Alito Debate Turns to Rulings on Religion
The usual suspects are coming out on the debate on Sam Alito’s rulings on religion, from Barry Lynn to Focus on the Family.
Though abortion has dominated the early politicking over Samuel Alito’s Supreme Court nomination, another hot-button issue, religion, has cheered conservatives and worried liberals. In his 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rulings, Alito has shown a deference toward religious interests that some liberal groups think has allowed unwarranted government support for faith. Supporters portray him as a champion for the right to religious expression under the Constitution. Oddly, both sides in the debate say they’re defending religious liberty.
We’re again visited by the anti-religious expression gang a day after I’ve posted George Washington’s Thanksgiving Declaration that’s filled with religious expressions. I wonder how the “Father of our Nation” would react if he heard Barry Lynn and other anti-religious expression activists talking about worries about the separation of church and state. I suspect he’d either scold them for their opposition to America being a nation that rejoices in the free expression of religions or he might just start laughing at them before pointing out what the First Amendment says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Most anti-religious expression activists will dwell endlessly on the section stating that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” but they totally ignore the next section, which says “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”. In other words, the First Amendment means that Congress can’t create a national church like the one that existed at the time of the Declaration of Independance, where the king of England dictated what people could or couldn’t legally believe. Similarly, the First Amendment also guarantees that individuals can freely express their religious views because that’s part of their exercising of their religion.
This is indicative of what happens when the Constitution isn’t taken literally but is instead viewed from an ‘enlightened’ view. My opinion is that most ‘enlightened’ viewpoints are intellectually indefensible perspectives made by people who’d have you believe that they’re better or smarter than the average person. In short, they’re often a waste of time.
The Alliance for Justice says that as a federal appeals judge, Alito has “tried to weaken church-state separation.”
Nan Aron’s activists have an upside down perspective of the Constitution so this comment isn’t surprising. You can’t find the “Separation of Church and State” clause anywhere in the Constitution because that clause doesn’t exist. In other words, this is another Constitutional ‘right’ that wasn’t created by the Founding Fathers or that went through the Constitutional amendment process but was instead created by judicial fiat.
The rulings that a Barry Lynn or Nan Aron approved judge would continue their hostility towards people of faith based on judicial fiat instead of relying on the text of the Constitution. That’s why it’s important that Sam Alito is confirmed.
Based on what I’ve seen, there’s no reason to believe that he won’t get confirmed.
Cross-posted at ConfirmationWhoppers