Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Editorials & Other Articles

Showing Original Post only (View all)

lees1975

(7,185 posts)
Tue May 12, 2026, 10:58 AM Tuesday

Former Trump attorney Jenna Ellis says the First Amendment is only for the protection of Christian consciences. [View all]

https://signalpress.blogspot.com/2026/05/first-amendment-religious-liberty-is.html

And ignorance really is bliss, I guess.

There's a clear indication in the language of the first amendment that crushes Ellis' argument that the founding fathers intended to protect only the religious liberty of Christians. For one thing, Christianity is not mentioned, referenced, or even alluded to in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution in its vague references to divine providence. "Religion" was then, as it is now, an all inclusive term indicating an awareness of the existence of other faiths beyond Christianity, Judaeo-Christianity or Judaism.

There is, in fact, no specific reference to Christianity in either the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution. That's not surprising, given that there were few Christians among the founding fathers, and none who understood Christianity in the context of conservative Evangelicalism's 19th century fundamentalist and pre-millennial dispensational perspective that is Ellis' understanding.

The freedom of conscience protected by the first amendment is all inclusive. Conscience includes religious practice, or the absence of any religious practice. It also includes all other ideologies and thoughts, including those that are unique to any individual. In the absence of any kind of interpretation written by any of the founders that would support Ellis' view, there is the fact that the courts have exercised the constitutional powers they have been given to interpret the Constitution as demanding and protecting religious pluralism.


The attitude exhibited by Ellis, aside from the sheer ignorance she shows, isn't consistent with her claims of being Christian. Jesus made it very clear that the one way Christians have of testifying to the veracity of their faith and commitment is by the way they treat other people. As those billboards say, "That love-thy-neighbor thing? I meant it! --God" Jesus was pretty clear, using the example of a Samaritan to illustrate the answer to the question, "Who is my neighbor?" in his answer.

So why isn't Ellis treating Muslims like they are her neighbor? But then, those kind of people always have an answer as to why they don't have to be true to the core principles of their alleged faith.
7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Latest Discussions»Editorials & Other Articles»Former Trump attorney Jen...