Rightank

The unending Muslim conniption over a Danish newspaper’s initial publication of a cartoon characteriture of the Muslim prophet Muhammed is outlandish. A father’s killing of a daughter because she refuses to marry her cousin receives Muhammed’s praise yet when someone not of Muslim faith–an infidel–dares to draw Muhammed violent, fiery protest and threats of death are warranted.

Much of the blog commentary has centered on the Muslim response of fire, destruction, and hate-filled rhetoric. What seems missing, however, is any discussion of the Muslim imposition of a specific religious tenet of their faith upon the nations of Europe. Adherents of the Muslim faith are forbidden to draw a picture of Muhammed because of clerics who fear such a picture would become worshipped idolatrously. Anyone who is not a Muslim would not be prohibited from drawing a representation of Muhammed (including a political cartoon) unless that person is a dhimmi–a person who is forcefully subjugated to Islam.

The underlying presumption or condition necessary for any justifiable Muslim outrage is that the Danish cartoonist is bound by the religious commandments of Islam. The issue is not the cartoonist’s depiction of Muhammed as a terrorist–the radical Islam espoused and preached by Osama bin Laden validates the portrayal of Muhammed as a bomber. Individuals, in a free society, are allowed to be as religiously bigoted as they want. The other members of the polity can decide for themselves whether to agree or disagree with the bigot’s opinion.

In Dhimmi societies, Muslim critics are not tolerated. It is heartening that the EU defended the newspaper’s right to publish the cartoon. However, the recent Muslim pillaging of all things European suggests that many Muslims, particularly the radical community, do not view Europe as a free society–at least a free society that is capable of criticizing the religious doctrine of Islam.

Recently, the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State (”AU”) released their official position regarding the nomination of Judge Alito to the Supreme Court. Not suprisingly, AU has decided to oppose Alito:

Americans United opposes the nomination of Judge Alito . . . because of the substantial risk that he would abandon the sensitive approach to church-state issues that has been the defining feature of Justice O’Connor’s Establishment Clause jurisprudence, and that he would . . . revamp[] Establishment Clause law in ways that would weaken or dismantle the constitutional wall separating church and state.

AU is worried about the downfall of the anti-originalist and court-doctored meaning of the Establishment Clause that Justice Hugo Black inserted almost sixty years ago in Everson. The “sensitive approach” that Justice O’Connor applied is code for “separationist approach”–which is AU’s overarching objection to Alito’s jurisprudence.

According to AU, Alito’s decisional history regarding the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses is troubling because he would allow students to pray at a graduation ceremony if a majority of the students approved (ACLU of New Jersey v. Black Horse Pike Regional Board of Education) or during a class presentation (Child Evangelism Fellowship of New Jersey, Inc. v. Stafford Township School District). AU fear Alito not because he would allow for a Christianization of America (isn’t America already Christian?), but, because of his willingness to protect the rights of religious majorities in the public square. Moreover, he treats religious speech as protected by the Constititution instead of forbidden, rejecting the constitutional ostracism that pervades the liberal elite and is prominent in Justice O’Connor’s religious jurisprudence.

An originalist understanding of the Religion Clauses espoused by Alito, particularly of the Establishment Clause, would remove the muddiness of Justice O’Connor’s endorsement test and restore the religious freedom that the Founding Fathers intended to bestow upon the American people. Contrary to O’Connor and AU, the First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion not equality of religious expression. The Framers didn’t intend to elevate the hurt feelings of Atheists or those whose religious doctrine fails to attract more than 200 adherents to a constitutional plateau that precludes majoritarian religious practice in the public arena.

It is time for the constitutional myth of separation of church and state to end. Confirming Justice Alito would be a good starting point.

George Washington gratefully announced the following in the first Thanksgiving Day Proclamation:

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor. . . .

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be–That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks–for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation–for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the tranquillity, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed–for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted–for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

Can you hear Michael Newdow screaming? It must be agonizing for atheists and constitutional revisionists like him to read the documents of our Nation’s history.

I am grateful to God for all of His many blessings in my life and my family. Like Washington, I thank God as well for the Nation of which I am a citizen–The United States of America. I am grateful for the religious freedom I enjoy. Despite attempts by the Reverend Barry Lynn and others to castigate and banish religion from the public square, Americans can worship God publicly and privately without fear of government interference. Many Christian Chinese risk death, incarceration, and separation from their family by choosing to worship God according to the dictates of their consciences while Americans doddle to church every Sunday worrying if they’ll finally make it on time for the opening prayer. Truly, Washington’s thanks to God for our religious liberty is a blessing we Americans take for granted.

Much of the reaction to Alito’s nomination has been predictable. Liberals are questioning if not oppositional while conservatives are overjoyed that Bush did not nominate another diversity pick (Miers) or someone otherwise unqualified.

After reviewing Judge Alito’s opinion in Saxe v. State College Area School District, I am more confident that Alito is a great choice by President Bush. Saxe involved a suit by a Christian parent who objected to their school’s Anti-Harassment Policy (”AHA”) because he does approve of homosexuality and who felt that he and his children would be punished for expressing those beliefs. The AHA policy protected, among others, harrassment based upon sexual orientation:

Harassment on the basis of sexual orientation is unwelcome verbal, written or physical conduct directed at the characteristics of a person’s perceived sexual orientation, such as negative name calling and degrading behavior.

. . .

Other harassment on the basis of such things as clothing, physical appearance, social skills, peer group, income, intellect, educational program, hobbies or values, etc. may also cause or effect substantial interfering with a student’s educational performance or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment. This type of harassment is also protected against by this policy and procedures.

Clearly, the policy was political correctness run amok. Judge Alito’s emphasis on protecting the First Amendment rights of all schoolchildren (even those who objected to homosexuality on religious grounds) is outstanding:

[T]he Policy prohibits harassment based on personal characteristics that are not protected underfederal law. Titles VI and IX, taken together with the other relevant federal statutes, cover only harassment based on sex, race, color, national origin, age and disability. The Policy, in contrast, is much broader, reaching, at the extreme, a catch-all category of “other personal characteristics” (which, the Policy states, includes things like “clothing,” “appearance,” “hobbies and values,” and “social skills.”) Insofar as the policy attempts to prevent students from making negative comments about each others’ “appearance,” “clothing,” and”social skills,” it may be brave, futile, or merely silly. But attempting to proscribe negative comments about “values,” as that term is commonly used today, is something else altogether. By prohibiting disparaging speech directed at a person’s “values,” the Policy strikes at the heart of moral and political discourse–the lifeblood of constitutional self government (and democratic education) and the core concern of the First Amendment. That speech about “values” may offend is not cause for its prohibition, but rather the reason for its protection: “a principal ‘function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger.’ ” (citations omitted). No court or legislature has ever suggested that unwelcome speech directed at another’s “values” may be prohibited under the rubric of anti-discrimination.

Scalito saw that values-based discrimination (i.e. religious discrimination) was contrary to the purpose of the First Amendment, which is and was an invitation to poltical, social, or religious disputations held in the public square. Moreover, a hurt feelings do not trump an individual’s verbal expression of conscience, particularly religious expression which is explicitly protected in the First Amendment.

Scalito’s unwillingness to ride the wave of discrminatory lawlessness is great news for Americans who value freedom and an originalist view of the First Amendment.

Thanks to Liberty Counsel for highlighting the case.

For the second time, Michael Newdow has trumpeted his atheistic view of the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses and convinced a federal judge to rule that it is unconstitutional for school kids to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

Atheist Jim Lindgren, blogging at the Volokh Conspiracy, said he feels that “[t]he words “under God” have no business being in the Pledge of Allegiance, no matter how religious the country currently is or was.” A reader made the following astute comment:

I have no problem with the idea, but can we change the phrase “under God” to “under Allah” for us Muslims?

Touché.

In accordance with its policy of a continual dumpfest, the White House is granting more and more records in accordance with the liberals demands. In a recently-released memorandum, Judge Roberts described the Supreme Court’s decision to prohibit school prayer as “indefensible. ” Not suprisingly, such a revelation riled up the posse at Americans United for the Separation of Church and State (”AU”). In a press release, AU’s Atheist-in-Chief Barry Lynn responded:

This is just one more piece of evidence that Roberts has spent years working to erode the First Amendment principle of church-state separation, said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. It’s no wonder Religious Right lobbyists are backing his nomination with such enthusiasm.

Public schools serve children of all faiths and none, Lynn continued. It is imperative that our schools leave decisions about worship to parents. Religious minorities would face unrelenting majority pressures if Roberts’ views of the Constitution became the law of the land.

While re-affirming AU’s blind allegiance to their ill-begotten pillar of separation of church and state, Lynn indirectly raises an interesting point. Should schools inculcate the value of prayer in public school? Furthermore, does any type of religious teaching or influence deserve protection in public schools? If you were to ask George Washington, who proclaimed a Day of Thanksgiving, what would he say? How about Benjamin Franklin?

While it is true that the Constitution protects religious majorities and minorities, it does not reject religion neither bar nor prohibit religion in the public arena. Religion plays an indispensable role in instilling moral direction in the lives of youth. School prayer is just one example. While it is the parents charge to teach or open up religious opportunities in a child’s home, it is the Nation’s responsibility to promote religion insofar as religion is necessary for a nation’s moral foundation.

I’m pleased Judge Roberts supports (at least he did support) school prayer and even more pleased that he understands what the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment means and does not mean.

Justice O’Connor’s retirement (and possibly Rehnquist’s and Steven’s as well!) present a historic opportunity to halt the social and internationalist judicial activism that froths from the court’s current opinion-making.

My beef with Justice O’Connor judical contributions is three-fold: the unconstitutional prolongment of affirmative action policies on the college admissions process; the development of the endorsement test in Establishment Clause cases; the radicalization of social policy, particularly homosexual “rights.” Two of these judicial qualities are recent incarnations, while one (the endorsement test) was O’Connor’s position over the last two decades.

In Grutter v. Bolinger (2003), Justice O’Connor’s majority opinion upheld the University of Michigan’s undergraduate admissions policy even though that policy sustantially overvalued an applicant’s race (but only African-American, Latino, and Native-Americans–screw the Asians and the Caucasians). In that opinion, Justice O’Connor said the following:

We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.

In other words, an unconstitutional admissions policy is constitutional for 25 more years because Justice O’Connor gazed into the future and said so–not because the Constitution permitted or warranted the arbitrary extension.

In Lynch v. Donnelly (1984), Justice O’Connor introduced her endorsement test to “clarify” the Court’s Establishment Clause jurisprudence. However, all Justice O’Connor did was further muddy the legal waters of permitted religiousity in America. In her view, the government violates the Establishment Clause when to a reasonable or objective observer “the government intends to convey a message of endorsement or disapproval of religion.” Also, the purpose of the governmental practice must not “endorse or disapprove of religion.” This endorsement test, based upon her amalgamation of the Court’s Establishment jurisprudence and not on the Founder’s intent of the Establishment Clause’s purpose, is what held together the majority of five justices in the recent case of McCreary County v. ACLU where Justice O’Connor concurred that a courtroom display of the Ten Commandments was unconstitutional:

Given the history of this particular display of the Ten Commandments, the Court correctly finds an Establishment Clause violation. The purpose behind the counties’ display is relevant because it conveys an unmistakable message of endorsement to the reasonable observer. See Justice O’Connor’s concurrence, page 3 (citations omitted and emphasis mine).

In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), Justice O’Connor joined five other justices in finding a Texas statute criminalizing sodomy unconstitutional. In that opinion, she coughed out the following in her concurrence:

Moral disapproval of a group cannot be a legitimate governmental interest under the Equal Protection Clause because legal classifications must not be drawn for the purpose of disadvantaging the group burdened by the law. Texas’ invocation of moral disapproval as a legitimate state interest proves nothing more than Texas’ desire to criminalize homosexual sodomy. But the Equal Protection Clause prevents a State from creating a classification of persons undertaken for its own sake. And because Texas so rarely enforces its sodomy law as applied to private, consensual acts, the law serves more as a statement of dislike and disapproval against homosexuals than as a tool to stop criminal behavior. The Texas sodomy law raise[s] the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected. (quotations and citations omitted)(emphasis mine).

Justice O’Connor’s personal preference–that States’ cannot morally disapprove of any group’s behavior–is absurd. Her usurpation of the State’s policy interest to grant gay and lesbians reprieve from a criminal law is judical activism at its finest (apart from the fact that the Equal Protection Clause was ratified to rectify racist State practices–not protect any disadvantaged group with whom Justice O’Connor or any judge sympathizes).

These three examples of Justice O’Connor inserting her personal policy preferences in lieu of the constitutional text or deference to state sovereignity are reasons why conservatives should rejoice (as I do) that Justice O’Connor is leaving the Court. President Bush has promised to appoint a strict constructionist (i.e., a judge who will interpret the Constitution and other law according to its orginal intent and meaning) in her place. I believe Bush will keep his promise and appoint a lawyer of a Scalia/Thomas mold. If so, an originalist interpretation of the Establishment Clause is likely to take hold, admission practices that disguise racial quotas with the mantra of diversity less likely to receive the Court’s judicial blessing, and it is less likely that same-sex marriage will be thrust upon our Nation by the Court.

A recent decision by the United States 4th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a county resident who practices Wicca can be excluded from a list of clergy who are invited to offer a non-denominational prayer for the County Board of Supervisors (i.e., Commissioners). The plaintiff, Cynthia Simpson (represented by the ACLU), who prefers witchcraft and witch over Wicca (wouldn’t you too, I mean Wicca is too prissy) is a member of Reclaiming Tradition of Wicca and part of a local Broom Riders Association (I wonder if they have a corporate sponsor?). Simpson demanded Chesterfield County let her “pray,” or she would file suit. Thankfully, Chesterfield County held firm forcing Simpson’s ACLU-blessed suit. After winning in the lower court (what was that judge thinking?), a panel of three 4th Circuit judges wisely reversed and ruled against Simpson.

The Court’s ruling was grounded on a U.S. Supreme Court case called Marsh v. United States. In Marsh, the Court held that a Nebraska Legislature could have a prayer given by a state-paid minister of a Judeo-Christian faith as long as “the prayer opportunity had not been exploited to proselytize or advance” a particular religion. This decision is one that the liberal legal elite and policy groups are dying to have the Supreme Court re-visit and overturn.

The liberals are disappointed that Wiccans are not part of the Chesterfield County and 4th Circuit’s idea of legislative religious parity. See here and here.

Plainly, the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause do not prohibit governmental bodies from deciding what type of religious worship they use to commune with the Almighty God and assist them in fulfilling their duties as the people’s not a person’s representatives. The Constitution says “We the People” not “I the Person.” Now that is a distinction with a difference.

I’ve been reading an excellent book (Bush Country by John Podhoretz) that thoughtfully analyzes Bush’s first three-plus years in office and debunks several “crazy liberal ideas” perpetuated by Bush-haters. Podhoretz, quoting a “close student of Bush,” sheds more light on how W.’s faith interplays with his Presidential direction and instinct:

“The president believes that we are called of God to do the best we can, to act responsibly and ethically and with good judgment. And then you rest in the comfort that God is in control, that history is not random, that He sustains the world that He has created. You do all you can–but you understand the results are not, in the deepest sense, yours to control.

[This] does not mean that you simply act and forget about things; there is a duty to persist in, and fight for, what is right. Justice is not self-executing; it needs advocates here on earth.” But ultimately, “the president’s faith allows him . . . a freedom to act and an inner comfort that others may not possess.”

Sullivan is still miffed (see Bush and the Lord) about W’s statement in the Washington Times regarding the Lord and the Presidency. It’s typical of the Libs’ (and Sullivan is a Lib) to grovel about the separation of church and state and use it as a straw man to bash any connection between government and religion (translate: Christianity). The myth of the separation of church and state is the anti-religionists biggest victory over the past 60 years. I challenge anyone to find that language in the First Amendment . . . Hey Sullivan, get back to me when you’ve found it.

There has been a big hub-bub today over Bush’s comment regarding his faith and its influence on his role as the President of the United States. He said from “my perspective, how you can be president, without a relationship with the Lord.”

The Liberals are in an uproar over this clearly extremist (translate: religious) and divisive (translate: religious) statement. Andrew Sullivan, the gay wanna-be conservative extraordinare, is aghast, calling W.’s comments an “anathema to this country’s traditions and to the task of toleration.” To what traditions does he refer? The tradition of praising God daily as Congress begins its session? The prayer echoed in the Supreme Court before the Justices hear a case: “God save this Honorable Court”? Thanksgiving? Christmas?

What is the “task of toleration”? OK, for Sullivan it’s equal rights for homosexuals et al., especially gay marriage. Does toleration include, by chance, not jumping into a sissy (oops, I mean tissy) fit over a man’s belief in Christ or God? Or does toleration mean that religious zealots (translate: Christians) must silence themselves and Never, Never, say anything about their religious beliefs publicly as it might offend some defenseless mind who’s life will shatter to pieces upon hearing such words as faith, God or traditional marriage.

Another example is the litany of comments attached to truthpusher’s post regarding Bush’s expression of faith at the Liberal Haven democraticunderground.com. Here’s one snobbish comment (See post by muse): “His remarks are always so off the cuff and not well thought out. No depth. It’s hardly worth analyzing these remarks and commenting on them because they are so sophmoric. That’s the problem. We have a man as our president who continually rattles on in a light weight manner every time he opens his mouth”. . . I mean sophmoric . . . even better: dopey.

Liberals and those who hate religion in the public square (e.g., the Reverend Barry “Separation” Lynn) will always equate Christian religiousity with stupidity. But, if you’re an Islamist and preach hate of anything American then you’re tolerant and introspective.

Well, here’s my tolerant post:

“I pledge allegiance, to the flag, of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

Thanks W. for keeping the time-honored tradition of having a President who believes in God and Jesus Christ. And all you Libs’, stop your whining.