Posted on Sat, Apr. 30, 2005
Religious right seeks judiciary that dissolves church-state separation
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/11533568.htm
[EXCERPT]
BY ***** POLMAN
Knight Ridder Newspapers
PHILADELPHIA - (KRT) - Religious conservatives, emboldened by President
Bush's re-election and confident of their political clout, are not
interested in merely overhauling the judiciary. Ideally, they are seeking a
judiciary that would remove the wall of separation between church and
state.
This ambition is stated clearly in numerous legal briefs currently on file
at the U.S. Supreme Court in connection with a pending case; they seek
removal of "a Berlin wall" that is "out of step with this nation's
religious heritage." In fact, their leaders argue in interviews that the
church-state barrier is a "myth" invented by the high court in 1947, thanks
to a twisted interpretation of our founding documents.
Matthew Staver, a religious-right lawyer who recently argued a church-state
case in front of the Supreme Court, said Friday, "The term `separation of
church and state' is an easy hook. People hear it, they think of the First
Amendment. It's like the line `Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee,'
and you think of Muhammad Ali.
"But there's no "separation phrase in the First Amendment ... Interpreting
it that way is laughable."
At the same time, he and others are anxious to assure skeptical Americans
that their dream of a barrier-free America is benign. Staver, who has ties
to the Rev. Jerry Falwell, said, "No way I want America to head toward a
theocracy. I don't know anybody interested in that; it's not on our radar
screen."
Yet their desire to breach the church-state wall - coupled with their
incessant attacks on "liberal activist" judges and their success in
prodding Republicans to intervene in the Terri Schiavo case - is sparking a
backlash that threatens to sow new divisions. As Carlton E. Veazy, a
Baptist leader in Washington, charged in a conference call the other day,
"We are being led to this theocracy by the Christian right, who will not
stop until they take over the government."
Critics think the church-state barrier is being breached already: A Justice
Department guidebook on treating rape victims excised draft language that
touted emergency contraception; pharmacists who refuse to fill
birth-control prescriptions on moral grounds are lauded by Sen. Rick
Santorum, R-Pa., who wants to protect them by enacting a federal
"conscience" law; and some Christian agencies may be using taxpayer money
to proselytize and practice what critics charge is job discrimination.
One Christian program in northeastern Pennsylvania, financed by Bush's
faith-based initiative, requires each worker to be "a believer in Christ
and Christian life today" and has spent taxpayer money on construction of
church property. The sponsoring Firm Foundation is now being sued in
federal court by six local residents who say they don't want government to
promote Christianity with their taxes. In response, Firm's lawyer, Steven
Aden, says the group has been targeted "simply because it (works) from a
faith-based perspective."
All told, there is a growing concern, even among some conservative
analysts, that the religious right's Republican allies might pay a
political price for their close collaboration. These analysts, for example,
cite an April 14 remark by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who assailed
the judiciary for trying "to impose a separation of church and state that's
nowhere in the Constitution."
Glenn Simpson, a Tennessee law professor who runs the conservative
Instapundit blog, wrote recently: "The Republicans' weakness is that people
worry that they're the party of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. They
tried, successfully, to convince people otherwise in the last election, but
they're now acting in ways that are giving those fears new life."
Those fears are reflected in the latest Gallup poll, which reports that, by
a 2-to-1 ratio, Americans now say that the religious right has too much
influence on the Bush administration. This poll, conducted immediately
after the Schiavo case, contrasts sharply with surveys conducted between
2001 and 2003, when sentiment about the religious right's influence was
evenly split.
****************************************************
[END EXCERPT]
.
|
