http://www.broward.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/12550110.htm
Posted on Sat, Sep. 03, 2005
Click here to find out more!
M O R E N E W S F R O M topix.net
• US News
Beliefs vs. the Constitution
BY BARRY W. LYNN
www.au.org
It doesn't matter where John Roberts goes to church. It doesn't matter if
he's Catholic or Congregationalist, a Buddhist or a Baptist. What does
matter is whether he supports America's tradition of religious liberty
undergirded by the separation of church and state.
The Senate Judiciary Committee, when questioning Roberts, should restrict
itself to an appropriate line of inquiry: Questions about his personal
religious beliefs are not relevant because the Constitution forbids any
religious test for public office.
But committee members are free to probe whether Roberts will make decisions
based on the Constitution, not his personal religion. More important,
committee members should delve carefully into his legal philosophy.
We have reason for grave concern about the nominee's stance on religion and
government. When Roberts served as principal deputy solicitor general in
the first Bush administration, his work was clearly hostile to church-state
separation. He coauthored a friend-of-the-court brief for the Supreme Court
arguing that it's permissible for public schools to sponsor prayer at
graduation ceremonies. As long as people aren't legally compelled to pray,
Roberts contended, it's constitutional for schools to make worship a part
of school events.
But that interpretation of the Constitution is much too narrow. That means
school officials could select clergy to lead prayers at school functions
that leave out many children and their families. Students from minority
faiths -- or those who adhere to no religious tradition at all -- would be
effectively excluded from many of their school's activities.
Children should not be made to feel like second-class citizens at their own
graduations. Even more troubling, the brief Roberts coauthored also called
for scrapping time-tested judicial safeguards the high court has used for
three decades to protect religious minorities and ensure religious liberty
for all of us.
Fortunately, the Supreme Court rebuffed the approach urged by Roberts. In a
5-4 opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy (a Reagan appointee), the
court rejected any attempt by schools to impose religion on students.
Justice Kennedy noted that the position put forth by Roberts and his
colleagues turns conventional First Amendment analysis on its head.
Roberts has also suggested that it is constitutional for Congress to deny
the federal courts the authority to rule on school prayer, reproductive
rights and other critically important constitutional concerns. This is a
radical concept that flies in the face of the settled understanding of the
Supreme Court's role in our society.
The genius of the American system is that it establishes neutral principles
of law designed to apply to everyone equally, regardless of what each
individual believes about God. These principles are enshrined in our
Constitution, a secular document that shows favoritism toward no particular
religion.
When handing down their decisions, judges must stick to these principles,
not search for religious rationales to buttress their rulings. In our
multifaith democracy, it is the job of religious leaders, not judges, to
promote sectarian viewpoints.
At the end of the day, most Americans aren't interested in where John
Roberts worships, but they are interested in what type of Supreme Court
justice he will be.
The Senate Judiciary Committee has an obligation to get an answer to that
question. And it can do so in a way that respects Roberts' religious
liberty and the freedom guaranteed by our Constitution.
In 1960, John F. Kennedy made it clear that separation of church and state
is a bedrock principle of American life. ''I believe,'' he said, ''in an
America where the separation of church and state is absolute!'' We must
make sure it stays that way.
The Rev. Barry W. Lynn is executive director of Americans United for
Separation of Church and State. He is an ordained minister in the United
Church of Christ and a longtime civil-liberties attorney.
***************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
