|
Special Features Attack on The United Churches of Christ Attack on The United Methodist Church "The Christian Right, Dominionism, and Theocracy", by Chip Berlet "Taking Over The Republican Party", a four part series by Joan Bokaer The Woman in A Mink CoatWhile We Were sleepingAngels On a PinheadUnder Cover of Night BlogsBartholomew's Notes On ReligionChip BerletMax BlumenthalThe Panda's ThumbFrederick Clarkson Chuck Currie DefCon father Jake Stops The World John Gorenfeld Religion Clause Chris Mooney Religious Right Watch The Revealer Jesus Politics Majority Report Radio Blog Mainstream Baptist Orcinus Dispatches from the Culture Wars Ex-Gay Watch The Wall of Separation Blog From The Capital:a blog on religious liberty issues and the separation of church and stateOrganizationsAmerican Booksellers Foundation for Freedom of ExpressionACLUAnti-Defamation LeagueAmerican Library AssociationChristian Alliance for ProgressCitizens ProjectDefCon: Campaign to Defend The ConstitutionFaithful America People For the American wayInstitute For Democracy StudiesInterfaith AllianceJews On First: Defending the First AmendmentAmerican Fundamentalists Americans United for Separation of Church and StateBaptist Joint Committee on Religious Liberty The Clergy and laity Network Political Research Associates Theocracy Watch Media Matters for AmericaMilitary Religious Freedom FoundationMontana Human Rights NetworkNational Center For Science EducationReligious Coalition for Reproductive ChoiceThe RevealerSouthern Poverty Law CenterTexas Freedom NetworkCrossLeft: Organizing the Christian LeftTheocracy WatchTruth Wins Out" |
Welcome, From Susan Jacoby of Mother Jones
* In his dissent in one of the recent Ten Commandments cases (McCreary County v. the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky), Scalia chastised the court majority for ordering the removal of conspicuous displays of the Ten Commandments from courthouses. Scalia made the absurd argument that the Constitution permits "disregard of polytheists and believers in unconcerned deities, just as it permits the disregard of devout atheists." The Constitution, of course, "permits" no such thing; its only references to religion are prohibitions--of religious tests for public office and of any laws "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." How ironic it is that right-wing judges like Scalia call themselves "originalists" and then proceed to ignore what the Constitution actually says--or in this instance, does not say.
* The Constitution's prohibition (Article 6, Section 3) of any religious test for public office has been used by the religious Right to discourage any questioning of judicial nominees about whether there might be a conflict between their particular form of faith and their secular constitutional obligations. Chief Justice John Roberts, when asked what he would do if the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church conflicted with the law in a particular case, said he would recuse himself. Is that a satisfactory answer? Samuel Alito, a devout Roman Catholic whose confirmation hearings begin in January, has already ruled on abortion cases as a federal appeals court judge. Is it possible for someone who agrees with the anti-abortion teachings of a church that considers its leader infallible on matters of faith and morals--the only mainstream church, by the way, to make such a claim--to approach abortion cases with an open mind? It would of course be improper and unconstitutional to bar members of a particular church from federal judgeships. But it seems to me that it is not a religious test but a secular test to raise the question of whether somone who believes in papal infallibility can be expected to rule fairly on issues in which Vatican teachings contradict American law.
Welcome, From Susan Jacoby of Mother Jones | 34 comments (34 topical, 0 hidden)
Welcome, From Susan Jacoby of Mother Jones | 34 comments (34 topical, 0 hidden)
|
|||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
print page
