in 1993. This shift first occurred in the case involving Burwell and Hobby Lobby Stores, where the court granted for-profit corporations the ability, based on religious freedom, to deny employees health care coverage.

This decision not only rewrote bedrock principles of corporate law that held corporations to be separate legal entities from their owners, but also set a precedent for extending religious liberty arguments beyond individuals, paving the way for businesses to claim exemptions from a host of regulations, including civil rights laws.

Practical Tips

• Create a local study group with fellow business owners to analyze and discuss court cases related to corporate personhood. This collective effort can lead to a deeper understanding of how legal precedents are set and how they might affect your business operations, potentially inspiring joint advocacy or reform initiatives.
• Consider volunteering for a non-profit organization's board to gain firsthand experience with governance and legal entity distinctions. This will give you practical insight into how decisions are made within an organization and the legal implications of those decisions.
• You can analyze the impact of regulatory exemptions on your community by tracking local business practices and their effects on civil rights. Start by identifying businesses in your area that may be claiming exemptions from regulations, including civil rights laws. Observe and document any changes in their hiring practices, customer service policies, and community engagement. Share your findings with local advocacy groups to raise awareness and potentially influence policy changes.

Measures to Free Employers From Employee Healthcare Rights Laws

In the decision regarding Hobby Lobby, the Crusaders effectively used RFRA to exempt employers from healthcare rights laws, thus limiting the right of employees to make autonomous medical decisions. By allowing Hobby Lobby to avoid providing health insurance coverage for certain contraceptives based on the demonstrably false belief that these contraceptives cause abortion, the Justices created a precedent that can be used in similar contexts.

Employers can now impose their spiritual convictions on employees by withholding coverage or services deemed antithetical to the employer’s belief system. This turns freedom of religion into a tool of control and repression, rather than a foundation for personal liberty.

Practical Tips

• Engage in conversations with your employer about healthcare provisions and religious freedoms. Prepare a list of questions or topics you'd like to discuss, ensuring you understand both your rights and your employer's obligations. This dialogue can help clarify any misconceptions and ensure that your healthcare needs are being met in accordance with the law.
• You can create a personal healthcare directive to ensure your medical autonomy is respected. Draft a document that outlines your preferences for medical care in various scenarios, including emergency situations. This directive can then be shared with your employer, healthcare provider, and family to make your wishes clear and legally recognized.
• Engage in community discussions or online forums to share and gather information on how different employers handle contraceptive coverage. This can help you and others make employment decisions based on companies' health insurance policies. For instance, if you're job hunting, use platforms like Glassdoor or LinkedIn to ask current or former employees about their experiences with the company's health benefits, specifically regarding contraceptive coverage.
• You can observe decision-making patterns in your workplace to identify precedents that influence current practices. Start by taking notes during meetings or discussions where decisions are made. Look for references to past events or outcomes that seem to guide the decision-making process. This will help you understand how precedents are formed and used within your own professional context.
• Start a peer-led discussion group at work to openly talk about the impact of spiritual beliefs on professional life without imposing any views. This group could meet monthly and serve as a safe space for employees to share experiences and learn from each other about how spirituality intersects with work, without advocating for any particular belief system.

Act Exempts Religious Conservatives From All Rules

Seidel fears that the RFRA has been interpreted by the nation's highest court to exempt conservative Christians from any and all laws. By misapplying the concept of animosity toward religion, equating any government efforts that don’t fully prioritize Christianity with discrimination, the Court has effectively redefined RFRA as an exemption for Christians. This understanding is apparent, for example, in the recent ruling that allowed the Catholic Church to refuse to place foster children with LGBTQ couples.

This new interpretation of RFRA not only undermines the government's ability to "promote the general welfare," but also places the rights of the few above the rights of the many, because any time someone asserts religious liberty, the state's ability to accomplish its goals is hampered.

Practical Tips

• Volunteer with a local LGBTQ advocacy group to offer support services that might be denied elsewhere. By providing your time and resources, you can help create an inclusive environment for those who might feel marginalized by institutional decisions.
• Create a small-scale cooperative initiative in your neighborhood to address a welfare-related issue that you feel the government is not effectively tackling. Gather a group of like-minded individuals and collectively brainstorm a project that could make a tangible difference. This could be as simple as setting up a community garden to improve local access to fresh produce or organizing a volunteer tutoring program to support education. By taking direct action, you contribute to the welfare of your community while also setting an example of proactive citizenship.
• Reflect on your daily decisions to identify where you might be prioritizing the few over the many. For example, if you're in a leadership role at work, consider whether your policies disproportionately benefit a small group of employees. Adjust these policies to be more inclusive and equitable.

Expanded Religious Freedom Protections Under First Amendment

The Crusaders’ goal appears to be to graft the expanded religious exemptions they’ve won under RFRA onto the First Amendment of the Constitution. In 1997, the Supreme Court ruled against applying RFRA to state governments, a decision that caused a proliferation of similar state laws that essentially do the same thing. However, the recent opinions, including the Hobby Lobby and Philadelphia foster care cases, suggest that the Court’s conservative majority wants to enshrine this new understanding of freedom of religion in the Constitution, in part because doing so would make it far more difficult to roll back the Crusaders’ gains.

Practical Tips

• Volunteer with a local advocacy group to help assess the real-world effects of laws like RFRA on different community members. By offering your time to assist with surveys, interviews, or focus groups, you can help gather qualitative data on how such laws are affecting people. This hands-on approach gives you a direct insight into the practical implications of legislation and allows you to contribute to a body of knowledge that could inform future legal discussions and reforms.
• You can deepen your understanding of constitutional law by enrolling in a free online course. By learning the basics of constitutional law, you'll gain insight into how amendments are made and the significance of enshrining certain rights or principles. Websites like Coursera or edX often offer courses from reputable universities that can provide a foundational understanding without any cost.

Religious Freedom Used Against LGBTQ+ Rights, Anti-Discrimination Laws, and Minority Religions

Seidel argues that the Crusaders have been successful at weaponizing religious freedom as a tool to evade anti-discrimination laws and impose their bigotry on others, particularly on the LGBTQ community and members of minority faiths. Those who support the Crusaders’ aim may claim that this use of religious liberty to discriminate is limited only to same-sex marriage rights. They argue, for instance, that a cake maker refusing to create a dessert for a same-sex marriage has nothing to do with denying services to a protected class in violation of state law, but rather is about the rights of that bakery owner to exercise their sincerely held religious beliefs.

Seidel argues these claims are not just disingenuous but also deeply dangerous, as this argument can easily be extended to evade a host of civil rights protections in other areas. Once religious exemptions from laws that protect civil rights are granted, there is no clear way to cabin that bigotry to a particular group or a particular right.

Discriminating Against LGBTQ+ by Denying Service

Seidel offers two key examples where the courts wrongly permitted discrimination against LGBTQ citizens in the name of religious freedom: 1) Kim Davis's refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in Kentucky despite the Supreme Court’s ruling on marriage equality, and 2) Masterpiece Cakeshop’s refusal to make a cake for a same-sex couple.

Kim Davis’s Defiance Against Issuing Marriage Licenses, Violating a Supreme Court Decision

Kim Davis, the clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky, denied marriage licenses to all couples, including opposite-sex couples, once the Supreme Court ruled that same-gender couples had the equal right to marry. Davis defended her denial as necessary to preserve her religious liberty; however, Seidel argues this case clearly violated the three crucial lines regarding religious freedom.

Davis’s refusal to provide marriage licenses infringed on the entitlements of others, as she used the power of her public office to prevent citizens from exercising their constitutional rights. The argument that issuing the licenses violated her conscience is specious, as she had no religious obligation to conduct any marriage that contradicted her beliefs; she only prevented others from doing so.

Practical Tips

• Volunteer as a poll worker during elections to actively support and protect the democratic process. Poll workers play a crucial role in ensuring that citizens can exercise their right to vote, which is a fundamental constitutional right. By participating in this process, you contribute to upholding the integrity of elections and learn firsthand about the safeguards in place to protect voters' rights.

Other Perspectives

• Public officials are expected to uphold the law irrespective of personal beliefs, as their role serves the public interest and not individual ideologies.
• It could be argued that the entitlements of others were not infringed upon in a broader sense, as couples could obtain marriage licenses from other counties where clerks did not have the same objections.
• The concept of conscience is deeply personal and subjective, which means that what constitutes a violation of conscience can vary greatly from person to person.
• Davis might argue that her role as a clerk is an extension of her personal identity, and thus any action she takes in that role must align with her religious beliefs.

Masterpiece Cakeshop’s Refusal to Serve a Couple in a Same-Sex Relationship

The case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission provides another example of the judicial misapplication of the concept of “hostility towards religion” to justify discrimination against LGBTQ citizens. The court ruled in the bakery’s favor, claiming that the comments of the Civil Rights Commissioners who ruled against the bakery demonstrated hostility against religion. This decision, however, ignores the real harm the bakery caused by denying service to a same-gender couple.

Seidel argues that the couple was the victim, not the bigot. Focusing on the tenor of a completed civil rights proceeding, rather than on the blatant discrimination practiced by the bakery, distorts the reality of the case and ignores how such rhetoric has appeared in civil rights jurisprudence.

Other Perspectives

• The focus on the commissioners' alleged hostility may have diverted attention from the broader issue of whether or not businesses can legally refuse service based on sexual orientation.
• The argument could be made that the bakery's refusal was not based on the identity of the couple, but on the message that creating a cake for a same-sex wedding would convey, which the bakery owner might argue is a form of compelled speech.
• Evaluating the conduct and comments of commissioners is a standard part of judicial review to ensure that decisions are made based on the law and facts, not personal beliefs or prejudices.
• The legal distinction between refusing service based on identity (which is generally unlawful discrimination) and declining to perform a specific service that violates one's conscience could be emphasized as a nuanced but important legal and ethical consideration.

Challenging Civil Rights As Hostile or Burdensome to Religion

Seidel highlights two arguments employed by the Crusaders and accepted by the court to permit discrimination on religious grounds. First, the “just go somewhere else” argument, and second, that laws safeguarding civil rights are hostile toward religion. Seidel argues that both arguments are flawed and ignore the historical context and legacy of legislation safeguarding civil rights.

"Go Elsewhere" Defense for Denying Services to Protected Groups

One common argument employed to defend discrimination motivated by religion is that those belonging to protected classes should just find a different establishment that is willing to serve them. Seidel argues that this “just go elsewhere” argument is not only cruel and dismissive but also fundamentally undermines the purpose and efficacy of rights-protecting legislation since market-driven fixes fail to account for irrational economic behavior and actual threats of violence.

The civil rights movement shows that discrimination thrives in the absence of laws combating it. For instance, the KKK used tactics like firebombing establishments that had the audacity to serve Black patrons equally. Moreover, market solutions rely on rational and empathetic behavior, things that bigots and those who support bigotry often lack. The free market benefits those who exploit prejudiced behavior, as we saw with Chick-fil-A and Masterpiece Cakeshop, whose sales actually increased due to publicity around their discrimination.

Context

• In small or rural communities, options may be limited, making the "go elsewhere" argument impractical and further entrenching discrimination.
• This argument ignores the social and psychological harm caused by discrimination, which can perpetuate feelings of inferiority and exclusion among marginalized groups.
• In some cases, businesses that engage in discriminatory practices gain increased visibility and support from like-minded individuals, leading to a paradox where discrimination becomes a profitable business strategy rather than a liability.
• Discrimination was not only a social issue but also an economic one. Segregated businesses and services limited economic opportunities for African Americans, reinforcing cycles of poverty and inequality.
• The KKK's violent actions were part of a broader strategy to instill fear in both business owners and the Black community, aiming to preserve the status quo of racial inequality.
• This field studies how psychological factors affect economic decision-making. It highlights that people often act irrationally, influenced by biases and emotions, which can undermine the effectiveness of market-based solutions to discrimination.

Why Civil Rights Laws Support Authentic Religious Liberty

Seidel argues that civil rights laws actually offer the strongest safeguards for genuine religious freedom. In the past, bigots and mobs often pressured businesses to refuse services to certain people for religious or other reasons, using social, economic, and even violent pressure to impose their beliefs on others, making market solutions impossible. This explains why government regulation, including anti-discrimination legislation, is necessary.

By protecting everyone's freedom from discrimination, these laws create the conditions necessary for genuine liberty of religion to flourish. Seidel highlights the cases of Maurice Bessinger, who owned Piggie Park BBQ, and Jack Phillips, who owned Masterpiece Cakeshop, to showcase this point. When these two businesses were prevented from discriminating, the only harm they incurred was the inconvenience of following the law; they were still free to worship, practice their religions, and make personal choices aligned with their respective moral codes.

Context

• By ensuring that businesses serve all customers regardless of race, religion, or other protected characteristics, civil rights laws promote a more inclusive and diverse marketplace, which can lead to economic growth and innovation.
• Some individuals and groups have used religious texts or doctrines to justify discriminatory practices. This has included arguments against interracial marriage, the subjugation of women, and the exclusion of LGBTQ+ individuals, claiming these practices were divinely sanctioned.
• In many cases, violence or the threat of violence was used to maintain discriminatory practices. This could include physical attacks, vandalism, or threats against individuals who attempted to challenge the status quo.
• Anti-discrimination legislation in the U.S. is part of a broader global movement towards human rights, with many countries adopting similar laws to comply with international human rights treaties and conventions.
• Maurice Bessinger was a South Carolina businessman who owned a chain of barbecue restaurants called Piggie Park. In the 1960s, he refused to serve Black customers, citing his religious beliefs as justification. This led to a significant legal case, Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, which reached the Supreme Court. The court ruled against Bessinger, stating that his religious beliefs did not justify racial discrimination in public accommodations.
• Courts have consistently upheld the enforcement of anti-discrimination laws, emphasizing that the inconvenience of compliance does not outweigh the societal benefits of equality and fairness.

Strategies to Promote Christian Nationalism Under the Banner of "Religious Freedom"

Seidel argues that the Crusaders have adopted several strategies to achieve their ultimate goal of Christian nationalist policy by masking it as a push for religious liberty. Their strategies include dismantling public schools in support of a parallel, Christian private education system; creating a narrative of Christian victimhood and persecution; and weaponizing their take on religious liberty to undermine and eventually overturn laws that hinder a Christian right-wing agenda.

To accomplish this, the Crusaders have also focused significant effort on controlling the judicial branch. Packing the courts ensures that they will win their cases regardless of the facts or the law.

Dismantling Public Schools to Build a Separate School System for White Christians

Seidel contends that the modern education reform movement, with its focus on “choice” in education and programs that use vouchers, is a disguised attempt to erode public education and establish a parallel school system, one that's segregated and privileges White Christian students, much like the push for private segregationist schools that followed Brown v. Board. By deliberately defunding public schools while channeling taxpayer dollars to faith-based schools, these schemes exacerbate segregation and inequality.

The modern voucher movement uses the same rhetoric as the segregation academies, arguing for "freedom of choice" and, more recently, freedom of religion, when they really want an education system rooted in Christianity.

Racism's Role in School Choice and Evasion of Brown v. Board

Seidel argues that school vouchers are rooted in racism. After Brown v. Board, local governments and White Americans intentionally defunded and dismantled public education to maintain racial segregation. White students were then sent to segregated private academies, frequently with the help of churches, while Black students were left behind with the wrecked remains of a once egalitarian public education structure.

Voucher programs were crucial to that scheme, channeling taxpayer dollars to support segregated academies. The author argues that this strategy has been resurrected with the modern voucher movement, with many of the same arguments about “freedom of choice” and “parental rights” being employed to legitimize rerouting public funds to private education.

Practical Tips

• Create a micro-grant program to fund innovative classroom projects in under-resourced schools. Even small amounts of money can empower teachers to purchase supplies or technology that enriches the learning environment. You can start by setting aside a portion of your income or rallying friends and family to contribute to a collective fund.

Other Perspectives

• Some argue that the issues with public education are systemic and not solely the result of post-Brown v. Board actions, pointing to pre-existing inequalities and the complex challenges of educational reform.
• Public funding for private education can incentivize public schools to improve through healthy competition.
• Arguments for "freedom of choice" and "parental rights" may also stem from a philosophical belief in individual liberty and limited government intervention in personal decisions.

Vouchers Benefit Wealthy Whites At Minorities' Expense

Seidel criticizes the modern “school choice” initiative for its disingenuous rhetoric, which presents voucher programs as a way to rescue minority children from failing public schools and deliver economic and educational equality. He argues, however, that it's a myth. Statistical analyses of voucher programs across the country show that these mechanisms primarily benefit wealthy, White students, who often were already attending private schools before vouchers and who use the program to reduce their tuition costs.

Moreover, many state voucher initiatives have intensified, rather than ameliorated, educational segregation. For instance, voucher schools frequently treat LGBTQ individuals and those with disabilities unfairly. The outcome is that taxpayer dollars are being used to erode public education and strengthen segregation, leaving disadvantaged children, primarily racial minorities, worse off. Much like the community pools.

Other Perspectives

• The unfair treatment of LGBTQ individuals and those with disabilities is not inherent to voucher schools but may be a reflection of broader societal issues that can occur in any type of school, including public schools.
• Taxpayer dollars are also used to fund public schools, and vouchers represent a fraction of the total education budget, with the intention of giving parents more control over their child's education.
• Voucher programs can be designed with equity in mind, including weighted lotteries or additional funding for lower-income families, to ensure that disadvantaged children have a fair chance to benefit from these programs.

Voucher Schemes and Church Infrastructure Erode Secular Education, Increase Segregation and Inequality

Seidel argues that the Crusader organizations have intentionally targeted public schools and co-opted the rhetoric of school choice and freedom of religion to advance their agenda of Christian supremacy. By equating public secular education with antagonism to religion, and by deliberately undermining and weakening public schools while promoting privately funded Christian schools, these groups erode America’s long-standing, egalitarian public education system.

He contends that voucher programs and arguments about freedom of religion become tools to accomplish this goal in a way that increases segregation and inequality. This endeavor to create an alternate, faith-based schooling system is also supported by extensive church infrastructure and resources, providing both the buildings to house the separated educational institutions and the ethical reasoning to impose this inherently unequal system on America.

Practical Tips

• Engage in conversations with your peers about the impact of school choice and voucher programs on community cohesion. By initiating dialogue, you can spread awareness and encourage others to think critically about these issues. You might host a book club or discussion group focused on educational equality, where members can share insights and develop a collective understanding of the challenges and potential solutions.
• Explore volunteering opportunities with local churches to understand their educational programs. By volunteering, you can gain firsthand experience of how church infrastructure supports education. For example, assist in after-school tutoring sessions or weekend educational workshops to see the impact of these programs on the community.
• Volunteer with an organization that works towards social equality, and actively engage in conversations about the ethical reasoning behind their mission and actions. This hands-on approach allows you to see how alternative ethical frameworks can be applied to create a more equitable society.

Creating a Narrative of Persecution and Victimhood in Christianity

Seidel argues that one of the Crusaders' most successful strategies for advancing an agenda of Christian nationalism is to create and exploit a false narrative of Christian persecution and victimhood. By framing efforts to enforce church-state separation or attempts to achieve equality for marginalized groups as attacks on Christianity, these groups can garner sympathy and support from their followers, often tacitly backed by the judiciary.

Seidel offers the “War on Christmas” and the “#Fairplay” campaign for the Missouri ministry as examples of this tactic, both of which obscure the underlying agenda of religious privilege by targeting something universally popular—holidays and playgrounds.

"The War on Christmas" and "#Fairplay" Demonstrate Dominant Caste's Fear of Equality

Seidel maintains that the Crusader’s rhetoric of “War on Christmas” and “#Fairplay" are prime examples of the dominant caste’s fear of equality manifesting itself as victimhood. These fabricated grievances, that the non-Christian majority are somehow attacking their cherished traditions, are a tactic to garner sympathy for what is actually an attempt to claim unconstitutional privilege.

The "War on Christmas," a canard largely amplified by Fox News and other conservative media, is a prime example of this tactic. By taking offense at inclusive holiday greetings or efforts to create diversity, these groups portray themselves as under attack when faced with equality. The “#FairPlay” campaign for the Missouri children’s ministry similarly obscured the intent of the church to obtain public money for its religious programs by appealing to a common concern for children’s safety and playground surfaces.

Other Perspectives

• The framing of these issues as a "fear of equality" could be viewed as a mischaracterization of the motivations behind them, where some individuals might genuinely believe they are advocating for fairness and not against equality.
• It could be argued that the use of the term "dominant caste" is itself a divisive and unhelpful framing that oversimplifies complex social dynamics and the variety of perspectives within any cultural majority.
• The "#Fairplay" campaign could be interpreted as an effort to ensure that religious organizations have equal access to public funds for community services, rather than an attempt to gain unconstitutional privilege.
• Some individuals might argue that the "War on Christmas" is about preserving the freedom to express specific religious sentiments publicly without feeling marginalized.
• Public funding for the children's ministry's playground could be seen as a community investment in public safety and welfare, rather than an endorsement of religious activities.

Enforcing the Constitution Is Seen as Hostile to Religion

Seidel argues that a key aspect of the Crusaders’ persecution narrative is framing the enforcement of laws and constitutional principles, particularly those upholding the division between religion and government, as acts of animosity and discrimination. When the Court nullifies public health measures restricting worship or demands funding for religious schools, it does so under the banner of religious freedom, but also by bemoaning the hostility these measures exhibit towards religion, framing this liberty as necessary to stave off a “tyrannical majority.”

This is a misleading and misleadingly successful argument that allows the Court to promote the Crusade while pretending to defend Christians from persecution. If equality is hostile toward Christianity, then Christianity requires special privilege and exclusion from the laws that would guarantee equality. Seidel argues that this is backwards—state/church separation itself is the antidote to hostility and discrimination because it safeguards religious liberty for all, including non-Christians.

Practical Tips

• Enhance your understanding of historical motives by creating a "motive map" for historical events you're interested in. Start with the event in the center and draw lines to various stakeholders, noting their potential motives and how they might have influenced the outcome. This exercise can help you apply a similar analysis to modern-day scenarios.

Other Perspectives

• The Court's decisions might undermine the efforts of public health officials and scientists who are tasked with managing the spread of infectious diseases based on evidence and expertise.
• It may divert resources from public schools, which are meant to serve all students regardless of their religious beliefs.
• The Court's interpretation of hostility may be an overstatement, as measures that affect religious practices could be neutral in intent, aiming to address broader concerns such as public health or equal treatment under the law.
• The notion of a "tyrannical majority" could be seen as an overstatement in a pluralistic society where multiple viewpoints and interests must be negotiated and where minority rights are also protected by the Constitution.
• Christianity, like any other religion, can thrive within a framework of equality, as it does not depend on state endorsement or support to practice its tenets and rituals.
• The principle of equality before the law means that no individual or group, including Christians, should receive special treatment that undermines the fairness of the legal system.
• It is also argued that the application of state/church separation can be inconsistent, sometimes favoring certain religions over others, which contradicts the idea that it safeguards religious liberty for all.

Packing the Courts to Ensure Victory For Christianity

Seidel argues that these Crusaders understood early on that controlling the judicial branch is essential to achieving their long-term goal of establishing a Christian country. By filling the courts with right-leaning Christian ideologues, they have gained control of the country's highest court and are rapidly stacking lower courts with like-minded judges.

This strategy was years in the making, beginning perhaps when Rehnquist became Chief Justice and culminating in the takeover orchestrated by Leonard Leo, a former Federalist Society lawyer and activist who has spent his career selecting candidates for the judiciary based on their conservative, and often explicitly Christian, ideology.

Leonard Leo's Long Campaign to Reshape the Highest Court Using His Religious Ideology

Leonard Leo is perhaps the single most influential figure in efforts to weaponize religious freedom and advance Christian nationalism in America. He orchestrated the takeover of the Supreme Court, spending hundreds of millions of dollars of money from wealthy conservative donors, including the Koch siblings, to elect Republican presidents determined to appoint judges who would fulfill this agenda.

Leo himself boasts a long career of opposing religious freedom for non-Christians and undermining the church-state division. His close ties to groups such as the Fellowship of Catholic Lawyers and the Sovereign Military Order of Malta underscore the explicitly Christian nature of his efforts. He has personally selected and pushed through five of the six conservative justices currently sitting on the Supreme Court: Chief Justice John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett—deliberately choosing each one for their conservative Christian beliefs.

Other Perspectives

• The term "weaponizing religious freedom" is subjective and could be seen as a mischaracterization of advocating for robust protections for religious expression as guaranteed by the First Amendment.
• The appointment of judges is inherently a political process, and presidents from both major parties seek to appoint judges who reflect their political and legal philosophies, which is not unique to Republican presidents or conservative donors.
• The claim that Leo has opposed religious freedom for non-Christians may require specific examples of actions or statements that directly support this claim; without such evidence, the assertion could be considered an assumption rather than a fact.
• Affiliation with religious groups does not necessarily dictate one's professional actions or intentions; individuals can maintain personal religious connections while upholding secular principles in their work.
• The assertion that Leo handpicked justices implies a level of control that may not accurately reflect the complex and multifaceted process of vetting and nominating Supreme Court candidates.

Court's Rise in Annual Cases About Religious Liberty

Seidel argues that the rise in cases regarding religious freedom before the U.S. high court is a direct result of Leo’s success in reshaping the court. The U.S. Supreme Court has demonstrated a keen interest in deciding these types of cases. Before the Robert Court began eroding the barrier of separation, rulings in such cases occurred every couple of years. During the Obama presidency, such cases were settled roughly each year. Since Trump took office, the court has heard at least three, and sometimes many additional, cases related to religious freedom every year.

This increase is not random. It reflects the success of the Crusaders in capturing the court. Every new justice increases their majority, making them more confident about overturning decades, if not a century, of legal precedent in favor of an agenda of Christian privilege. Unless the court undergoes significant rebalancing, this trend will continue.

Practical Tips

• You can track changes in Supreme Court decisions over time by creating a simple spreadsheet. Start by selecting a few landmark cases from different eras, noting the decisions and their impacts. Update this spreadsheet with new rulings as they occur, observing any shifts in patterns or frequency that reflect changes in the court's approach to certain issues.
• Track and analyze current religious freedom cases to understand trends and outcomes. By setting up a simple spreadsheet, you can record details of ongoing cases, their resolution times, and the parties involved. This will give you a personal database to compare with past trends and develop a deeper understanding of the legal landscape surrounding religious freedom.
• Volunteer for a local campaign or advocacy group to get hands-on experience with influencing decision-makers. This could involve anything from canvassing to helping draft communication materials. Pay attention to the strategies used to sway opinions and the types of messaging that resonate with different audiences.
• Volunteer as a mediator in local community disputes to gain practical experience in understanding the value of balance and fairness in conflict resolution. This hands-on approach will give you insight into the dynamics of negotiation and compromise, which are essential for a balanced judiciary.