What a week! Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore states the following:
“Everybody, to include the U.S. Supreme Court, has been deceived as to
one little word in the First Amendment called ‘religion.' They can't
define it.” Moore said. “They can't define it the way Mason, Madison and
even the United State Supreme Court defined it, 'the duties we owe to
the creator and the manner of discharging it.' They don’t want to do
that, because that acknowledges a creator god. Buddha didn't create us.
Mohammed didn't create us. It's the god of the Holy Scriptures. ... They didn't bring a Koran over on the pilgrim ship, Mayflower. Let's get real. Let's go back and learn our history."
Watch the video:
You'll find the Chief Justice praising Blackstone's commentaries. Such commentaries are influential, but the foundation of his argument is that Constitutional Jurisprudence rests on a law review article written by an otherwise unremarkable Tory member of the House of Parliament. (The Tories were the party in opposition to American independence, but to heck with that tiny hiccup). Blackstone was one thinker ... of many, and his claim to fame was translating British law to the masses. (I.E. he made the law accessible to the non-lawyer and made a lot of money in publishing).
But SCOTUS takes it a step further and renders its 5-4 decision in the case of Town of Greece v. Galloway, holding that the opening prayer held before a town council meeting does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution.
Read the entire opinion and dissents, totaling 80 pages:
Chief Justice Moore and SCOTUS don't realize it, but these respective positions are about to be at war with one another. Governments are now in the position of interpreting the question of "what is religion?" on a "spiritual" basis, instead of an objective basis. Clearly the Alabama Chief Justice seem to think the First Amendment would allow citizens to legally, and successfully, object to an Muslim Cleric opening a Birmingham City Council Meeting with a prayer; but those same citizens would not have a legal or successful chance of objecting to a minister of whatever Christian denomination the Chief Justice belongs too. (I've done a cursory search, and I can't seem to find where the Chief Justice worships on Sunday). The Chief Justice could even be correct... prior to the passing of the 1th Amendment. SCOTUS precedent is clear that the most recent amendment reflects the most recent position of Congress and state legislatures.... so the Chief Justice is presently wrong because the 14th Amendment is more recent than the First Amendment. Religious liberty applies equally to us all, but I guess some of us are more equal than others pursuant to this interpretation.
Jefferson's writings about the separation of Church and State are crucial, not just for the disagreements between distinct religions, but because of disagreements of doctrine among Christians. SCOTUS's opinion is naive. Here's why: one of my best friends grew up in the west Oklahoma countryside in a town of about 10,000. The community was composed of distinct Christian denominations: Catholic, Baptist, and smaller Protestant churches. Each morning, a student conducted a school prayer over the high school intercom. The prayer often consisted of the student-conductor praying to God that the the students that were not a member of the conductor's denomination to repent from their ways and be saved from going to hell. Apparently one ecumenical Church is a little tough on high school kids (and that's not a sarcasm, its tough on adults). SCOTUS seems to think grown adult will not act this way. Obviously, SCOTUS has not accounted for the Alabama Chief Justice and those of his persuasion.
The Hypothetical:
Now imagine, a prayer conducted before a City Council meeting with a zoning dispute about the location for building a mission center to be operated by Church A, and created in order to feed the homeless. To open the meeting, the prayer-conductor of Church B performs the invocation by praying for the souls of the Godless-misguided members of Church A because Church A's congregation (or leadership) is open minded to gay rights (or hostile to gay rights) OR doesn't teach the Rapture (or does); OR teaches creationism (or doesn't) OR you could go on and on about doctrinal divisions.
However, Church B's prayer conducted in opening meeting sets the tone for the entire meeting with its potential to stir bitterness and vitriol in control of the meeting (Sounds like starting a day at school on a bad note). Then if a vote is taken and Church A is denied zoning for its mission center, then it is fair for Church A's congregation to assume that Church B's prayer influenced city councilors to consider (1) that one church has more voters than the other, and/or (2) that the prayer swayed the governmental body's making of its decision, or otherwise considered Church B's congregation as less than honorable people. Church B also could assume that the City Government, in operating in its authority to determine how to zone a building, is now also victorious in spreading its religious doctrine.
Sadly, the issue that gets lost is the zoning a building that will help further both churches' mission by creating a center to help the poor, goes by the way side with at least one congregation angry at the other.
Of course, the next step is litigation wherein a simple zoning dispute has now become a battlefield of whether Church B's actions have swayed of its City Government incontradiction to Jesus's teachings to feed the poor. What a mess.
Supreme Court cases are based on these messes, and until today, the Court previous arrived at resolutions of separating Church and State But this morning SCOTUS created problems, instead of resolving a problem. Previous decisions make more sense because it is best to leave religious doctrine at the Government Building's front steps, but now it appears religious doctrine is brought directly into Government Buildings. Now add to it that the lead jurist of one of the 50 States states Constitution rights only applies to Christians, and the next step is obviously determining which religious doctrine is superior in a Court of law. If you aren't scared yet, you should be.
The Alabama Chief Justice seems to have an answer to this question about what religious doctrine is superior. I'm fairly certain this pro-gay rights, pro-civil rights, pro-social justice, pro-equal pay, pro-science, liberal Christian who believes every person is welcome at Christ's Communion Table has a different answer than the Chief Justice.
God help us all.
