When you read the Constitution and try to interpret it, do you read it in a Catholic way? Protestant? Jewish? Secular? Other?
Is there a difference?
You bet there is.
We each see the world through a compound lens with a range from tele- to macro- scopic. Far away and close up. It's got filters on it. If our parents raised us or we later chose, or drifted away from, a religion, we may not realized it, or be able to do much about it, comfortably, but we've colored the light passing through the lens. You can compensate for such bias, called observer error in scientific testing, if you know about it and shift accordingly, not that you necessarily wish to shift. In some cases you wish to. If you grew up in America and are aware that despite best efforts you absorbed a certain amount of racial or ethnic attitude -- (I have an Internet correspondent that I've become friendly with over the years through frequent interaction who, as a jocular rejoinder on the telephone the first time we spoke live, said "You Polack." That was his idea of fun.) then you either ignore any inconvenient attitudes and deny being the least bit prejudiced in any way, as my correspondent does, or you say I've got a problem that I need to work on. The latter way may turn out to be less embarrassing in the long run.
So we have these lenses through which we see the world, and that includes the Constitution, any constitution that we might have in mind. One of these filters influences the way read history.
Were the Americans justified on dropping the A-bomb on Hiroshima? This weekend marked the 60th anniversary of Hiroshima and there have been all sorts of retrospectives and commemorations shown on the television. Your answer may depend on a lot of things, such as whether you were one of the American soldiers waiting to invade the Japanese home islands in landing craft on beaches against last-ditch defenders.
Whoever comes to the Constitution seeking to understand what it means as to this or that thus comes to the task with a number of preconceptions of which he may be more, or less, aware.
The issue came up because a senator asked nominee John G. Roberts, a Catholic, what he'd do if his faith conflicted with the law. He is reported to have said that he might have to recuse himself. This has provoked a certain amount of wonder because Justice Scalia, a devout Catholic by all accounts including his own, seems to be able to function as a justice without getting tied into doctrinal knots. He studied Church teachings as well as Supreme Court law and seems able to think his way through the thickets without having to recuse himself over any potential conflicts there. He did recuse himself for opening his big yap on the "under God" term in the Pledge case (Newdow, 2004) but that was him, not his church that caused that glitch.
President John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, was asked whether he would have trouble with divided loyalties between his faith and his country, if elected president. He may have had one of his witty rejoinders, to the effect that he knew the difference between Washington and Rome; at least I hope he did. I do recall him laying the issue to rest and getting on with the business of getting elected. His problems had to do with a place in Cuba called the Bay of Pigs, which he invaded on the advice of the CIA, to his regret. Bay of Pigs invaders turned up as Watergate burglars in a subsequent chapter under Pres. Nixon, contributing to his resignation.
The article by Drake Bennett below discusses the idea that there is a big difference between the way Catholics and Protestants view the world, and therefore the Constitution. Further that these views go back to before and during the Protestant Reformation fomented by Martin Luther and John Calvin, which began in the mid-16th century.
As old Faulkner taught, the past isn't dead, it isn't even past. That happens to be the sub-title to this blog, so you can see that I think there's something to the idea. Sanford Levinson, who teaches at the U.Texas, Austin, law school, is one of the most perceptive a constitutional scholars on today's scene.
Note his point that constitutional law, as church law, must allow for a certain amount of change and development over time. Religious institutions, as well as countries, must deal with changing attitudes as time and technology advance. Abortion and stem-cell research then come up as issues which must be dealt with. Moral issues. Legal issues. Religious issues. Social issues. Political issues. And probably a few more. Lenses. Which lens represents you? Conservative? Liberal? Democrat? Republican?
We're each one big custom-built lens, and each of us is slightly different, despite best effort of God and Country to stamp us out to be true-believers in "our" way of seeing things.