By: elspeth berry

elspeth berry
Sat, 18 Jan 2025 01:03:36 +0000

The overarching issue is that, once a nation adopts any religion in an official capacity, the governance thereof automatically becomes the arbiter of what can and can’t be voiced, hence Rome’s arrogation of Christianity, hence the Brit monarchy’s anointing ritual:

https://www.churchofengland.org/media/stories-and-features/why-are-british-monarchs-anointed
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/consecration-of-the-new-king-what-is-anointing

The U.S. founding fathers were no fools:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The relationship between formally adopting a religion and quashing personal belief/conviction is plain

I realise the U. S. is beleaguered by Trump-worshipping cranks, but that doesn’t have any bearing on the foundational principles