One of the scariest news articles I've seen in awhile is not about the terrorist bombings in London or even here in the U.S. but an article by David D. Kirkpatrick in the NYT today, datelined Washington, July 14.
Christian conservatives are stepping up efforts to rally churchgoers for a Supreme Court confirmation battle by organizing a telecast to churches and religious broadcasters denouncing the Supreme Court as hostile to religion and families.
Tony Perkins is president of the Family Research Council, and the principal organizer of the event, which is called Justice Sunday II after a similar telecast in April. Its subtitle is "God save the United States and this Honorable Court." It will focus on "the court's hostility toward religion and Christianity in particular," Perkins said.
The last telecast, according to Kirkpatrick criticized Democrats for being "against people of faith" because they opposed judicial based on their views on abortion and religious issues. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn) contributed a videotaped statement to the last telecast.
Justice Sunday II, Mr. Perkins said, is intended as a "pre-emptive strike" to warn Democrats not to question a Supreme Court nominee about his/her "personal beliefs on abortion and other issues [that] would amount to an unconstitutional 'religious test.'
Mr. Perkins said he had conceived the event while listening to Justice Antonin Scalia deliver his dissent to a recent 5-to-4 Supreme Court ruling against displaying the Ten Commandments in a Kentucky courtroom. Justice Scalia said the majority had used the case "to ratchet up the court's hostility to religion."
The announcement that Justice O'Connor, the swing vote on many social issues, was retiring made the event urgent, Mr. Perkins said. He said the telecast would call attention to 5-to-4 decisions about subjects like public displays of religion, aid to religious schools, assisted suicide and abortion.
The first Justice Sunday simulcast reached hundreds of churches via satellite as well as a potential audience of 60 million households over Christian television and radio stations. Mr. Perkins said the broadcasters were ready for a replay.
Why is this alarming?
Isn't it great that the churches are heightening consciousness about such issues as public displays of religion, aid to religious schools, assisted suicide and abortion?
Isn't it good not to question Supreme Court nominees about their personal views concerning such issues?
One of the great evasions known to modern political life in the U.S., where we can hold two perfectly contradictory ideas in mind simultaneously while thinking of one and not the other (this is the definition of the legal mind) is seen when a nominee says something very close to the following:
I don't believe in the death penalty myself, but if you put me on the bench I'll be happy to carry it out because it's the law.
Or, I'm personally opposed to abortion, but since a woman has a constitutional right to an abortion, if you make me a judge, I'll be happy to sign an order granting a pregnant teenager an abortion during a "judicial bypass" court proceeding. That, you will recall, is the way teenagers who cannot approach their parents about an abortion (her father may be her baby's father and apt to kill her, or kill her even if he isn't her baby's father, she may fear); they have to ask a stranger for permission, a judge who has to stand for re-election in a few months. Either that or become a mother at fourteen, let's just say. Babies having babies, as they call it in some communities.
We're fighting a war in Afghanistan, now, to eliminate the Taliban government. We may have eliminated the concentration of Taliban in Kabul, but they're killing our troops in the provinces.
Why do we fight the Taliban in Afghanistan? Because (1) they provided the training camps for Al Qaeda, the people who hijacked the airplanes and drove them into the Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania en route to another target in Washington, such as the White House or the Capitol, and (2) to install a democracy where women are free and children may learn about the world unfiltered through religious fundamentalist glasses.
Don't we have a right to question a judge who will be our judge for life on questions about whether his/her religious principles conflict with established Constitutional Law doctrine as it has evolved, yes evolved, or been developed at great cost, over the past two-and-a-quarter centuries in this country?
Do you really want to see another well-coached version of Clarence Thomas telling the Senate and the country, that is, you and me, that he has not bothered to read Roe v. Wade and therefore has no views on the subject of abortion? Or the issue of separation of church and state?
If I see a candidate like that, I take it to mean he couldn't pass a test on Constitutional Law in law school. He fails for abject ignorance of subject matter. Either that or he's lying, which is at least as bad. That makes him a stealth candidate who will lie to get the job of imposing the values he's concealed on the rest of us once allowed to take the cover off the lie after taking the oath.
And no, I don't suppose there's any way to prove that the nominee lied to get the job, although we reverse convictions of felony upon finding out that jurors lied to get on the jury. Maybe there's a difference.
I don't want to see American Taliban on my Supreme Court.
I want to see scholars of history on my Supreme Court. I want them to know something about where we've been and what measures we've taken to protect against returning to the bad old days of ignorance and superstition.
Mr. Perkins, I'm afraid, is mistaking neutrality for hostility. Mr. Perkins is the luckiest man alive to be the head of a faith based organization in America, because if were in Afghanistan, for example, or Iraq, where the only faith based organizations allowed to exist must follow one version of the Koran, Mr. Perkins would be dead. Why? Because those nations have a long history of not permitting government neutrality towards religion or non-religion.
I should think that Mr. Perkins ought to welcome every other competing religious group in America in joining to man the barricades against any effort to dilute the principle that government neutrality as to religion and non-religion (meaning the ability we have to make up our own minds on such things as the existence or non-existence of God, evolution, conception, life, abortion, and related issues) is what makes America worth fighting and dying for, not the American version of the Taliban.
Mr. Perkins wants a government led by right wing Christians? I'll give him a government of right wing Catholics and Jews to see how he likes it, and if that's not enough, how about a spell under Sharia, the Koranic version of law.
"Oh, but we Christians were here first," he might reply, "and have a long history of establishing this country." Right, but not even the Founding Fathers thought they were setting up a Christian theocracy. They thought they were setting up a government which would NOT establish any religion, one which WOULD permit you, me, and Mr. Perkins to go our separate ways in matters of religious faith.
Yes, we have a clause that says that "no religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Article VI, Sec. 3, which states:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by an Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office of public Trust under the United States.
That's the penultimate, or next to the last, sentence of the Constitution, allowing for one more providing that the U.S. comes into existence as soon as nine (of the original thirteen) states ratify it, at least as to the nine. All thirteen did, but not before insisting on having a bill of rights tacked on, which was a VERY good idea, as it turns out. You can never have too much protection against the neighbors pretending to be the government. The tyranny of the majority, we call that, which is why I'm so alarmed about Mr. Perkins and his 60 million Christians on Justice Sunday II.
I'd feel a lot better about things if Mr. Perkins followed it up with a History Sunday I and II on the following Sundays or any other day of the week. Why?
Because there isn't a major religion around that hasn't suffered a great deal of persecution in the process of getting established (Christians vs. Pagans and their lions in the Roman Colosseum, for example) or as they attempted to break away (Protestants vs. Catholics and vice versa, see the Protestant Reformation and its Counter-Reformation and a century of sectarian/dynastic war in Europe; see the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre in Paris), see the Baptists (Mr. Perkins's group) breaking away from the Puritans in Massachusetts; see the peace-loving Quakers persecuted in London and hanged by Puritans in Massachusetts.
In short, every major religious group in America has a history of being persecuted. A good many of them have a history of picking on others, as well.
I would like to see the preaching of a decent brand of the history of sectarian persecution, and what happens when government takes sides in religious turf wars.
With that history in mind, Mr. Kirkpatrick's article is to me what the debate over slavery was to Thomas Jefferson, "an alarm bell ringing in the night." The alarm that gave him cold night sweats was the Civil War over union and slavery, mainly slavery.
You want to see another bloody civil war? Go down Mr. Perkins's road and ignore the story of the previous bad road his co-coreligionists and so many others had to endure, those who survived. The Christians have endured their Holocausts, too, usually inflicted by other Christians.
Let us remember that preventing throat-cutting in the name of religion is not hostility to religion. This HELPS religion.
Would you like to know what this suddenly reminds me of for some reason?
Time, place, and manner regulations in the area of free speech.
Suppose when the president visits your town you wish to wave signs supporting him and his policies. That's great, isn't it, if you support the president?
But suppose another group wants to wave its signs at him when the presidential motorcade rolls down the street, opposing him and his policies.
That's great, too, isn't it? This being America and you being an American who supports freedom of speech, assembly, petition, and the like?
What do you do if you're the Police Chief and the Mayor, charged with keeping public order and upholding the Constitution? Take sides in a political shoot-out? Not if you have any brains, you don't.
What you do is to say that the Pros can have this side of the street, the Cons can have the other side of the street and the police will stand in the middle carrying nightsticks and wearing armor and helmets.
In San Francisco last week an unhelmeted uniformed officer who exited his patrol car after being dispatched to an unruly crowd following a demonstration was struck in the head by a rock or a bat by a demonstrator and almost killed, sustaining a fractured skull and brain injury.
The captain in charge of the helmeted, armored, Tactical Squad has been transferred for failing to hear or respond to the dispatch with his trained and equipped troops. Demonstrators, in the passion of the moment, overlook the fact that the coppers who are trying to keep the peace are neighbors with spouses and kids they're trying to put through school.
No marchers will be allowed to carry sticks other than thin slats to carry signs, and no helmets.
Both sides march and shout, the president gets an earful, and everyone goes home happy because there was no riot. By imposing such restrictions even-handedly, government has encouraged the exercise of the constitutional rights of conscience and expression for all. This kind of restriction protects and encourages the exercise of constitutional rights, they do not stifle them. In court, only one attorney is allowed to speak at a time. This promotes communication; it doesn't stifle it. We wait our turn and don't interrupt. The judge or jury gets the message.
Mr. Perkins needs to understand a few things such as the above before going off half-cocked, as it seems to me he seems about to do.
A final point, regarding what it means to impose a religious Test. I don't think this means that you cannot or should not be required to state your qualifications for a lifetime appointment to what sometimes amounts, to its severest critics, to be a Superlegislature, the U.S. Supreme Court. After all, it does have the final power to say what's constitutional and what's not, meaning it can overrule any state law, any Congressional Act, and any measure imposed by the President of the United States. See Marbury v. Madison (1803) and Youngstown Steel (1952).
What the prohibition against religious Tests means is this, and it is based on experience. After the religious wars in England between Catholic and Protestant, the Protestants finally won. No Catholic can be the king or queen of England any more, not since Henry the Eighth broke from Rome. Elizabeth I's big problem was to keep both sides from plotting to sieze the crown from the other, and there were many plots. See Mary, Queen of Scots.
As a result of the religious wars in England, it was required, before you could hold a government job that you swore on your oath that you were a Protestant of a particular kind. Here's a Wikipedia link to the Test Act, or acts, 3rd quarter, 17th century, England, when the Colonies were growing, and quite aware of what was going on at home, of which few wanted much part, otherwise they wouldn't be trying to make a living carving out a new world here, would they.
There are many kinds of Protestant and Christian. Here are a few of the names: Lutheran, Episcopal, Anglican or Church of England, Presbyterian, Dutch Reformed (as in Reformation, Calvinist), Huguenot, Baptist, Southern Baptist, Congregational, Unitarian, Evangelical, Roman Catholic, Eastern Rite, Orthodox Rite, Coptic, and many more.
Why so many?
People exercising their freedom of conscience, I guess.
The only mystery is why, having succeeded in setting up their own shop they don't want to allow the others to exist side by side?
The Jews do something similar. The Orthodox don't seem to think the Conservative are real Jews, and the Conservative may have severe misgivings about the Reform. Few of these know what to do about the mixed marriages and the offspring thereof.
Which is why America is such a neat experiment. It's one of the few places in the world where you can be any of the above, or none, and be allowed to thrive more or less in the open. Usually we don't make a point about "what we are," meaning which faith, or which brand of a faith we confess, meaning believe in or practice, if any. This way we keep the peace. But if you feel like observing your religion, you're free to do so. You may get some static, such as wearing a Muslim head-scarf while working at Macy's over Christmas, but, with a little forethought you can lead a religious life here with less kick back than in many other places.
But in order to have this much, we have to be on our guard not to allow any backsliding in the direction of the religious wars of old. We've seen too much that remains. The sectarian wars of Northern Ireland would be a good example.
The bombing of the London Underground and bus last week would be another. The Trade Center, another.
Hence the alarm, Mr. Perkins.
Do you suppose that each church could appoint a designated historian to recount to its members how it managed to survive and what kind of protection it needs from government to continue to thrive here?
I think that religious groups that did this might find that the one thing they all had in common was the need for government to behave in a way that was neutral towards religion, like the cops on guard in the midst of the demonstrators and the counter-demonstrators, letting each shout out their message as loud as they wished, and then go home, in peace, feeling fulfilled at the showing each made.
More than this, one cannot reasonably ask.