In this Huffington Post article, independent journalist Nida Khan argues that despite the changes made by in the Executive Order, Donald Trump and his administration is still largely discriminating against Muslims. She believes that Tump's anti-Muslim comments were very thought out and his supporters are to blame for this order being in placed because they tend to look the other way when xenophobic comments are made. She argues that it only takes to ban a certain number of Muslim countries to discriminate against all Muslims. Khan reveals a liberal perspective due to the fact that she is writing for an American journalism company with a reputation as a liberal news source. Because of this, it is clear that Khan believes the Executive Order on the Travel Ban should be seen unconstitutional despite trying to make it look legally correct by changing the order and not having a preference for a religion. She understands that the comments once made by Trump were used as a way to discriminate against a certain religious group and it isn't credible to say the order is there to keep the country safe. Khan's liberal stance demonstrates her understanding of the attack Muslims feel; it's clear that she wants to contribute in helping minority groups and for it to be seen that the Executive Order does attack a religious group. The Executive Order, from her point of view, doesn't help keep the country safe but rather only begins more ignorance and hate.
In this USA Today Article written by Richard Wolf, a conservative political commentator, states that Trump's Travel Ban Executive Order could go to the Supreme Court and the government could have a higher probability of passing the ban through SCOTUS unless the appeal courts can come to an agreement. Richard Wolf comments on the positions of the appeal courts mentioning how because they're mostly Democratic they are likely to agree on the Travel Ban being unconstitutional based on them being largely liberals. Despite this, Trump's order may be passed given the fact that his rewrite of the order no longer excludes those with visas or has a religious preference. Justice Neil Gorsuch as well as Chief Justice John Roberts believe that the Travel Ban is constitutional with Trump's previous comments about Muslims not being suitable to dismiss the order. They both have a conservative perspective that could be influenced by who nominated them for their positions. Gorsuch being nominated by President Donald Trump and Roberts nominated by George W. Bush they represent the Republican Party which is known for being conservative and care to keep certain people out in order to keep the country safe. They both don't see the real discrimination behind Trump's anti-Muslim statements and don't understand the importance behind allowing refugees to enter the country. Focused on only the privileged class, they dismiss any other religious groups and therefore favoring Christians, which was a part of the first Travel Ban Executive Order, allowing the government to discriminate against Muslims and favoring a religious group whether or not it is explicitly mentioned.
In this Washington Post Article, the author, George F. Will discussed the position of Missouri when it comes to giving religious schools money to fix things like their playgrounds. Mitch McConnell argues that, despite the First Amendment's establishment of religion, governments should be able to fund religious schools because there are certain things that happen at religious school that are no different from things that happen at public schools. He argues that simple things like a playground don't have the ability to strengthen or approaching some sort of religion to others. Being a part of the Republican Party and being a United States Senator it's clear that McConell takes a conservative stance when it comes to government and religion and that they shouldn't be completely separate despite the Blaine Amendments or the Establishment Clause within the First Amendment. McConell doesn't appreciate the separation of powers and because of his conservative opinions he values religion which is why he believes children should be allowed to receive money from the government despite them going to a religious school. He doesn't value the fact that the government shouldn't establish a religion and by wanting the government to provide financial funds to religious institutions, he undermines the values of the Establishment Clause and the separation of church and state.
In this Washington Post article, the authors, Valerie Strauss and Diane Ravitch, argue against the federal government funding religious schools and therefore support the Blaine Amendment. Diane Ravitch states that voters have said over and over again that they don't want to help pay for religious schools and that because of the First Amendment, the government isn't and shouldn't be allowed to fund religious schools because that would mean establishing certain religions. She believes that there should be a separation between church and state and wants religious based educations to thrive but not with public money but instead private money. Being a leader in a movement against school reform, Ravitch holds a liberal stance when it comes to education. She holds a strong opinion that due to the First Amendment and the Establishment Clause, the Blaine Amendment should remain in place otherwise an intervention from the government will take place in religious schools. It's clear that Ravitch believes in the importance of having a wall between religion and government and this leads her to believe the government doesn't have a responsibility to fund religion based schools. Ravitch understands the dangers that come with removing the Blaine Amendment and no longer following certain rights given by the Constitution. She strongly holds the idea of democracy and respecting rights that are set by the Constitution.
The article written by Capital News Service to CBS 6, the writer discusses general assemblies having prayer and whether or not it is constitutional. Despite the First Amendment and the Establishment Clause, many argue that it is in fact constitutional to have prayer at assemblies because the amendment states nothing about state religion and is only there to protect religious liberties. The author states two different opinions about prayer at assemblies from Rabbi Dovid Asher and from Patrick Elliott. Rabbi Dovid Asher states a conservative stance and believes that when putting someone in office, they should have some sort of religious background. Being a Rabbi, it's clear that Asher is a traditionalist and that he believes religion is important when it comes to making political decisions. He disregards the establishment of religion and doesn't put a wall between the government and religion. On the other hand, Patrick Elliott believes that legislators did wrong when praying at assemblies. Being a staff attorney for the Freedom from Religion Foundation, Elliott holds a liberal opinion when it comes to religion and government. He appreciates the separation of church and state and believes that the First Amendment should be respected whether it's state religion or not because there are many people present in the assemblies who don't hold the same religious opinions as those who are leading and following the prayer.