This past Sunday, well known or infamous–which ever suits you–fundamentalist Christian leaders, neocon-Congressional Republicans, and other ideologues who long for the “good ole days” when religious, moral supremacist dogma and government were in bed together (also found within the history of Europe and present extremist-Islamic Theocracies of the Middle East), hosted a “Justice Sunday II.” This gathering of theocons and politicians was filled with “woe to the persecuted American Christians” stanzas and of course it would be, just look at all who attended and spoke at the event. Ah yes, the “oppressed majority.” Where’s my violin? (via The Washington Post)
NASHVILLE, Aug. 14 — Prominent conservative political and religious leaders called Sunday night for Senate approval of Supreme Court nominees who will vote to end the constitutional right to abortion, against recognition of same-sex marriage and for fewer restrictions on religious expression in public places.
The Supreme Court has sanctioned “the right to kill unborn children” and opened the door to legalized “homosexual sodomy,” declared Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, which co-sponsored “Justice Sunday II.”
James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, told the 2,200 mostly white people in Two Rivers Baptist Church: “It doesn’t matter what we think. The court rules.” The Supreme Court, he said in a video broadcast, has created “an oligarchy. It’s the government by the few.”
An oligarchy, eh? Too effin’ funny. I could say the same about the entire Congress, which is mostly compromised of old, upper-upper-class, white-males, and doesn’t really reflect the cultural diversity and gender population of the country, and once they’re elected they seem to forget about their voting-base (cough* Democrats*cough). Our Supreme Court sure as hell doesn’t reflect the population of the country. If the Congress wasn’t an obnoxiously-wealthy, mostly old white-guy Oligarchy, at least 51% of it would be female and racially it would be close to 15% Latino and 13% African-American, with other races and ethnicities as well. Same thing for the Supreme Court. But enough of this tangent, next……
Rejected Supreme Court nominee Robert H. Bork warned that the high court has defined homosexuality as “a constitutional right . . . and once homosexuality is defined as a constitutional right, there is nothing the states can do about it, nothing the people can do about it.”
Yes, we must stop the courts from allowing LGBT people to be what they were born to be. We must stop consenting adults or consenting older and mature adolescents from engaging in sexual relations their sexual orientation has naturally driven them to seek out and enjoy. Stupid nature!!!
[…]House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) said “activist courts” are imposing “state-sanctioned same-sex marriage” and “partial-birth abortion” and are “ridding the public square of any mention of our nation’s religious heritage” in what amounts to “judicial supremacy, judicial autocracy.”
Insert my snickering to DeLay’s absurd comment about our judiciary here.
In Supreme Court rulings, DeLay said, “rights are invented out of whole cloth. Long-standing traditions are found to be unconstitutional. Moral values that have defined the progress of human civilization for millennia are cast aside in favor of those espoused by a handful of unelected, lifetime-appointed judges.”
Actually I believe “progress” for the human race didn’t come about until intellectuals such as Voltaire started questioning so called absolute, unquestioned-‘unless-you-wanted-to-be-denounced-as-a-heretic’ religious authority, with its moralist superiority and monopoly complex, which ruled the day, back when the religion and government were one in the same.
[…]DeLay was the star in a procession of speakers that included former senator Zell Miller (D-Ga.), Prison Fellowship Ministries founder Chuck Colson and Eagle Forum President Phyllis Schlafly.
Miller criticized the court because it “removed prayer from our public schools . . . legalized the barbaric killing of unborn babies, and it is ready to discard like an outdated hula hoop the universal institution of marriage between a man and a woman.”
Speakers compared the civil rights movement of the 1960s to demands now by Christian groups for restoration of traditional morality. “It’s time we move to the front of the bus and that we take command of the wheel,” said William A. Donohue, president of the Catholic League. [emphasis mine]
Are they serious? The Civil Rights Movement was about extending civil rights and liberties to groups of people who have been historically denied any justice or rights. Last time I checked since the time of Constantine the Christians have been doing pretty alright for themselves in regards to social power and influence. This so called “Christian movement” is about restricting and probably outright eliminating the rights of people who have long been struggling to secure their rights such as the LGBT Community, women, and people of Color. Talk about a completely wrong analogy.
Liberal religious leaders denounced Justice Sunday at a news conference. “The people who are putting together Justice Sunday seem to be far more interested in power than in justice,” said Barry Lynn, head of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. “They now control the White House and the Congress. This is an effort to guarantee they will control the courts as well.”[…]
Well they’re two for three in the way of control over the government so far. In short, this so called “Christian movement” is made up of screeching reactionary theoconservatives–many of whom are politicians in the Congress, obsessed in subverting the Constitution with fundamentalist Christian dogma, and rolling this country back to the puritanical era of the American Colonies. Scarlett letters, Salem witch-trial justice, and stocks for all. And if I was a Christian I would be pretty embarrassed by of all of this–especially because of the talking-heads leading this “movement,” who have hijacked a religion that supposed to be based on the life of a man who preached peace, tolerance, compassion, “turn the other cheek and love your enemies and forgive them.” I’m not getting any of that from these fanatics and wingnuts. And what did Christ himself say about homosexuality and abortion? But all of this because our courts and some politicians recognize the Establishment Clause, and *gasp* the rights of women and LGBT people? Seems petty to me, but that’s just me.
Naturally groups such as the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force were not all that pleased with the event, and I don’t blame them.
“Once again, the forces of political and religious extremism gathered under the guise of standing up for ‘justice’ to call for tearing down the increasingly porous wall between church and state. And once again, a right-wing leader of Congress, this time House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, was there to attack the bedrock of our democracy, an independent judiciary. Their view on the role of the courts is stunningly regressive. But no one should be surprised: these are the same people who compared the justices of the Massachusetts Supreme Court to Adolf Hitler after the decision ordering marriage equality; who said judges who allowed Michael Schiavo to carry out his wife’s wishes participated in a ‘grisly killing’; and who have criticized the integration of women in the military.
“They are on a mission to extend government control over the most private of decisions … everything from who people fall in love with to reproductive choices to the right to refuse artificial life-extending measures. That they are doing it in the name of religion is nothing new. But the fact that they are the people most enthusiastic about the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court should send a chill down every thinking person’s spine. It is clear the administration assured the sponsors of Justice Sunday II that Roberts can be counted on to support their dreadful vision for this country.
Also see Egalia at Tennessee Guerilla Women’s critique of the event, especially this comment of hers to a troll who can’t (and on purpose) distinguish between campaigning in Black Churches to promote racial equality and campaigning in Churches to promote religion and goverment becoming intertwined…
I’m not surprised that you fail to note the difference between churches acting on behalf of the oppressed and churches acting on behalf of the elite white male power structure that has always been the oppressor.
Ever since Blacks, women and gays got a few rights, you guys have been screaming and scheming to put a stop to it.
Shorter: Back when the Dems had a backbone and didn’t sell out their voting-base, and would hold rallies and such in Black Churches, racial equality and social justice were the focal points and the main objectives of the meeting. Not “oh we poor Christians are loosing our power and we need to get together with politicians and judges, and take back control of the courts, Congress, and White House, and impose our faith on everyone else through the Law.” ‘Justice Sunday I and II’ were blatantly promoting an agenda laden with theocratic undertones (‘overtones’ instead?) and subverting the Law with fundie dogma lorded over the rest of us. Rallies and politicians campaigning in Black Churches were about promoting racial equality and social justice.
Now, do I like it when politicians campaign in Black Churches (or any place of worship or faith regardless of race/ethnicity) even if they’re promoting an agenda for racial equality and reaching out to the African-American Community (which is always fabulous), and it has nothing to do with religion save for the location? No, I do not. Because though the talking point of the meeting may not be religion at all, and instead about promoting social justice and equality for the historically disenfranchized (and still are in some cases) African-American Community, still, the geography can make the whole event “guilty by association” in supporting religion and politics becoming one in the same (which is what these “Justice Sundays” are all about). The line between Church and State can become all too easily blurred even if unintentional, especially when the speakers throw in religious rhetoric that’s supposed to bolster support for ‘the cause’. With the “Justice Sundays” the line was intentionally blurred. So it’s certainly not the reaching out to the African-American Community and promoting racial equality and social justice that makes me uncomfortable, and how could I be uncomfortable for equality and justice for the community that’s “half” apart of me, anyway? It’s the location of where it occurs that makes me uncomfortable, and what subliminal messages could be behind it due to the location. This issue is my personal Catch 22. And I know that the church is the “backbone” of the African-American Community, but still, you get my point.
But who gives a damn about what I approve or disapprove of anyway, I’m just a voter and apart of the “rabble” of this country. So in closing; “Justice Sunday“…at least for the those pushing, supporting, and benefiting from the agenda behind it, should it succeed.
Well said.
The speakers and organizers at the “Justice Sunday” events didn’t blur the line between church and state. They obliterated it.
No the Christians are not embarassed by this behavior, they recognize it for what it is: The Pharisees want their theocracy back.
If you recall Jesus overthrew them about 2000 years ago. They didn’t go easily and after a metamorphasis or two they’re baaack.
There is a piece of scripture that would help everyone understand what is going on here. “By their fruits you shall know them.”
Corruption is a foul fruit to my nose, how about you.
‘”And if I was a Christian I would be pretty embarrassed by of all of this”“especially because of the talking-heads leading this “movement,” who have hijacked a religion that supposed to be based on the life of a man who preached peace, tolerance, compassion, “turn the other cheek and love your enemies and forgive them.”‘
The description of Evangelicals as Pharisees is close to spot on, many of us (Evangelicals… we art one) have been observing the same for some time. It is much easier to reduce religion for some to legalism than to seek and live the foundations of the faith. Yes I am a tad embarrassed by our brethren like Bork, but mostly I have a deep sadness that he would believe that GLB or anyone else would be accorded different rights than he either by the Constitution or the Bible, and the Gospel has been used to imprison in fear, as opposed to liberating them.
P. Adrienne, you are spot on with your observations, accept one. Tolerance (I have mentioned before on another thread) is not a Christian virtue, nor was it taught by Christ. As followers of Christ we are to love all, even our enemies as you mentioned. Tolerance implies a willful acceptance as opposed to “embracing love,” flowing out of the root of creation (Love) and the motivation of Christ to give Himself for the very humanity that wished Him dead. Now, this is the standard we are to live by that claim His name. Are those folks wishing for the separate and unequal State willing to put their faith on the line and die for those on the margins as our Prophet, Priest and Lord? I really doubt they would and that of all things is so very, very sad.
Even sadder is what is lost when one cuts him/herself off from members of the body, the riches of this world are to be had in relationships with others. That is the overwhelming demonstration of Christ as man in the flesh amongst us. God, not to be worshipped from afar, but touched, and embraced, laughing and crying, unclean and clean, He came to set the captives free.
I love Jesus words concerning relating with Him by feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and visiting the prisoners, “whatever you have done to the least of these you have done to me.” How did this living act of love ever get turned into a dagger to hurt those that matter the most? Blessings.
Thanks for the link. It was downright pathetic how the rightwing bloggers poked fun at us protesters, especially the one the idiots termed a ‘cross dresser.’
How in gawd’s name do these wackos pass for grown-ups? The national rightwing bloggers also got a lot of thrills taking our pictures and posting them around. Hell, they spent so much time snapping pictures and poking fun of the women outside, they couldn’t have paid too much attention to the actual event.
“Yes, we must stop the courts from allowing LGBT people to be what they were born to be. We must stop consenting adults or consenting older and mature adolescents from engaging in sexual relations their sexual orientation has naturally driven them to seek out and enjoy. Stupid nature!!!”
Therein lies one of the foci of this issue. The statement here that homosexuality is something that people are born to be is not accepted by many, many people. And as long as it’s not, then support for not granting homosexuals rights to marriage, etc., will continue.
The other thing I note here is the invocation of the establishment clause to eliminate the influence of religion in the legislative process. The establishment clause was intended to keep the United States from following the then centuries-old pattern of the various European states and rulers in establishing one denomination as the state’s “official” religion, with said denomination being given financial and legislative status while suppressing others. That’s what Thomas Jefferson meant by “separation of Church and State” (Google “Jefferson Danbury Baptists”). It was never intended to keep legislators from basing their legislative decisions on their personal religious beliefs, nor was it intended to keep the government from lending support to all religious establishments equally (e.g., exempting all religious churches/mosques/synagogues/etc. from property taxes).
There is no question that many Christians see the Word of God as a club to use on sinners, and take a little too much relish in it’s use. But there are other Christians who see that Christian love requires that you name sin for what it is, and do what you can to convince other people to turn away from sin and accept the transformative power of God’s love as brought to use by Jesus. If you see homosexual behavior as an expression of corrupt sin rather than as an expression of love, then it’s totally Christian to try to keep people from it.
The “Christian agenda” is no more a unilateral movement or a grand nefarious conspiracy than the “homosexual agenda” is.
“But there are other Christians who see that Christian love requires that you name sin for what it is, and do what you can to convince other people to turn away from sin and accept the transformative power of God’s love as brought to use by Jesus. If you see homosexual behavior as an expression of corrupt sin rather than as an expression of love, then it’s totally Christian to try to keep people from it.”
The problem with this is sin is often contextual, slavery was not sin for many thousands of years, most believe that it is today. It is not Christian to keep adults from choosing a non threatening lifestyle they choose of their own free will. If one asks for your opinion then freedom to share it is granted. It is not a Christians place to exercise authority over the free willed choices of those that are capable of making them. Many Christians would have more credibility if they did not step over the needy so often while running to bash people that do not require their permission to live a life of their choosing. Blessings.
Ronf :
What is the difference of the state not financially supporting the churches, and the state allowing their members to legislate based upon their religious beliefs? Isnt that using the state -a public financied entity- for the purposes of the different religious creeds of legislators? Isn´t that, in other words, using the state – and that means the money that finances the state- to promote the different religious creeds of the legislators?
I’m never going to enter into a discussion about what is or is not Christianity, because I recognise that this ‘discussion’ (oft times lacking in the verbal and exceeding in the WMD’s) has been going on for a touch longer than I’ve been alive, if over different points of contention. Further, I’m not Christian, and never want to be, so getting involved in what is effectively an internal matter is a waste of my energies. What’s right or wrong according to Christians really doesn’t conern me.
However, when it does become my concern is when things I do not believe in, and see as anathemas to my world, are pushed onto me.
There simply is NO equivalency between a Christian Extremist that wishes to impose their small-minded and hateful concept on everyone in society, and those of us LGBT folks that don’t wish to impose anything on anyone but just want equal rights, and I would argue the latter is the same for most other liberal/civil-rights groups.
The ‘exclusion’ (to use their terminology) of Chrisitan belief structures from the public sphere is not, contrary to what these extremists would have us believe, an ‘oppression’ of Christians. A neutral stance in the public sphere is a recognition of the equality of beliefs, and can only be seen as an ‘exclusion’ if you believe that your rightful place is actually to have more rights, in terms of imposing your beliefs on others, than any other group. But, of course, ‘neutral’ has come to be demonised by these fundamentalist extremists.
I know, of course, that there is a mindset difference here between Absolutist and Pluralistic conceptual frameworks, much the same as one can see the conflicts in germany and the netherlands right now (though, of course, there the absolutists don’t hold any real power) and so the way we view the world, as something where people live side by side, and the way these Christian fundamentalists view the world, where everything is about them, are fairly incompatible.
But the history of this country is, and has become more and more so, a history of pluralism and enfranchisement. If that is corresponded with a gradual pull-back of Christian imposition, then I can only say it is a good thing. I would fight to my death to protect your right to hate and demonise me and other gays, but I am not likely to see the reverse occuring.
The interesting thing for me at this ‘lie-fest’ was the quote of “liberalism is dead” when reality liberalism is the far far majority position of the western first-world nations, overwhelmingly so. Moreover, the last couple centuries has been an every-incresing (though, of course, with periodic backlashes that never really returned anything anywhere) use of liberalism. I know relativism is demonised repeatedly by these people (just recently, yet again, by Ratzinger … but then we are a symptom of evil according to him, so I’ll take that with a grain of salt if you don’t mind) by honestly, a moral framework that is decided according to weighing points rationally and not by appeals to some abstract rulebook seems a perfectly wonderful way of dealing with the world, particularly because it really exposes you to a diversity of thought and perspectives.
Oh, and as an aside, Christian ‘love’ as expressed through supposed concern over me living a ‘sinful’ ‘lifestyle’ is no love in my book, I don’t care how much they try to justify it as such, and similarly for trying to convert people. One of the wonderful things in real Islam and Judaism is that simply living a life as a good Muslim, or a good Jew, are seen as the way to convert people, as it is articulated that if people come to see such, and want to know more, they will. Divergences from this in those two religions are, rightly, seen as extremist positions and are denouced as such. Now, admittedly I am making some oversimplifications here, but for the purposes of asking the question of why isn’t this the case for Christianity, such serve.
Oh, and one last point, did anyone watch any of the coverage of the event? I have to say, if that’s the ‘core’ of the american people, the ‘heartland’ of american values … it’s a really REALLY White one (we’re talking ‘off-white walls with a light beige carpet’ white here).
Btw, Tom Delay, James Dobson, and Zel Miller? Please go fuck yourselves … hard (I know this kinda spoils the politeness in the rest of the post, but there is just some shit I don’t take lying down).
“What is the difference of the state not financially supporting the churches, and the state allowing their members to legislate based upon their religious beliefs?”
Well, there’s no problem with the government giving money to all the churches; that’s indirectly what’s happening when all churches are exempt from property taxes.
The diffference between the state not financially supporting one given church while allowing it’s members to legislate on the basis of their religous beliefs is that the first offiicially subsidizes one denomination above all others, whereas the other does not.
With your indulgence I’ll expound a bit, because ultimately we’re talking about the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, which is more than financial support.
The Establishment Clause forbids the government from establishing an official religion. As expressed in England and other countries at the time (and as was common prior to and though the Reformation, which had not long been out of living memory in the late 1700’s), an “establishment of religion” consists of some or all of the following:
1) State financial support to one particular denomination.
2) Direct participation by one denomination’s clergy in the government solely on the basis of their status as clergy (example; the 20 most senior bishops in the Church of England are members of the British Parliament’s House of Lords). This is what the Shiites propose in Iraq, to it’s great detriment.
3) The state penalizes those who are members of another denomination. Sometimes this was just a fine. Other penalties (enforced unevenly and at different times) were loss of property rights, loss of the right to hold public office (the British Monarch cannot be Roman Catholic), imprisonment, exile, or even death.
4) The state takes a direct role in the selection of the denomination’s clergy (I believe that C of E bishops need Parliamentary approval, and I know that the Queen has to sign off on the appointment of Archbishops).
5) The state takes a direct role in the determination of doctrine and practice (the C of E’s Book of Common Prayer cannot be revised without an Act of Parliament).
Establishment of religion – not religion itself, but state control of it – caused a lot of violent death thoughout Europe for centuries (those states that allowed religious pluralism at the time were usually peaceful). It also kept people from having freedom of religion. So the founders of the American nation (and a number of the colonies that preceded it) wanted no part of it.
“Isn’t that using the state -a public financied entity- for the purposes of the different religious creeds of legislators? Isn´t that, in other words, using the state – and that means the money that finances the state- to promote the different religious creeds of the legislators?”
True. But irrelevant. A legislator who votes on given issues on the basis of a moral code that has been in turn formed and informed by their religious beliefs are using the responsibility they have been given to in turn cause the state to (at least in part) conform to their beliefs. But this does not violate the Establishment Clause.
First, the only way to avoid this is to elect a government full of atheists. Any person who has a religion is going to have their moral sense of what’s right and wrong informed by that religion, and it’s going to influence their legislative acts. And as an aside, to forbid legislators from informing their vote on the basis of their religous beliefs would violate their First Amendment rights.
Second, unlike what we’d have under an established religion, members of all creeds are equally eligible for election, so there is a variety of religious beliefs present. All legislators are free to dissent from any given denomination’s doctrine and vote as they feel. So no one creed has special rights.
Third, if a legislator’s votes don’t conform to the will of the majority, they can be voted out. So no legislature can long impose legislation that is at variance with the majority’s wish.
Fourth, regardless of whatever religious feelings the legislators hold, there are Constitutional guarantees for all citizens that even the majority can’t override, unless they can take the time and effort to pass a Constitutional amendment. That requires 2/3 of both houses of Congress for the most common method of proposing an amendment, and 3/4 of the state legislatures to pass it. That has proved to be a very high barrier. Consider that one of the hottest of hot buttons for the religous Right has been the right to abortion. Even though it was one of the most blatant examples of judicial legislation the Supreme Court has ever executed, an amendment to override it hasn’t come close to passing the Congress, and legislative efforts to eliminate it have added some regulation but have otherwise been unsuccessful in actually stopping it.
Finally – remember that many moral issues that come before the legislature involve the tenets of many different religions, not just one. Murder, opposition to abortion and the practice of homosexual acts all violate not just the doctrine of numerous Christian denominations, but denominations of Judaism and Islam as well. And I don’t even know what the positions of Buddhism and Hinduism are (for the last two, that is). Thus, voting on the basis of a given moral tenet rarely constitutes imposing the beliefs of one denomination on everyone.
So – the right of legislators to vote according to their religous beliefs comes nowhere near a violation of the Establishment Clause. And the religious beliefs of the founders of this country certainly heavily informed their votes on how the American people should be governed. Here’s an example from the Declaration of Independence. It isn’t law, but it certainly expounds the philosophy of how the founders of America felt they should be governed.
“When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Again, this is not law. But it shows the philosophy behind the establishment of our government, which is that our rights come not from a monarch, or the will of the people, but from our Creator. The role of a government is to secure those rights, and the power to do so (not the rights themselves) come from the consent of the governed.
How, then, under this philosophy do you think that the legislators would proceed to legislate? If rights come from a Creator, how do you act to preserve those rights unless you think about what the Creator grants those rights to be? And there is nothing in the Establishment Clause that contradicts this. In fact, reading through the statements of the founders of this country will quickly show you that they believed that religious instruction and an effort to discern the will of before acting was necessary for American democracy to be successful.
Sarah in Chicago, I am in disagreement with those Christians of given political beliefs who say “This is a Christian nation”. We have a multi-religious nation, including those with a complete lack thereof, and all have a right to express their religion. Even when the Constitution was originally written, an attempt to name Jesus Christ in it was shot down so that all would realize that the U.S. was to accomodate Jews and even “Mohammedeans”.
And I can certainly see where someone who is gay or lesbian and thinks that they are perfectly justified in expressing that would oppose being told by anyone who, even with the best of intentions, holds that they are being sinful and should repent and change. After all, those who are gay and lesbian would hold that witholding rights from them on that basis is sinful, and what reception do they get when they tell a conservative Christian that they are violating their own religious tenets by opposing what gays and lesbians consider equal rights?
But expecting legislators not to base their vote on their own religious beliefs is asking them not to base their vote on their own moral beliefs, which is impossible. I’m not talking here about things like putting up the 10 Commandments in a courthouse, etc. Those are issues of religious expression that the First Amendment can cover. But when you get to basic issues such as what the meaning of marriage is (is it solely for a man and a woman, or should it be redefined to be gender-independent), people have got to base their feelings on that on their own moral beliefs. And I don’t think there’s a majority of any religion that holds that marriage can include same-sex couples, so you can’t just blame this on Christians. Marriage is both a civil and religious institution, and in both spheres it has meant for it’s entire existence the bond of a man and a woman. To expect that everyone’s going to accept that the Constitution can now be interpreted to require a change to that, even solely in the civil sphere, is not reasonable.
To be honest and clear, I certainly don’t think so. I think that marriage is for a man and a woman, and that there’s no way that either the Federal or my State Constitution can be interpreted to require such a change to marriage. Now, my opinion won’t stop any court that’s alternatively minded. And I expect that most of the denizens of this blog will disagree with me. My opinion is that this is not equivalent to the struggle for civil rights that African-Americans faced, and that the way this should be solved is via the legislative branch, not the judicial one. Even African-Americans ultimately got full civil rights through legislative acts (the 13th and 14th amendments and the Civil Rights Act of 1965) – the Supreme Court’s role was to try to force the government to enforce them.
Much of the absolute fury that I’ve seen on the part of the more vocal opponents of same-sex marriage has been that they feel that a) the proponents are doing an end-run around democracy by avoiding the legislative process, and that b) the Massachusetts Supreme Court made up something that wasn’t in the Commonwealth’s Constitution but that expresses the personal beliefs of the Justices.
And no, there’s no contradiction in that last; the legislature makes law. The courts’ job is to interpret it according to existing law and the will of the legislature, not their own.
RonF –
Honestly, I couldn’t care less what your feelings are regarding same-sex marriage, and the same thing for pretty much all Christians, and I mean that in the most respectful way.
I don’t want to turn this thread into a discussion regarding the pros and cons of SSM, but suffice it to say, yes, marriage is an institution with religous and civil components. But the thing is, we aren’t interested in the religous aspect of it, and even if some were, I’d oppose them, as it’s not our place to tell a religion what they can or can’t believe. But the civil space is ours too and we have a right to it, as much as anyone else.
Personally I see a lot of correspondences between black civil-rights and LGBT civil-rights movements, but are they the same? Hell no, and noone is claiming that (unlike the wingnuts that are saying we are). But there are huge similarities and it is those that we will continue to use (those of us that study these things are pretty much in agreement on this).
And, to be honest, I, again, don’t give a shit what the majority of people here in the states believe about gay marriage (and, if you want figures, the numbers are split down the middle pretty much on the issue) because really, when it comes to civil rights, the wishes of the majority really almost don’t matter. It’s about the rights individuals have, not about what the majority may or may not want us to have, and I see absolutely no contradiction between the way in which marriage operates civilly in this country and having the inclusion of SSM. And a lot of Christians actually agree with that (because a lot don’t see really any condemnation of gays and lesbians and what the bible says).
But returning to the subject at hand, I don’t see the differentiation between the legislative branch and the judicial branch as that clean cut. I see both as law-making entities that certainly perform such duties in different manners, but sometimes the judicial branch is there to ensure the provision of laws that may honestly go against what a lot of the population may want, but which follow the precendetal law (hence the envolving and interpretative nature of it). This is, of course, different from the law making ability of the legislature, where their role IS to impose the rule of the majority, but that’s the system of checks and balances. And honestly, democracy as a system isn’t actually intrinsically all that good in ensuring civil rights, so doing an “end-run” around it via the judiciary in order to make sure civil rights are created and enforced doesn’t really keep me up at night.
Finally, it’s not whether or not a legislator can or can not use his or her religous beliefs in determining the law. Rather, the issue is whether or not he or she realises that not everyone in the country will believe as he or she. Your job as a legislator is to represent the rights of your constituents, and that includes those that do not believe as you do. Are you making decisions based on your beliefs, OR are you doing what is right for your constiuents? If the two coincide, great … but if they don’t, they you need to be a rational enough person to realise where your values don’t fit.
The whole point about becoming a legislator is hold a neutral position in order to best represent all the rights of the people you represent, not impose your personal beliefs on them.
Ron F:
All the arguments you have used are well know, so no surprise there. First, that the churches recieve finaciall support from the state doesnt make it “right” or “correct”. You are confusing “what is happening” with “what is correct” and “what is legall”. I do not see how the stablishment clause forbids ONE religion from being stablished. It only says “religion”, which is generic. So I do not see why it is ok that the state favors two or more religious sects equally, since it ignores all the others that exist (or that MAY come into existence). And if you see, only some protestant sects of christianity, catholicism and judaism get favored: which is a clear form of religious discrimination against all the rest, including non religious options. So the only logical alternative is that NON religion gets favored at all by the state.
Now, of course all legislators are going to have their sense of morals influence their decision. The problem is that they do not have the right to present their case in religious terms, which is what happening in the US today “We aprove this law cause is what God commands”. That makes nonsense…cause it not only violates the rights of atheists, but also of other believers who happen to have a different creed and a different view on what God wants or not.
Finally, quoting the declaration of indepence will not help your case. Not simply cause it is not law, as you know, but cause the terms in which it was formulates spoke more of the deistic God many of the founders aknowledged, and not some specific God of some specific religion. And speaking of natural law (a very doubtfoull and cuestionable moral philosophic stance) won´t help you anyways: since Natural Law does not necesarely require a God to be defended, as many atheist friends who defend it will show to you.
I informed you of my personal beliefs not to try to persuade you of their rightness, but to keep from any appearance of trying to hide any biases that people may think I have.
“But returning to the subject at hand, I don’t see the differentiation between the legislative branch and the judicial branch as that clean cut. I see both as law-making entities that certainly perform such duties in different manners, but sometimes the judicial branch is there to ensure the provision of laws that may honestly go against what a lot of the population may want, but which follow the precendetal law (hence the envolving and interpretative nature of it).”
Well, there I completely disagree with you. In my view, and in what I believe is the generally accepted view, the judiciary has no law-making function. The legislature makes law, the judiciary interprets it, and the executive branch enforces it. Of course, the judiciary can interpret law differently than the the legislature intended, but that should be an accident of either an error of interpretation on the judiciary’s part or an error in clarity on the legislature’s part. It should not be a deliberate act on the part of the judiciary to provide laws that follow legal precedents, nor should it be a deliberate act on the legislature’s part to try to violate anyone’s right under the Constitution (which has certainly been tried more than once). The judiciary is to judge existing law, but not provide new ones. If a law infringes on the fundamental rights of citizens as expressed in the Constitution, then the judiciary rightfully should strike down those laws. But they have no business either imposing laws (or directing the legislature to create laws) to create rights that haven’t previously existed.
“Finally, it’s not whether or not a legislator can or can not use his or her religous beliefs in determining the law. Rather, the issue is whether or not he or she realises that not everyone in the country will believe as he or she.”
True. A legislator has no business imposing adherence to religious beliefs that violate people’s Constitutional rights. But where such rights are not at issue, they can and should act as they believe.
“Your job as a legislator is to represent the rights of your constituents,”
Hmm. Your job as a legislator is to represent the will of your constituients, as long as that will does not involve violating anyone’s legal rights.
“and that includes those that do not believe as you do. Are you making decisions based on your beliefs, OR are you doing what is right for your constiuents? If the two coincide, great … but if they don’t, they you need to be a rational enough person to realise where your values don’t fit.”
And what happens if you think that a given piece of legislation presumes a right that you don’t think actually exists, and is not right for your constituents?
“The whole point about becoming a legislator is hold a neutral position in order to best represent all the rights of the people you represent, not impose your personal beliefs on them.”
Many would disagree with you there. It’s a debate as old as the country, and was early expressed as the Jeffersonian view of democracy vs. the Jacksonian view. The Jeffersonian view was that the public elected someone with sound character and able mind to examine public issues using the resources and time that the public itself could not – especially since the public has to spend most of it’s time making a living and doesn’t have a staff to chase and analyze the information as well as a Congressman can. The Jacksonian view is that a legislator should determine the will of the electorate as well as he or she can and then express it with their vote. The Jeffersonian legislator expresses his or her beliefs in their legislative acts, but risks getting voted out of office if they displease a majority enough. The Jacksonian legislator may not let their beliefs influence their votes, but risks violating either their own conscience or existing law if the majority will conflicts with either one.
Your viewpoint says that a legislator should put their personal beliefs aside and try to preserve (and, I imagine, expand) the rights of their constituents as much as possible. But what if the legislator’s beliefs tell him or her, “This is not a right. And it is not right.” It doesn’t have to be based on religion – atheists generally still have a moral code, although not one based on revelation from a supernatural force. I don’t think it’s possible for someone to hold a neutral position in the fashion you describe on the issues we are talking about. If you think that something is not a right, then it’s not neutral to enact legislation that makes it a right.
“First, that the churches recieve finaciall support from the state doesnt make it “right” or “correct”. You are confusing “what is happening” with “what is correct” and “what is legall”.”
Fair enough. But I made the point to show that there is existing legal practice to illustrate my point that the Establishment Clause does not forbid all religions from being provided support as long as all are treated equally.
“I do not see how the establishment clause forbids ONE religion from being stablished. It only says “religion”, which is generic.”
No. It says “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, …” That’s not generic. That’s quite specific. “Establishment of religion” quite specifically means the elevation of legal status of one religion over all others. The word “establishment” in there has a specific legal meaning, it is not a generic modifier meaning “giving support”.
“So I do not see why it is ok that the state favors two or more religious sects equally, since it ignores all the others that exist (or that MAY come into existence).”
No, that would not be O.K. All religious denominations (and I grant that the question of what’s a legitimate religious denomination and what’s a end-run around the tax or education laws is tricky) should be treated equally.
“And if you see, only some protestant sects of christianity, catholicism and judaism get favored: which is a clear form of religious discrimination against all the rest, including non religious options.”
Well, no, I don’t see that at all.
“So the only logical alternative is that NON religion gets favored at all by the state.”
And since I don’t see the preceding premise, I don’t see the logic of that statement.
“Now, of course all legislators are going to have their sense of morals influence their decision. The problem is that they do not have the right to present their case in religious terms, which is what happening in the US today ‘We aprove this law cause is what God commands’. That makes nonsense…cause it not only violates the rights of atheists, but also of other believers who happen to have a different creed and a different view on what God wants or not.”
Legislators have the right to present their arguments in any terms they want. To do otherwise would violate their rights to both free speech and the free expression of religion as spelled out in the First Amendment. Free speech violates no one’s rights – the only proper remedy under the law to free speech you don’t like is for you to engage in free speech you do like, or to support someone else who does.
“Finally, quoting the declaration of indepence will not help your case. Not simply cause it is not law, as you know, but cause the terms in which it was formulates spoke more of the deistic God many of the founders aknowledged, and not some specific God of some specific religion. And speaking of natural law (a very doubtfoull and cuestionable moral philosophic stance) won´t help you anyways: since Natural Law does not necesarely require a God to be defended, as many atheist friends who defend it will show to you.”
The formula used in the Declaration of Indepence speaks of the Creator; that can be a Deistic deity, or a Christian one, or Brahma, or Allah, or whatever a given religion views the Creator as. And Natural Law is a concept that you’ll find in the heart of Roman Catholic theology as well as in a Deistic tract or an atheistic philosoply. All of which is besides the point. The point I was making was that while the founders intended their government to be neutral with respect to different religions, they certainly did not intend for it to be uninfluenced by religion overall. To completely remove the influence of religion from the philosophies of government and legislation was anathema to them, something that they clearly expressed.
Ron –
Sure. The 3 branches are separate. However, there are many, many examples of how they work together and are inherently connected. Have you noticed that this congress has surprisingly passed laws that were on Bush’s agenda? Bush and his crew lobbied congress and had lunches with legislators. To say that only the legislative branch had a hand in these creations is to ignore the obvious.
The function of the judiciary is to interpret the laws. A case that is brought to the court may have an aspect that is not clearly defined in the laws of the jurisdiction. Abortion and SSM are not in the US Constitution. If the judge makes a ruling, is he/she being an activist? It surely depends upon one’s perspective. If a conservative does not agree with the decision, the answer is surely yes.
You don’t see how Christian denominations are favored? I don’t see people trying to put tablets of the Wiccan Laws in courthouses or in classrooms. I don’t see the Air Force Academy harrassing cadets for not claiming Allah as their Lord and savior. I don’t see people trying to force Creationism as told by the Apache into public school science class. And I most certainly do not see the Bush administration giving government money to Buddhist charities.
I look with disdain upon people who claim that the liberals are trying to wipe out religion. There is a big difference between keeping religion out of public discourse and stamping it out of people’s lives completely. If these Christians (and I use this term loosely) want to practice their religion, they are free to do it in their homes and in their personal lives. They can teach their children that God created light before the sun at home. They are not obligated to marry their same sex or have abortions. If these Christians were so intent on living the Christian message rather than making sure everyone else did, we would not be talking about Justice Sunday.
Sarah (#10)
“The ‘exclusion’ (to use their terminology) of Christian belief structures from the public sphere is not, contrary to what these extremists would have us believe, an ‘oppression’ of Christians. A neutral stance in the public sphere is a recognition of the equality of beliefs, and can only be seen as an ‘exclusion’ if you believe that your rightful place is actually to have more rights, in terms of imposing your beliefs on others, than any other group. But, of course, ‘neutral’ has come to be demonized by these fundamentalist extremists.”
This is very well stated, and worthy of repeating in other spheres. (May we?) The fact of the matter is that the Fundamentalist Christians that are pushing this agenda are frightened and reacting as opposed to responding in a manner that a more mature rendering of faith would have them.
I appreciate that you qualify that you are speaking in generalities about Christians and other religious groups. If you are truly interested in finding Christians that are not proselytizing, and do not share the positions of the Fundamentalists, ask, and I can point you in that direction; the very nature of these folks living out lives in Faith, accepting and loving, sharing by serving as opposed to forcing or shouting makes them by nature less visible. (In fact, Christ teaches on giving to, “not let the right hand know what the left is doing”) I may be mistaken, but you seem to have some hostility that might keep you from seeing the people that you seem to believe to be absent. I accept that Christians that seem to garner much of the attention do not create a very welcoming picture, in fact I am aghast myself at the relative cheapening of a Faith that creates in me and my community a totally different response than in some Fundamentalists.
As far as the Jews, and Moslems are concerned sadly, they have the same problems with extremism and public appearancesas well. When do we hear of the Jews in Israel that are anti war and do not agree with the treatment of the Palestinians? When do we see the vast majority of Moslems portrayed (Like India, the US and other places) as moderate and inclusive? I meet and hang out with other Clerics and lay people from other faiths on a regular basis, it is not uncommon, yet this is not widely portrayed.
There are many Christians that are strongly anti war, anti discrimination, pro healthcare, feminists, fighting very hard for human rights, we are not fearful of GLBT people, or sharing lives together. In fact many who are fighting the same struggles for civil rights, are marginalized by folks because they are lumped in with the Fundamentalists simply when the word Christian is applied. It is a bit of a predicament when we get slammed by Christians that are not progressive for our views supporting SSM, and extending rights granted to anyone else in our community; and then lumped in with the Fundamentalists by the folks we find attractive and most like us socialy and politically.
There are many Christians who are paying a price including being jailed regularly for standing up for human/civil rights. (Google Daniel Berigan, a Jesuit Priest, one of my favorite radicals, and poets for Social Justice.) Many have lost jobs, Pulpits, Congregations, teaching positions, etc. as a result of the stands they have taken. (Try and find a report in the popular press.) Our Church leaders extended the right to full employee benefits to any co-domesticated people in our employment and the Fundamentalists hammered us badly (even denominations that have nothing to do with us.) Many Churches have no problem with Progressive issues and are motoring along without any fanfare from their congregants. One of the most exciting areas of scholarly discussion these days in the Church is by Feminist Theologians. If you are truly interested, there is a huge body of work and folks that are led to many of the same conclusions as you through the teachings of Christ, and the Christian faith. (Including anguish over “Justice Sunday’s.”) We are fellows, believers. We are not the enemy. Blessings.
Rats!
I left an “R” out of Daniel Berrigan.
Sorry.
“You don’t see how Christian denominations are favored? I don’t see people trying to put tablets of the Wiccan Laws in courthouses or in classrooms.”
I don’t see anyone having elected a Wiccan judge who was so inclined to try.
“I don’t see the Air Force Academy harrassing cadets for not claiming Allah as their Lord and savior.”
A practice that is against the law and was stopped when the authorities became aware of it.
” I don’t see people trying to force Creationism as told by the Apache into public school science class.”
If Judeo-Christian creationism actually makes it into the classrooms, I certainly hope that they try. That’ll make an interesting case!
“And I most certainly do not see the Bush administration giving government money to Buddhist charities.”
Have any applied and been denied? You are familiar with the complete list of what charities have and have not been given government money? Seems to me that when I was reading stories about Bush’s faith-based initiatives, he went to great lengths to show that he was being inclusive of all different faiths.
As far as different groups trying to get their faiths’ beliefs translated into government action, there’s a difference between the government itself selecting Christianity over all others, and private citizens trying to bring Christianity forward. The former should not happen, but the latter is quite likely simply because the vast majority of people in this country are at least nominally Christian.
“However, there are many, many examples of how they work together and are inherently connected. Have you noticed that this congress has surprisingly passed laws that were on Bush’s agenda? Bush and his crew lobbied congress and had lunches with legislators. To say that only the legislative branch had a hand in these creations is to ignore the obvious.”
I never held that the various branches of the government don’t influence each other. And when the legislature and the executive are of the same party, of course they’ll work together. But the executive cannot command the legislature to create particular law, nor can it create law on its own.
“The function of the judiciary is to interpret the laws. A case that is brought to the court may have an aspect that is not clearly defined in the laws of the jurisdiction. Abortion and SSM are not in the US Constitution. If the judge makes a ruling, is he/she being an activist? It surely depends upon one’s perspective. If a conservative does not agree with the decision, the answer is surely yes. ”
If a judge makes a ruling that is based on their own personal feelings rather than on the content of the law and the intent of the legislature, then yes, they’re activist. And if Bush gets a conservative majority on the Supremes, it’ll be the liberals that will be condemning it as activist.
“I look with disdain upon people who claim that the liberals are trying to wipe out religion. There is a big difference between keeping religion out of public discourse and stamping it out of people’s lives completely.”
There’s some differences. But there’s one similarity; both have no basis in law.
“If these Christians (and I use this term loosely) want to practice their religion, they are free to do it in their homes and in their personal lives. They can teach their children that God created light before the sun at home.”
Uh, check your cosmology. Current scientific theory teaches just that. Electromagnetic radiation resulted from the big bang long before matter condensed enough to create stars. In fact, this radiation had a role in causing the heterogeneity of matter distribution that led to star formation.
“They are not obligated to marry their same sex or have abortions.”
Yeah, but they will be obligated to support (financially and otherwise) other people doing so. They object to this just as much as anti-war folks oppose their tax dollars going to fund the Iraqi war, and they have just as much right to oppose this and work from the basis of their convictions to change it.
Yeah, but they will be obligated to support (financially and otherwise) other people doing so. They object to this just as much as anti-war folks oppose their tax dollars going to fund the Iraqi war, and they have just as much right to oppose this and work from the basis of their convictions to change it.
I’m sorry, I know this isn’t going to contribute to the discussion in any meaningful way, nor is it particularly polite, but I had to call this.
This is such an INSANELY bullshit argument and comparison it is fucking BEYOND the pale. This pathetic individualistic approach to the tax system as somehow ‘supporting’ others is fucked up and just downright inane. There are a virtaul infinite amount of things that are provided for in society by the government that at least one person will find objectionable. But you know what? Tough fucking luck, because that is the way it works. It’s not your money, and it’s not my money, it’s the government’s money and if your relationship is worth having money thrown at it, then mine is too.
And regardless of the vision of taxes, to compare SSM to the war is, actually, insulting. I don’t care if you say it is merely what some (dumbarse) folks believe, to give it credence as a viable argument is just disgusting.
I would have liked to have thought better of you.
Hm. Well, Sarah, perhaps you’re right. After all, I say the same thing when people protest against paying taxes for things they opposed that I support. And I was trying to show the weakness of that though analogy, but I went the wrong way with it. So, I apologize. And SSM and the War are two different issues. There are those who may find a way to link them morally as Righteous Expressions of God’s Grand Plan, but I am not one of them. I have my beliefs on both, but they are not linked. SSM is a moral issue, but the War, while it has it’s moral aspects, is overall a political one. I just tend to wander sometimes on these threads….
Thanks RonF, I appreciate the apology, not a lot of others would have done that.
The general direction of the courts in the US has been one of expansion of human rights, which I would guess most find a favourable trend. We limit ourselves as a nation moving into the future by insisting our justices follow the letter of the law. Our Constitution was intended to be a protection of people, of minorities from majorities, all while giving the people the power to govern, a very nice balance. Those who wrote that document instinctively knew there were would be a world unknown to them ahead, and set out to provide flexibility in coping with that world. To seek to render our Constitution to some Biblical strict interpretation would do a huge disservice to this nation.
We are at a crossroads of sorts; do we move in a direction of restricting rights, simply because a majority cannot wrap their mind around (or the ewwwwww factor kicks in) of two people of the same gender in bed together? Or of those who would restrict our rights to decide what happens within our own bodies, because they disapprove of the choices we make?
There is a danger to the contraction of rights, one that goes beyond the lgbt community. Yet, I am here, exist in the now, and don’t much care for being declared a second class citizen. Expect me to speak up when attempts are made to reduce us to this status.