Separation of Religion and State

 
A Fine Distinction Between Religion and Government

People who object to the notion of a separation of religion and state claim to be constitutional purists—the U.S. Constitution says nothing about such a separation, they insist. Well, the other side believes it has the Constitution squarely on its side. Who’s right? We’re no constitutional scholars; all we know is that if we had the opportunity to draft a constitution from scratch today, we would make sure there is no confusion over separation of religion and state.

That said, we find Turkey’s ban on wearing religious clothing (headscarves, for example) in schools and government offices heavy-handed and draconian. We are equally baffled by the French government’s move in December 2003 to ban the wearing of all religious symbols in public schools, including Muslim headscarves, Jewish skullcaps, and large Christian crucifixes. Only private companies and institutions should have the right to impose an employee dress code (there have been lawsuits in the U.S. regarding cornrows, dreadlocks, and headscarves in the workplace). The government and public universities must take care to not infringe on an adult’s freedom of religion and expression.

Never Mind the 1950s Remix: The Cold War Is Over

If you’re going to challenge the modified version of the Pledge of Allegiance, the best time to do it is in the post-September 11 climate. Everybody paid attention in June 2002 when a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, in a 2-1 decision, that the Pledge of Allegiance violates the separation of religion and state. We were more surprised by the uproar from the public and politicians than the ruling itself.

Kudos to the three members of the U.S. Congress who refused to go along with the pandering resolution defending the Pledge of Allegiance: Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.), Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.), and Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.). And shame on those senators who literally raced to the chambers to recite the pledge on C-SPAN. When Congress passed a similar resolution in October 2002, two more members joined their three colleagues and voted against it: Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.).

We were taken aback again when the full Ninth Circuit Court declined in February 2003 to reconsider the decision by the three-judge panel. Many legal observers had predicted the court would bow to prevailing public sentiments and patriotic fervor and reverse the earlier ruling. Since the Ninth Circuit Court covers nine Western states, the U.S. Supreme Court must take up this case to settle the issue for the entire nation. We hope the Supremes have the courage to undo what Congress did in 1953 (a legacy of the Cold War) and revert back to the original 1892 version of the Pledge of Allegiance as, shall we say, God intended.

By the way, critics of the Ninth Circuit Court have often cited this court as the most "liberal" appellate court in the country because many of its rulings have been reversed by the Supreme Court (then the highest court must be "conservative"). We’ve also heard other people counter that the Supreme Court has equally overturned some of the other appellate courts. The fairest comparison would require an examination of the longest period during which there was no personnel change on any of the 11 appellate courts and the Supreme Court. Could someone in the mainstream press look into this? We don’t have the budget or resources to do the research ourselves.

And let this be a lesson to our young visitors: always ask questions and beware of urban legends.

Try This Commandment on for Size: Thou Shalt Not Appoint or Elect Zealots

We were not surprised the Ten Commandments monument in the Alabama Supreme Court lobby had to go in August 2003. How did Chief Justice Roy Moore “sneak” it into the building in 2001? Didn’t his colleagues give him a reality check? When he was a circuit court judge 10 years ago, he adorned a wall with a Ten Commandments plaque (a courtroom is not a personal office; you don’t decorate it with family photos, let alone religious symbols).

Let’s hope the state’s local newspapers have carefully reviewed the former professional kick-boxer’s legal opinions. It’s scary that someone like that could be serving on a state supreme court. The good news: the other Alabama Supreme Court justices voted unanimously against him. The bad news: the polls indicated over 75 percent of Alabamians supported him. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up this case in November 2003. Case closed.

Copyright © 2002-2018 Shirtydame.blogspot.com. All rights reserved.

Labels: current events, essays, government, opinion, religion

posted by Blog Lanistas at Permalink