For Justice Day 7 – Freedom of Religion
I take this subject personally and have a hard time editing for brevity. I have composed an essay that draws shamelessly from and combines the excellent work of Susan Jacoby,
Maria Luisa Tucker,
Tom Peters, and David Kirkpatrick (access denied by NYT gatekeeper.) See also About the First Amendment. You will probably want to delete and edit my personal declarations in the first part, please make changes as you wish.
Click here for members of the Judiciary Committee, and click here for your senators.
Dear Senator:
I was born an American. Among all the blessings of my birth, that one has had the most powerful influence on my life. My parents did their best to educate me in their religion, but as I grew older I came to see that it was a matter of choice. The sacred documents of my country assured me that I was free to develop my own personal version of what God is. I am free to join a church, to worship or not, to pray or not, to believe what I will.
The creeds of America became my religion, I share them with anyone who tries to convert me to his own version of the truth. I have faith that all men are created equal, that we are alike even though each is different.
I am proud to belong to a nation that functions by the rule of law, with nobody above that law. I believe in the concept of fairness, and of opportunity shared by all. I believe that what is between my god and myself is a private matter.
The founders of the United States very deliberately gave us a democratic republic that eliminated class distinction and religion. As Noah Webster told us in 1783 “The very idea of a system of religious principles…is totally repugnant to the spirit of christianity. Every establishment is only a milder term for tyranny… It is an insult to humanity, a solemn mockery of all justice and common sense….”
This view has been opposed since our beginning when the Rev. John Mason warned Americans that they would “have every reason to tremble, lest the Governor of the universe…crush us to atoms in the wreck.”
The founders shared the belief that Europe’s melding of religion and government had been bad for both, so they guaranteed our basic freedoms with the Bill of Rights; separating our state from any established religion.
Religious reactionaries have been relentless in their attacks on our secular state. In the 1820’s Senator Richard M. Johnson had to defend the Post Office from accusations of sacrilege. President Lincoln ignored demands that the Constitution be amended to declare Jesus Christ lord of the land.
Now, we are subjected to the threats of Pat Robertson and his comrades of the cross, along with the so-called `war on Christmas.’ As Esther Kaplan points out in her book “With God on Their Side”
“You cannot underestimate the extent to which the Christian Right feels like this is the culmination of their work. This is the moment they’ve been waiting for. Roe v Wade was the single most important factor in the rise of the Christian Right as a social movement, and the brass ring has always been to stack the Supreme Court so they can overturn that decision. They have the Senate, they have the presidency. This really is their moment and they are going to pull out all the stops.”
Fundamentalists thrive on creating adversity, chaos and strife. Dominion is their goal, never peace. I am deeply frightened of the extreme animosity that smolders in our country, and dread that the confirmation of Samuel Alito could be the spark that sets it off.
Inevitably, a Justice will be influenced by his private morality and religion; but Judge Alito seems to believe it is constitutionally permissible to disregard the rights of both unbelievers and unorthodox believers. A man such as this does not belong on the Supreme Court.
Alice – this is beautiful!
You have spoken from the heart, expressing what I hold so dear and my fear – thank you!
(minor edit – in Kaplan’s quote “Court” is missing a “t.”)
I read and reread until I was sick of it. Isn’t it odd how your brain will fill in what your eyes can’t see. I can’t take credit for any of it, I just mixed it together.
Luckily, we’re not the only ones horrified at this prospect.
Tell your Senators, no to Alito:
Save the Court Petition
And while you’re at it: sign Planned Parenthood’s anti-Alito petition, too:
Planned Parenthood Petition
NARAL is shooting for 500,000 signatures, please add yours:
Naral Anti-Alito Petition
Campus Progress’ “Stop Alito’s America” Campaign
Stop Alito’s America Petition
And don’t forget: urge Congress to support Plan B:
Plan B Petition
Excellent Alice. This series of letters has been well done, and I’m hoping that the decision makers will take them to heart. Off to send them. I’ve sent so many letters to these poor people, the staff probably has me in a special file marked “nutcase.”
from a letter I wrote to the Miami Herlad, published immediately before the ’04 election (I hope it is a useful contribution to this thread. I am also posting it in day 6, church and state):
The Establishment of Religion
The Supreme Court of the United States will undergo significant changes in the next few years. Two of the Justices, including the Chief Justice, are 80 or older, and two are over 70. Two of the youngest members are Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas, and Justice Scalia has been mentioned by many as a candidate to replace Chief Justice Rehnquist on his retirement. A new Supreme Court will soon begin to consider issue of significance to all Americans, including the role of religion in our public lives. This term the Court agreed to hear a case considering the public display of the Ten Commandments. This decisions, and many others, will be decided based upon the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution. It is, therefore, of interest to consider how a new Court might rule on such issues.
The First Amendment, in relevant part, states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”
The Fourteenth Amendment, in relevant part, states, “*No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; ….”
The issue, then is the meaning of the First Amendment, and its application to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. To date, the Court has applied the Establishment Clause through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibiting the establishment of state religions, particularly in cases related to school prayer, graduation day prayers, and the Pledge of Allegiance. Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia, in different opinions, have suggested a different conclusion, a conclusion that would permit individual States to establish public religions, and to delegate state authority to churches.
Lee v. Weisman
In a dissenting opinion in Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 112 S.Ct. 2649, 120 L.Ed.2d 467 (1992), Justice Scalia castigated the majority of the Court for deciding its opinion in a graduation prayer case on the psychology of coercion rather than history. The majority decision found that a graduation prayer was coercive, as students attending graduation were required to stand and either join the prayer or remain silent. The Court considered evidence of psychological that this created a coercive atmosphere violative of the Establishment Clause. Justice Scalia ridiculed the Court’s decision, stating “[a]s its instrument of destruction, the bulldozer of its social engineering, the Court invents a boundless, and boundlessly manipulable, test of psychological coercion….” He went on to state “interior decorating is a rock-hard science compared to psychology practiced by amateurs. A few citations of ‘research in psychology’ that have no particular bearing upon the precise issue here cannot disguise the fact that the Court has gone beyond the realm where judges know what they are doing.”
Having first ridiculed the majority’s decision, Justice Scalia turned next to the Establishment Clause. “The Establishment Clause,” he wrote, “was adopted to prohibit such an establishment of religion at the federal level (and to protect state establishments of religion from federal interference).” The import of the last statement might well be hidden by its location in a parenthetical statement, but it can not be underestimated, for it is the heart of Justice Scalia’s opinion. His final position is that States are free to establish official religions. Further, he would only limit such establishment to prohibit actual coercion, “acts backed by threat of penalty” by the State government. In other words, short of statutory punishment, such as imprisonment or fine, a State could establish an official religion, and delegate to it official state functions. Justice Scalia went on, arguing on behalf of public and institutional prayer. He wrote “[c]hurch and state would not be such a difficult subject if religion were, as the Court apparently thinks it to be, some purely personal avocation that can be indulged, entirely in secret, like pornography, in the privacy of one’s own room. For most believers it is not that, and has never been. Religious men and women of almost all denominations have felt it necessary to acknowledge and beseech the blessing of God as a people, and not just as individuals.” While, on its face, this argument has validity, combined with the establishment of an official State religion it legitimizes public devotion, not at individual churches or synagogues, but at public institutions and events.
Elk Grove
Justice Thomas built on Justice Scalia’s Lee dissenting opinion in his own dissent in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, No. 02-1624. Argued March 24, 2004–Decided June 14, 2004, the recent Pledge of Allegiance “Under God” case. He introduced his opinion stating “I would take this opportunity to begin the process of rethinking the Establishment Clause.” He wrote that he accepted the Free Exercise Clause as applied against the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, but “the Establishment Clause is another matter,” and “it makes little sense to incorporate the Establishment Clause.” Justice Thomas opined that the Establishment Clause protects only the States, and not individual rights. “[T]he Establishment Clause,” he wrote, “is best understood as a federalism provision–it protects state establishments from federal interference but does not protect any individual rights.”
Justice Thomas went on to discuss exactly what he meant by “state establishments,” describing official endorsement of a particular religion throughout State governmental authority. He began where Justice Scalia left off, discussing legal coercion, and finding (inconsistently with his thesis, that the Establishment Clause simply does not apply to States) that coercion through force of law and threat of penalty remained prohibited. However, he went on to state, there were other ways for a State to establish a religion without coercion. He wrote “[i]t is also conceivable that a government could ‘establish’ a religion by imbuing it with governmental authority, or by delegating its civic authority to a group chosen according to a religious criterion.” This opinion is disturbing for two reasons. First, it encourages official public endorsement of, and delegation of authority to, an individual religion. Second, and even more pernicious, the internal illogic hints that Justice Thomas’ limitation against coercion is a temporary public sop, promising religion without Inquisition. However, if his opinion is accepted at face value, the Establishment Clause simply does not apply to states, and therefore contains no limitations. Individuals might remain protected by the Free Exercise Clause, indeed that might have been Justice Thomas’ point, but his opinion as written does not state that.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court will consider issues of great importance to all Americans. In the next few years, the Court will address issues of religion and State’s establishment of religion, handing down decisions that will affect us for at least a generation. These cases could be of particular import to any member of a religious minority, be they Jewish, Moslem, Hindu, or even a non-Protestant Christian. At least two present Justices interpret the Constitution to allow, not only official State endorsement of religion, but actual delegation of governmental authority to official churches. This conclusion is derived directly from the writings, in Court opinions, of Justices Scalia and Thomas, and portends one possible future for our country.
This is exactly what we had hoped to inspire in starting this series of diaries!
I regret that I have but 2 4s to give you for this (One in this diary and one in the day 6 diary where you posted this as well, lol)
If it isn’t in a diary already you should put it in one. If it is, where’s the link?
It’s pretty old. I diaried it on dKos, but that was over a year ago. My intent then was to get it printed in the Miami Herald before the Presidential election, since Miami has the largest concentration of Jews in a swing state in the country. It was printed but, alas, wasn’t enough to compete with Diebold and FEMA handouts.
Really great, Alice. You don’t need any apologies for any part. Good work!
She had 2 diaries to write… And she wrote two outstanding efforts. I know I had a hard enough time with just one. I don’t think I could have done 2! Yikes!
This has been a much larger undertaking than I ever thought it would be. I am just glad that we have so many people participating.
Great job Alice!
I’ve felt it in the streets since 9/11 its everywhere, its just under the surface, its hatred and intolerance. The christian right is kerosene to glowing embers. They take care of an inconvenient conscience. They are the wacko militant mullahs of the west. The self-righteous always go over the top. The bin ladens and bushs alway take it to where death is involved, they have to bring the ultimate nightmare down on people and their families. Whats up with that you know? Is it worth your children George? They come into your home and in the name of religion tell you whether you will bear chidren. Who you will marry. Whether you will say Merry Christmas or Happy Holiday’s. Not to be cliche but “for the love of christ shut the fuck up”. Oh yeah that’s only cliche in my family.
posted at dembloggers, epm, mydd and i added it to c-man’s diary at political cortex.
c-man; maybe you could just keep updating the day in the title?
if you send your browser to politicalcortex.com, your diary is right there under “top-rated submissions.”
For speaking for me and many others.
I am so burnt out (and ill) right now and have little energy to do much more than respond to a few diarists.