What Happens When Courts Test Freedom By Tradition

A “historical” series can look authentic and still sell you a false story, and that matters because stories shape what we think America is. We respond to a listener question about the History Channel’s Sons of Liberty and explain why accuracy is more than dates and costumes. We talk about the telltale signs of a modern, cynical lens that spotlights grime, vice, and cheap drama while flattening the founding era’s strongest motivations: faith, duty, courage, and a fierce sense of justice rooted in something bigger than politics.

From there, we zoom out into a bigger question that sits right at the intersection of faith and culture: after Dobbs and the Supreme Court’s renewed emphasis on “history and tradition,” could a state establish a religion or require a statement of faith for public officials the way some early states once did? We walk through the legal framework that complicates that idea, especially selective incorporation and how the Fourteenth Amendment has been used to apply the Bill of Rights to the states, shifting enormous authority to federal courts over time.

We also dig into religious tests for office and why Torcaso v. Watkins (1961) is still a key case for understanding church and state, the First Amendment, and why so many public expressions of religion were pushed out of schools and civic life in the 1960s. If you care about constitutional history, the American Revolution, and how to measure pop culture against primary sources, this conversation gives you tools you can use immediately. Subscribe, share this with a friend, and leave a review with your take: should “history and tradition” be the standard that guides the courts?

Support the show