It’s a frustrating day at the Supreme Court when several justices seem not to care about the reasons religion gets special treatment in our constitutional system. Amanda and Holly share audio clips and their reaction to the oral arguments in Carson v. Makin, including spotting some faux outrage from the justices and how six justices seem poised to chart a new and troublesome direction in church-state law. They talk about obvious differences between determining protecting free exercise of religion and requiring taxpayer funding of religious education. In segment three, Amanda and Holly share how they are welcoming the holidays.
Segment one: Why should religion be treated differently? (starting at 00:55):
Amanda and Holly previewed the oral arguments in Carson v. Makin in episode 5: What’s the problem with the government funding religious education?
We played the following clips from the oral arguments, available at this link.
*Michael Bindas, attorney for the challenge to Maine’s program: 1:31-2:09
*Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart, arguing on behalf of the Biden administration 1:31:36-1:32:46
Segment two: Is this a choice program? Is there discrimination between different religions? (starting at 14:40)
We played the following clips from the oral arguments, available at this link:
*Christopher Taub, attorney defending Maine’s program: 42:54-44:14
*Justice Elena Kagan: 29:15-30:04, and then 30:30-31:17
Segment three: The advent of the holiday season (starting at 29:08)
Amanda and Holly talked about this New York Times piece by Tish Harrison Warren: I’m not ready for Christmas. I need to take a minute.
Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC’s generous donors. You can support these conversations with a gift to BJC.