Government, religion, and "secular" vs. "religious"

[Swordsmyth]

Project 2025

- It adopts a maximalist version of the unitary executive theory, a disputed interpretation of Article II of the Constitution of the United States, which asserts that the president has absolute power over the executive branch upon inauguration.

- Jeffrey Clark, a contributor to the project and a former official within the DOJ, would advise the future president to immediately deploy the military for domestic law enforcement by invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807.

- It promotes capital punishment and the speedy "finality" of those sentences.

- Critics of Project 2025 have described it as an authoritarian, Christian nationalist movement that seeks to reform the United States into an autocracy. Several experts in law have indicated that it would undermine the rule of law and the separation of powers. Some conservatives and Republicans also criticized the plan, for example in the contexts of centralizing power, individual rights and freedoms.

- Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a scholar of fascism and authoritarian leaders at New York University, wrote in May 2024 that Project 2025 "is a plan for an authoritarian takeover of the United States that goes by a deceptively neutral name."

- Doing away with the separation of church and state is the goal of many architects of Trumpism, from Project 2025 contributor Russ Vought to far-right proselytizer Michael Flynn, who uses the idea of "spiritual war" as counterrevolutionary fuel ...

This explains Trump's call for Federally-Funded Nationwide "Stop and Frisk" and complete Local LEO Immunity, among other anti-liberty agenda.

Project 2025 is a false flag operation.

[Swordsmyth]

Really? Is your faith so unpersuasive that it needs the power of government to promote it?

And while you're at it, point to the language of the Constitution (assuming you believe it has some sort of legal effect) that enshrines a particular faith with a preferred status, especially given its prohibition of religious tests for federal offices and the Free Exercise Clause's guarantee that one can be a polytheist or idolater, both of which violate the Ten Commandments.

In discussing Article VI's no religious test in the debate of the North Carolina Convention on the adoption of the Federal Constitution, James Iredell, later a Justice of the Supreme Court, said ". . . [i]t is objected that the people of America may, perhaps, choose representatives who have no religion at all, and that pagans and Mahometans may be admitted into offices. But how is it possible to exclude any set of men without taking away that principle of religious freedom which we ourselves so warmly contend for?"

And another delegate pointed out that Article VI "leaves religion on the solid foundation of its own inherent validity, without any connection with temporal authority, and no kind of oppression can take place."

Nothing in the Constitution prohibits it.
And we as a Christian country have every right to promote the Christian (not exclusively ours) values that our culture and laws are founded on.

It's not a matter of weakness, it's a matter of strength.

Putting the 10 up in government buildings is not a religious test, nor is it establishing a religion.

[Swordsmyth]

Does the following chain of reasoning accurately represent the argument you provided?

What the Constitution says should be followed because it is the Law of the Land.
We know that the Constitution is the Law of the Land because it says so in the Constitution.

Because it sure looks to me like that is precisely what you said.

And if so, then yes, there is an obvious a problem with it. It is question begging. If the very point of contention is whether or not the Constitution is the Law of the Land, then this can't be decided by pointing to what the Constitution itself says about the matter.

If you really think that's valid, then I can just as easily write my own Constitution and include within it a declaration that it is the Law of the Land, superseding the Constitution that you quoted, and my claim would be valid on account of being supported by the Constitution that I wrote.

The Constitution was ratified by the states, that means they accepted that it is the Supreme Law of the Land as dictated in it.

[PAF]

Article 6:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.


The original 1stA specifies that at least part of it only applies to congress, but the 14thA may make all of it apply to the states as well.
But no state is establishing a religion.

Louisiana public schools will now be required to display the Ten Commandments in every classroom, following a new law signed on Wednesday by Republican Gov. Jeff Landry.

establish /ĭ-stăb′lĭsh/
transitive verb

To cause (an institution, for example) to come into existence or begin operating; found; set up.

To bring about; generate or effect.
"establish goodwill in the neighborhood."

require /rĭ-kwīr′/
transitive verb

To have as a requisite or necessity; need or depend on.

To stipulate as obligatory by authority.

To demand as obligatory or appropriate.

Louisiana Constitution
Article I: Declaration of Rights

Section 8. No law shall be enacted respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion


Referencing the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Jefferson writes:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

[Swordsmyth]

Alanah Odoms, executive director of the ACLU of Louisiana. “Public schools are not Sunday schools. We must protect the individual right of students and families to choose their own faith or no faith at all. The separation of church and state is a bedrock of our nation’s founding principles; the ten commandments are not.”

The American Communist Lawyers Union is lying, as usual.
Nobody is imposing a religion on anyone by displaying the cultural foundations of our laws.

[Swordsmyth]

establish /ĭ-stăb′lĭsh/
transitive verb

To cause (an institution, for example) to come into existence or begin operating; found; set up.

To bring about; generate or effect.
"establish goodwill in the neighborhood."

require /rĭ-kwīr′/
transitive verb

To have as a requisite or necessity; need or depend on.

To stipulate as obligatory by authority.

To demand as obligatory or appropriate.

Nice definition.
Posting the 10 doesn't do any of that.
Nobody is required to believe or follow the 10, save by the laws that cover the same subjects as some of them.

[Sonny Tufts]

But forbidding that they be posted does, as well.

No, forbidding their posting would simply reflect government neutrality in matters of religion. Unfortunately, too many people think that the government's failure to promote their particular faith amounts to the promotion of some other ideology, which they like to call secular humanism or that it somehow violates their right of religious expression. What they fail to understand is that the law isn't required to favor their faith over all others, and that if the government must recognize their faith in some way it must recognize all faiths, an impossible task.

[Anti Federalist]

No, forbidding their posting would simply reflect government neutrality in matters of religion. Unfortunately, too many people think that the government's failure to promote their particular faith amounts to the promotion of some other ideology, which they like to call secular humanism or that it somehow violates their right of religious expression. What they fail to understand is that the law isn't required to favor their faith over all others, and that if the government must recognize their faith in some way it must recognize all faiths, an impossible task.

Marxism is a religion.

[Swordsmyth]

No, forbidding their posting would simply reflect government neutrality in matters of religion. Unfortunately, too many people think that the government's failure to promote their particular faith amounts to the promotion of some other ideology, which they like to call secular humanism or that it somehow violates their right of religious expression. What they fail to understand is that the law isn't required to favor their faith over all others, and that if the government must recognize their faith in some way it must recognize all faiths, an impossible task.

False.
Nothing requires the recognition of all faiths.
And nothing prohibits the recognition of the cultural foundations of our laws.

[Anti Federalist]

No, forbidding their posting would simply reflect government neutrality in matters of religion. Unfortunately, too many people think that the government's failure to promote their particular faith amounts to the promotion of some other ideology, which they like to call secular humanism or that it somehow violates their right of religious expression. What they fail to understand is that the law isn't required to favor their faith over all others, and that if the government must recognize their faith in some way it must recognize all faiths, an impossible task.

How did the republic survive until 1962 then?

[Swordsmyth]

Clergy, Public-School Parents Sue to Block Louisiana Law Requiring Public Schools to Display the Ten Commandments

June 24, 2024


BATON ROUGE, La. — A multi-faith group of nine Louisiana families with children in public schools filed suit in federal court today to block H.B. 71, a new state law requiring all public elementary, secondary, and postsecondary schools to display the Ten Commandments in every classroom. The plaintiffs in Roake v. Brumley, including Jewish parents and parents who are pastors and reverends, are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Freedom from Religion Foundation, with Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP serving as pro bono counsel.


In their complaint filed today in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, the plaintiffs, who are Jewish, Christian, Unitarian Universalist, and non-religious, assert that the newly enacted statute violates longstanding U.S. Supreme Court precedent and the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment. More than 40 years ago, in Stone v. Graham, the Supreme Court overturned a similar state law, holding that the separation of church and state bars public schools from posting the Ten Commandments in classrooms. No other state requires the Ten Commandments to be displayed in public schools.


The complaint further alleges that H.B. 71 “substantially interferes with and burdens” parents’ First Amendment right to direct their children’s religious education and upbringing, and that, in approving and mandating the display of a specific version of the Ten Commandments, the law runs afoul of the First Amendment’s prohibition against the government taking sides on questions of theological debate. Moreover, the complaint highlights the religiously coercive nature of the displays mandated by H.B. 71:


“Permanently posting the Ten Commandments in every Louisiana public-school classroom–rendering them unavoidable– unconstitutionally pressures students into religious observance, veneration, and adoption of the state’s favored religious scripture. It also sends the harmful and religiously divisive message that students who do not subscribe to the Ten Commandments—or, more precisely, to the specific version of the Ten Commandments that H.B. 71 requires schools to display—do not belong in their own school community and should refrain from expressing any faith practices or beliefs that are not aligned with the state’s religious preferences.”


Plaintiffs include: Unitarian Universalist minister, Rev. Darcy Roake, her husband Adrian Van Young, and their two children; Rev. Jeff Sims, a Presbyterian (U.S.A.) minister, and his three children; nonreligious parents Jennifer Harding and Benjamin Owens and their child; Erin and David Hawley and their two children–a Unitarian Universalist family; Dustin McCrory, an atheist, and his three children; Christy Alkire, who is nonreligious, and her child; and Joshua Herlands, who is Jewish and has two elementary-age children.



In connection with today’s filing, plaintiffs in the case issued the following statements:


Reverend Darcy Roake & Adrian Van Young

“As an interfaith family, we strongly value religious inclusion and diversity, and we teach our children that all people are equal and have inherent dignity and worth. The Ten Commandments displays required by this law fly in the face of these values and send a message of religious intolerance. They will not only undermine our ability to instill these values in our children, but they will also help create an unwelcoming and oppressive school environment for children, like ours, who don’t believe in the state’s official version of scripture. We believe that no child should feel excluded in public school because of their family’s faith tradition.”


Reverend Jeff Sims

“By favoring one version of the Ten Commandments and mandating that it be posted in public schools, the government is intruding on deeply personal matters of religion. I believe that it’s critical for my children to receive and understand scripture within the context of our faith, which honors God’s gift of diversity and teaches that all people are equal. This law sends a contrary message of religious intolerance that one denomination or faith system is officially preferable to others, and that those who don’t adhere to it are lesser in worth and status. As a pastor and father, I cannot, in good conscience, sit by silently while our political representatives usurp God’s authority for themselves and trample our fundamental religious-freedom rights.”


Jennifer Harding and Benjamin Owens

“As a nonreligious family, we oppose the government forcibly subjecting our child to a religious scripture that we don’t believe in. The State of Louisiana should not direct a religious upbringing of our child or require students to observe the state’s preferred religious doctrine in every classroom.”


Erin Hawley and David Hawley

“We instill moral and ethical values in our children through positive concepts, such as love and caring for others, not biblical commandments. As Unitarian Universalists, we strongly believe that every person has the right to undertake a free and responsible search for truth and meaning. That cannot happen when the government forces scripture on people, especially children—who are at the beginning of their spiritual journeys.”


Joshua Herlands

“As a parent, an American, and a Jew, I am appalled that state lawmakers are forcing public schools to post a specific version of the Ten Commandments in every classroom. These displays distort the Jewish significance of the Ten Commandments and send the troubling message to students that one set of religious laws is favored over all others. Tolerance is at the heart of our family’s practice of Judaism, and this effort to evangelize students, including my children, is antithetical to our core religious beliefs and our values as Americans.”



In connection with today’s filing, the civil-rights organizations representing the plaintiffs issued the following statements:

“This law is a disturbing abuse of power by state officials,” said Heather L. Weaver, senior staff attorney for the ACLU’s Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. “Louisiana law requires children to attend school so they can be educated, not evangelized. In bringing today’s lawsuit, we intend to make sure that Louisiana public schools remain welcoming to all students, regardless of their faith.”


“By filing this lawsuit, Louisianans clap back and let the Governor know he can’t use religion as a cover for repression,” said Alanah Odoms, executive director of the ACLU of Louisiana. “Public schools are not Sunday schools. We must protect the individual right of students and families to choose their own faith or no faith at all. The separation of church and state is a bedrock of our nation’s founding principles; the ten commandments are not.”


“This lawsuit is necessary to protect the religious freedom of Louisiana public schoolchildren and their families,” said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. “Not just in Louisiana, but all across the country, Christian Nationalists are seeking to infiltrate our public schools and force everyone to live by their beliefs. Not under our watch. Secular, inclusive public schools that welcome all students regardless of their belief system form the backbone of our diverse and religiously pluralistic communities. This nation must recommit to our foundational principle of church-state separation before it’s too late. Public education, religious freedom and democracy are all on the line.”


“A state may not force religion upon a captive audience of young and impressionable students with varying religions — or none at all,” said FFRF Legal Director Patrick Elliott. “We look forward to protecting the constitutional rights of all families in Louisiana.”


Jon Youngwood, Global Co-Chair of the Litigation Department at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, added, “As the Complaint states, Louisiana’s law inhibits our clients’ First Amendment rights to choose whether and how they engage with religious doctrines. We look forward to expeditiously presenting this case to the district court for a speedy resolution.”


A copy of the complaint can be found here: https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads...v.-Brumley.pdf



https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/...n-commandments

Matthew 7:15

“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.”

King James Version (KJV)

[PAF]

Nice definition.
Posting the 10 doesn't do any of that.
Nobody is required to believe or follow the 10, save by the laws that cover the same subjects as some of them.

Whether or not they believe it, a politician/government is establishing it by requiring that it be displayed in all schools, by way of legislation.

[Anti Federalist]

This still does not rise to the level of "establishing" a religion.

You are not required to read them.

You are not required to recite them.

You are not required to memorize them.

You are not required to obey them.

You are not required to worship them.

[Swordsmyth]

Whether or not they believe it, a politician/government is establishing it by requiring that it be displayed in all schools, by way of legislation.

False.
That's not establishing a religion.
Establishing a religion is requiring people to fund and follow it.

[Anti Federalist]

too many people think that the government's failure to promote their particular faith amounts to the promotion of some other ideology

The hell you say...

[Swordsmyth]

This bears repeating:

The 10 Commandments are part of our cultural history and the foundation of our laws.
They should absolutely be on display in every courthouse and government building.

Whether there should be government schools is a different question.

It's not a 1stA violation, it's freedom of religion not freedom from religion.
Watch who sides with the atheists and satanist on the lies about the 1stA and the attacks on GOD's laws, they can't be trusted.

[PAF]

This still does not rise to the level of "establishing" a religion.

You are not required to read them.

You are not required to recite them.

You are not required to memorize them.

You are not required to obey them.

You are not required to worship them.

The same can be said about "displaying" q%eers in miniskirts in K-12. Would you want a law "promoting" that?

[PAF]

This bears repeating:

So does this:

Project 2025

- It adopts a maximalist version of the unitary executive theory, a disputed interpretation of Article II of the Constitution of the United States, which asserts that the president has absolute power over the executive branch upon inauguration.

- Jeffrey Clark, a contributor to the project and a former official within the DOJ, would advise the future president to immediately deploy the military for domestic law enforcement by invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807.

- It promotes capital punishment and the speedy "finality" of those sentences.

- Critics of Project 2025 have described it as an authoritarian, Christian nationalist movement that seeks to reform the United States into an autocracy. Several experts in law have indicated that it would undermine the rule of law and the separation of powers. Some conservatives and Republicans also criticized the plan, for example in the contexts of centralizing power, individual rights and freedoms.

- Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a scholar of fascism and authoritarian leaders at New York University, wrote in May 2024 that Project 2025 "is a plan for an authoritarian takeover of the United States that goes by a deceptively neutral name."

- Doing away with the separation of church and state is the goal of many architects of Trumpism, from Project 2025 contributor Russ Vought to far-right proselytizer Michael Flynn, who uses the idea of "spiritual war" as counterrevolutionary fuel ...

This explains Trump's call for Federally-Funded Nationwide "Stop and Frisk" and complete Local LEO Immunity, among other anti-liberty agenda.

[Sonny Tufts]

Nothing in the Constitution prohibits it.

The Establishment Clause does. Take it up with SCOTUS. Incidentally, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment in particular are supposed to limit the authority of federal and state governments. Instead of asking whether the Constitution prohibits posting the Ten you should ask whether it permits it.

And we as a Christian country have every right to promote the Christian (not exclusively ours) values that our culture and laws are founded on.

Promoting values is one thing. Promoting them in a religious context (e.g., that there is a God who doesn't want people to worship other gods) is something else.

[Swordsmyth]

The same can be said about "displaying" q%eers in miniskirts in K-12. Would you want a law "promoting" that?

One can oppose the display of something, that doesn't make it unconstitutional to display it, but there are laws against corrupting minors already which need to be enforced.
And if one opposes the display of evil things that is good.
If one opposes the display of virtuous things that is evil.

[Swordsmyth]

The Establishment Clause does. Take it up with SCOTUS. Incidentally, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment in particular are supposed to limit the authority of federal and state governments. Instead of asking whether the Constitution prohibits posting the Ten you should ask whether it permits it.

You need to read the 10thA.
Only the feds are limited to the powers specified in the Constitution, ALL others belong to the states and the people.
And Dredd Scott was also SCOTUS precedent along with many other false, unconstitutional, and evil things.

The old SCOTUS ruling was false and evil.

Promoting values is one thing. Promoting them in a religious context (e.g., that there is a God who doesn't want people to worship other gods) is something else.

It's not establishing a religion.
That's all that matters.

[Swordsmyth]

So does this:

A false flag operation.

[PAF]

One can oppose the display of something, that doesn't make it unconstitutional to display it, but there are laws against corrupting minors already which need to be enforced.
And if one opposes the display of evil things that is good.
If one opposes the display of virtuous things that is evil.

You can oppose it all you want. There is a reason for "separation of church and state". Government indoctrination camps are NOT Sunday School.

Project 2025

- It adopts a maximalist version of the unitary executive theory, a disputed interpretation of Article II of the Constitution of the United States, which asserts that the president has absolute power over the executive branch upon inauguration.

- Jeffrey Clark, a contributor to the project and a former official within the DOJ, would advise the future president to immediately deploy the military for domestic law enforcement by invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807.

- It promotes capital punishment and the speedy "finality" of those sentences.

- Critics of Project 2025 have described it as an authoritarian, Christian nationalist movement that seeks to reform the United States into an autocracy. Several experts in law have indicated that it would undermine the rule of law and the separation of powers. Some conservatives and Republicans also criticized the plan, for example in the contexts of centralizing power, individual rights and freedoms.

- Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a scholar of fascism and authoritarian leaders at New York University, wrote in May 2024 that Project 2025 "is a plan for an authoritarian takeover of the United States that goes by a deceptively neutral name."

- Doing away with the separation of church and state is the goal of many architects of Trumpism, from Project 2025 contributor Russ Vought to far-right proselytizer Michael Flynn, who uses the idea of "spiritual war" as counterrevolutionary fuel ...

This explains Trump's call for Federally-Funded Nationwide "Stop and Frisk" and complete Local LEO Immunity, among other anti-liberty agenda.

[Sonny Tufts]

Marxism is a religion.

That wasn't the point. The point was whether the mere failure to promote a particular faith (e.g., Christianity) violates the freedom of people to practice their particular faith (e.g., Christianity). Unless you're going to argue that a particular faith (e.g., Christianity) has a preferred position (an idea nowhere to be found in the Constitution), then the failure to promote all other faiths violates the free exercise rights of believers in such faiths.

[Swordsmyth]

You can oppose it all you want. There is a reason for "separation of church and state". Government indoctrination camps are NOT Sunday School.

Project 2025

- It adopts a maximalist version of the unitary executive theory, a disputed interpretation of Article II of the Constitution of the United States, which asserts that the president has absolute power over the executive branch upon inauguration.

- Jeffrey Clark, a contributor to the project and a former official within the DOJ, would advise the future president to immediately deploy the military for domestic law enforcement by invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807.

- It promotes capital punishment and the speedy "finality" of those sentences.

- Critics of Project 2025 have described it as an authoritarian, Christian nationalist movement that seeks to reform the United States into an autocracy. Several experts in law have indicated that it would undermine the rule of law and the separation of powers. Some conservatives and Republicans also criticized the plan, for example in the contexts of centralizing power, individual rights and freedoms.

- Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a scholar of fascism and authoritarian leaders at New York University, wrote in May 2024 that Project 2025 "is a plan for an authoritarian takeover of the United States that goes by a deceptively neutral name."

- Doing away with the separation of church and state is the goal of many architects of Trumpism, from Project 2025 contributor Russ Vought to far-right proselytizer Michael Flynn, who uses the idea of "spiritual war" as counterrevolutionary fuel ...

This explains Trump's call for Federally-Funded Nationwide "Stop and Frisk" and complete Local LEO Immunity, among other anti-liberty agenda.[/INDENT]

P2025 is a false flag operation with no connection to Trump.

Posting the cultural foundation of our laws and liberty is not turning government schools (which shouldn't exist, but that's a different question) into seminaries.
The 10 commandments are a part of history and should be taught as history, particularly as part of American history, that doesn't require anyone to believe or follow them any more than teaching about the NAZIs requires people to hate Jews or be socialist.

[Swordsmyth]

That wasn't the point. The point was whether the mere failure to promote a particular faith (e.g., Christianity) violates the freedom of people to practice their particular faith (e.g., Christianity). Unless you're going to argue that a particular faith (e.g., Christianity) has a preferred position (an idea nowhere to be found in the Constitution), then the failure to promote all other faiths violates the free exercise rights of believers in such faiths.

Nobody said we have a positive right to have it promoted, we don't, and neither does any other religion.
The right we have is to promote it if we so choose, and to do so through our representatives in government.
Particularly since we are only discussing displaying the foundation of our culture and laws.

[Sonny Tufts]

You need to read the 10thA.
Only the feds are limited to the powers specified in the Constitution, ALL others belong to the states and the people.

I suggest you read the 14th Amendment, which applies most of the Bill of Rights to the States, including the Establishment Clause.

Aside from the incorporation of the Establishment Clause, a good argument can be made that a state's making legal distinctions based on religious believes violates the Equal Protection Clause. To date, this argument hasn't been necessary.
And Dredd Scott was also SCOTUS precedent along with many other false, unconstitutional, and evil things.

The old SCOTUS ruling was false and evil.



It's not establishing a religion.
That's all that matters.[/QUOTE]

[PAF]

P2025 is a false flag operation with no connection to Trump.

Posting the cultural foundation of our laws and liberty is not turning government schools (which shouldn't exist, but that's a different question) into seminaries.
The 10 commandments are a part of history and should be taught as history, particularly as part of American history, that doesn't require anyone to believe or follow them any more than teaching about the NAZIs requires people to hate Jews or be socialist.

Copyright © The Heritage Foundation 2023-2024

Practice it in Sunday School. Politicians/Government Has No Business In HealthCare Establishing Religion

[Swordsmyth]

I suggest you read the 14th Amendment, which applies most of the Bill of Rights to the States, including the Establishment Clause.

Aside from the incorporation of the Establishment Clause, a good argument can be made that a state's making legal distinctions based on religious believes violates the Equal Protection Clause. To date, this argument hasn't been necessary.

The state is not establishing a religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise of one.
Nor is that state making legal distinctions based on religious beliefs.

[Swordsmyth]

Copyright © The Heritage Foundation 2023-2024

Practice it in Sunday School. Politicians/Government Has No Business In HealthCare Establishing Religion

Them putting together a list they want to promote to Trump doesn't make anything they want something Trump is behind.
Some of it may appeal to him, but other parts may not.
There is no connection, and the people behind this are just like Graham pushing for a nationwide abortion ban after Trump said leave it to the states, they are trying to make real conservatives look bad.

And La is not establishing a religion.