Freedom-loving liberals are pushing back against the Christian nationalist’s stranglehold on our judicial system. Since the Supreme Court made it clear the basis for their edicts on religious questions is their personal beliefs, protecting the nation from the Supreme Court has become essential to defending democracy.

Recent Supreme Court edicts have emboldened Christian nationalist legislators at the state level to drop the pretense their abortion bans have some legal basis. Previously, legislators went out of their way to disguise the religious basis of abortion bans. Things changed when the Supreme Court was packed with three new Christian nationalists. When this court overturned Roe v. Wade, they opened the floodgates to a deluge of abortion restrictions. Now, legislators know if the laws they write violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, this Supreme Court is still likely to rule in their favor.

When Missouri legislators cited their religious beliefs as the basis for the state’s abortion bans, they violated the U.S. Constitution and the Missouri Constitution. Americans United for the Separation of Church and State (AU) and the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) are suing Missouri. Thirteen clergies from six denominations, including an Episcopal bishop, an orthodox Jewish rabbi, a United Methodist pastor, a Reformed Jewish rabbi, a United Church of Christ minister, and a Unitarian Universalist minister, back their suit.

The AU and the NWLC state, “Missouri’s abortion bans are unconstitutional. We are challenging Missouri’s abortion bans because when state legislators give their personal religious doctrine the force of law, they violate America’s promise to separate church and state and (violate) everyone’s religious freedom, from the devout to the nonbeliever.”

The religious beliefs of a minority of anti-abortion legislators are no basis for enacting laws that everyone must follow. However, abortion bans in this country have always been based on an ultra-conservative Christian view. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s argument to overturn Roe v. Wade was based on his religious views. The Missouri legislators also gave their religious beliefs the force of law that imposes their religious views on everyone.

Previously, Supreme Court justices got along with a pretense of open-mindedness despite holding different legal opinions. Most famously, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was friends with Justice Scalia, a mismatch on ideological grounds. Conflict along ideological lines began when the court was packed with three more Christian Nationalists. That conflict escalated when the court overturned Roe v. Wade. Steven Mazie, a correspondent for The Economist who covers the Supreme Court, wrote he has seen an open display of conflict in the courtroom’ “a noticeable departure from the collegiality of years past.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor exposed the pretense when she questioned the lawyer representing Mississippi in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the case that overturned Roe v. Wade. She asked the lawyer to explain his claim that Roe v. Wade takes away the right of a state to protect a life: “How is your interest anything but a religious view?” The Mississippi lawyer had no answer.

When the Christian nationalists on the Supreme Court agreed to hear the hypothetical case (it only takes five-justice to hear a case) of 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis on Dec. 5, they revealed the lengths to which they will go to impose their religious beliefs on the entire country. During oral arguments, there was no pretense that the six ultra-conservative justice’s allegiance was to their religious beliefs and not the U.S. Constitution.

Lorie Smith, a Christian nationalist, owns 303 Creative LLC, a graphic design company based in Colorado. She now offers wedding websites but opposes making a site for same-sex couples on religious grounds. This is an entirely fabricated non-case because no same-sex couple has asked her to create a wedding website. Smith sued the state of Colorado and lost in district court. The U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the decision, and the case went to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court isn’t just more conservative, it is more strained: “When ideologically divisive issues appear on the docket, the agitation bubbles up. In any other workplace, a manager would be concerned about the impact of such fractured relationships on the ability of a nine-member team to work together productively. The worry is more urgent when the testy interpersonal dynamics are among the nation’s highest court members.”

Religious freedom demands the right to choose, and the separation of church and state protects religious freedom. However, the wall of separation is under attack. If it falls, no one will have freedom of religion.

Tom Waddell is president of the Maine Chapter of the Freedom from Religion Foundation. He welcomes comments at [email protected] and ffrfmaine.org.