Here are the basics of the issue IMO.
There are two main options. One says, "let's have a society with freedom of religion, where there is no official state religion, and the state can't do anything that shows support for some religious views over others, creating punishment for people with the 'wrong' views. Religious rights are things people have that are separate from government."
The other says, "Freedom of religion means my religion can do pretty much anything it wants, and the government can do religious things I agree with, and people with other religions can just deal with it. School prayer I agree with is important to have, and banning it restricts my freedom. I'd be fine with our country being officially the religion I like and I think it should."
That second group are an easy-made political target by politicians willing to pander to them, by opposing the first group and supporting the second. "Those big bad liberals want to hurt you by banning prayer in school, we're on your side to allow it."
The *motives* for the politicians who do that pandering are usually simply pursuit of power. Just like trying to get votes for anything the target voters oppose, like segregation, or school busing, or gas guzzler laws, or any others where some voters are against a principle or policy. There are people who would vote for a politician saying "ban all Muslims from the US", which trump largely said.
It's the same issue that existed when Nazis scapegoated Jews, socialists and others; and when US Republicans targeted gays, transgender people, Muslims, and other groups. Anything that can get votes, to get power, when some voters don't support the 'government has to be neutral, everyone treated equally' type principles. And there are big bucks spent on pursuing those votes to get power.
Sometimes, Democrats feel pressure to go along with the pandering. FDR infamously ordered the Japanese internment camps when that had wide public support. Truman accepted some measures like 'loyalty oaths' Republicans demanded during the red scare. Today, some Democrats are opposing ending the trump policy of banning asylum seekers using Covid as an excuse, recognizing the political risk in the mid-terms.
Any time there is tension between some voters and principles of equality especially, and especially when the opposition is a majority of people, there will be politicians who can try to get political benefit by pandering to the voters who want the inequality in their favor instead of the equality - and it often works.
We try to protect against that with high-minded constitutional rules for equality, and 'independent' courts protected from political pressure to follow that public sentiment and protect the rights, but now Republicans groom judges who will support the views they want and appoint them, who will rule they way they like. That's the possibility we're seeing in this case. They might be insulated on the bench - but not in the selection process when appointed.
www.freedomforuminstitute.org
