There are two distinct clauses in the First Amendment's dealing with religious freedom. One stops government favoritism of a religion. It goes beyond prohibiting "establishment" of a state religion such as the Church of England or Islam in Iran. It prohibits "respecting" an establishment which generally means supporting or abetting one religion over another. If a law exempts religious facilities from certain taxes, then it does so for all recognizable religions not just one flavor.
The second phrase deals with individuals. It insures that government action won't restrict free citizens from practicing their own worship rituals. There are obvious limits such as ceremonies involving the tossing of virgins into volcanoes, but with the shortage of both in the US that hasn't been problematic.
Now consider this:
Wisconsin Group Seeks Injunction Against Texas Prayer
Most folks know that when it comes to religion I refer to myself as a "recovering Catholic." I grew up in a religious home and my education up to college was in Catholic schools. It served me well, but the ritual and changing moral standards along with the apparent hypocrisy of a visible few of the clergy has left me pretty much out of the retail religion business. I eschew the intermediaries and when I seek divine guidance I tend to go direct. I also respect those who walk a different path. They are welcome to interact with their deities under their own terms. I've got no dog in their hunt.
But I've got a lot of questions about this story.
The governor of Texas is undeniably conservative and undeniably seeks support from what has become identified as the religious right. He is Christian, he prays and he is a potential Presidential contender.
The nation is in a time of turmoil and he has chosen to support a PRIVATELY sponsored prayer rally. It is in Texas and all who wish to attend are welcome. It is funded by recognized non-governmental entities. No one is compelled to attend. Any who wish to ignore it may freely exercise that privilege.
How does a group in Wisconsin gain standing to bring suit against a group of believers in Texas gathering to pray for their nation? There are certainly no federal tax dollars involved. In fact, there are no state tax dollars incurred beyond the governor's routine security expenses which would exist regardless. Where is their tort?
Is this Presidential politics? Is this selective outrage? And, how does this compare to Rev. Jeremiah Wright?
2 comments:
Leadfoot says:
As an atheist even I find that a lawsuit preventing an elected official acting in a private capacity from participating in a religious event utterly ridiculous. However the Gov. Perry does neeed to ensure he is acting as a private citizen. If he has proclaimed August 6 as a day of "Day of Prayer and Fasting." in his official capacity as Governor then he is in violation of the 1st amendment and I would find that offensive.
Personally I wish the "establishment clause" meant the "wall of separation" coined in the conversation between Thomas Jefferson and Roger Williams. I like that viewpoint. But reading the Constitution shouldn't be about what we want it to say, but about what it actually says. In my research, and much to my dismay, the "establishment of religion" referred only to having an official declared religion. It applied only to Congress and not to the States and even at the time of the founding, Jefferson's own state of Virginia did in fact have an established religion, as did other states. Jefferson changed that in his state of Virginia later, and the Fourteenth Amendment made the First Amendment apply to all states. But the "establishment of religion" is very narrow and does not mean a wall of separation like I personally wish it meant. So as I see it, Perry doesn't even have to act as an individual in this matter. He just doesn't need to declare a religion for the state of Texas.
Post a Comment