I have often said that Bill Clinton was more Republican than most
Republicans were or are:
--------------------------------------
"Few seem to realize it, but President Clinton was one of the friendliest
Presidents to religious interests in this nation's history. Statutes, new
executive branch positions, new foreign initiatives--you name it, he
supported it, if it was desired by a religious constituency."
SOURCE: Why the U.S.'s International Religious Freedom Commission Is
Harming Its Status In the World Community By MARCI HAMILTON
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20030130.html
===================================================
The U.S. Can No Longer Claim Not To Have Established Religion
What about the Constitution's ban on the establishment of religion, and its
separation of church and state? Can we ask other countries to toe the "no
state religion" line? Not without hypocrisy, I am afraid.
Lately, church and state have become perilously close here, as far as
funding is concerned - with HUD even announcing a new initiative to fund
religious buildings.
[snip]
There was a time when we could have made this argument, because money
flowing to U.S. churches came from voluntary giving rather than government
coffers. But given the Bush Administration's deeply misguided push for
"faith-based initiatives," that era may be over. Once government money
starts flowing, stemming the tide is nigh to impossible.
In the U.S., federal funds are now flowing to religious missions, from drug
to work counseling. They are also earmarked for the nonreligious portions
of religious buildings - a distinction that raises ridiculous definitional
questions such as whether a soup kitchen is a religious enterprise, or
whether a bathroom is actually part of a church or not if it's located
within it.
Meanwhile, government funds and computers are headed for religious schools,
with both types of money transfers recently approved by the Supreme Court
in Mitchell v. Helms and Zelman v. Simmons-Harris.
SOURCE: Why the U.S.'s International Religious Freedom Commission Is
Harming Its Status In the World Community By MARCI HAMILTON
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20030130.html
-----------------------------------------------
HOW UNITED STATES CHURCH-STATE RELATIONS PLAY ON THE WORLD STAGE
By MARCI HAMILTON
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20010705.html
[EXCERPT]
What the European Professors Had to Say About Our Application of James
Madison's Theory
For example, two professors came to me after my talk, in which I discussed
James Madison's devotion to the concept of separation of church and state.
They thought that Madison's theory was all well and good, but they believed
that it was obsolete; the United States, they claimed, had long ago decided
to adopt an established church. Our actions, they said, speak louder than
our words.
As I shook my head vigorously, thinking we had a language barrier between
us, they pulled out their prime proof: legislative chaplains — that is,
chaplains who recite a prayer before the opening of a state or federal
legislative. And not just any legislative chaplains, they pointed out, but
a preponderance, a dominance of Protestant legislative chaplains since the
beginning of the country. Didn't that prove, they said, that this country
has an established church, no matter how we try to argue otherwise? Isn't
this a "Christian" country? Moreover, they continued, as I opened my mouth
to attempt to finesse the point, the United States Supreme Court expressly
upheld legislative chaplains in a "very famous case," Marsh v. Chambers.
Marsh v. Chambers?, I thought to myself. That is such a small case in the
constellation of our religion jurisprudence. At least from a stateside
perspective. Sure, the Court held that the presence of legislative
chaplains does not violate the Establishment Clause, but the Court
emphasized that is because having such chaplains is a long-held practice, a
type of "ceremonial deism." In any case, having such chaplains really does
not make much difference; the legislators aren't there to hear the prayer.
And, if they are, they aren't paying attention. Even if they were, it would
never be coercive because they are adults. Chaplains were like the "In God
We Trust" motto on the coins, containing a religious element, but surely
not "real" establishment.
Their point was hard to deny: we had opened the door to establishing a
church, the Protestant church, in this country. This seemingly
inconsequential case, which is reasoned away by the Supreme Court and most
religion theorists, stands as an example to the world of the establishment
of religion. It brings a tarnish, obviously, to the claims by the United
States that it is the home of diversity and the haven for pluralism.
[END EXCERPT]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
