Is National Prayer Breakfast Constitutional?

Donald Trump wants churches to speak freely about politics without concern about losing their tax-free status.  Will he apply this to all religious institutions, or only those he favors, like churches, but not mosques?

He is right that churches should have freedom of speech, but he is wrong that their freedom of speech should be subsidized by the taxpayers.

See “How Trump Would Corrupt the Pulpit”, Steven Waldman, New York Times, 2017-02-02.

Interestingly, he was speaking at an “unconstitutional” gathering: the National Prayer Breakfast.  Isn’t this a religious test for public office?  Doesn’t this kind of make those who don’t attend look irreligious?

See also http://magree.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-united-states-is-not-christian.html.

"Strict constructionist judges”?

"'Strict construction' is a manner of interpreting the U.S. Constitution using a literal and narrow definition of language in the document without regard to changes that have occurred in American society since the 18th century document was written.”
- "Trump to Nominate 'Strict Constructionist' to Supreme Court", New York Times, 2017-01-26

I find that it strange that “strict constructionists” manage to interpret “We the People” as “We the Corporations”, to interpret that Congress has no right to regulate commerce among the states, and to interpret that “the people” in the second amendment means persons.

Will one of these "strict constructionists" strike down any anti-Muslim actions by Trump?  Remember all those "Christians" who want their freedom to discriminate.  If these judges were “strict constructionists” they would rule that people are free to believe what they want, but they can’t practice whatever they want when it impinges on others.

Will one of these “strict constructionists” stop Trump if he goes to war without the approval of Congress?

If you read George Washington’s “Farewell Address”, you will find a lot about the “intent” of the Founders and how much governments (of whatever party) have not followed the “intent” very well.  See “George Washington: Ignored Father of His Country".

If you can, watch a movie on John Marshall, an early Chief Justice, who struggled with many of these questions.

The Misunderstood Constitution

A letter writer to the Star Tribune stated that media should "return to their Constitutional responsibility of unbiased rhetoric.” (2015-07-21)  That doesn’t look like anything I ever saw in the Constitution.  I wrote a counter letter that “freedom of the press” imposes no such responsibility on the media, and it was published on 2015-07-23.

I don’t understand how people can put words into the Constitution that are not even there.  And much of the Constitution is a guideline rather than absolute law.  For example, “freedom of the press” means that I could state that you embezzled your employer of $50,000.  However, if you can prove that you did not embezzle your employer, you can sue me for defamation of character.  On the other hand, if you are brought to court on a charge of embezzlement, you have no case if I state you were brought to court.

The classic case many use is shouting fire in a crowded theatre, but even here you have to be careful.  Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. used it as a remark in a case of “sedition”; it is not law.  See “It’s Time to Stop Using the ‘Fire in a Crowded Theater’ Quote, Trevor Timm, The Atlantic, 2012-11-02.

Besides putting words into the Constitution that aren’t there, many of us put meaning into words that the writers of the Constitution probably didn’t intend.  The current hot phrase is “Freedom of Religion” to avoid obeying laws we don’t like.  For example, paying for employee health insurance that covers contraception.  “Freedom of Religion” has been allowed erratically to conscientious objectors.

But would “Freedom of Religion” apply to not paying taxes we don’t like?  I doubt it.  Tax “choice” would be a bureaucratic nightmare far worse than educational tax exemptions for certain political organizations.

“Freedom of Religion” is also being used as justification for not serving people one does not approve of, for example, gays.  I think the sit-ins of the sixties established that if you have a public establishment you should be open to all of the public.  The only exceptions should be excluding certain behavior: “No Shoes,  No Shirt, No Service.”

On the other hand, if you are asked to cater certain parties, you should be able to decline.  If you disapprove of mixed bathing or same-sex kissing, should you be required to provide your services?

My take is that “Freedom of Religion” is the freedom to believe whatever you want: child or adult baptism, hierarchical or elected church organization, and on and on.  However, you are not always free to act on these beliefs, say virgin sacrifice.

Interestingly, some of the same people who want their Freedom of Religion want to deny Freedom of Religion to others.  For example, mandatory public school prayer.  What form should a public prayer take to satisfy all faiths?  Ironically, those who want public prayer ignore the admonition in their holy book to not be like the hypocrites who pray in public to be seen by men.

We often treat the Constitution as almost God-given, but it was the long work of a hot summer with many, many compromises, like slaves being counted as three-fifths of a person for census purposes.  Benjamin Franklin voted for the Constitution even though he didn’t approve of several parts but thought it might be the best that could be written.  Note also, that 74 delegates were named to the Constitutional Convention, 55 attended, and only 39 signed the final document.

The Constitution does give the Supreme Court the judicial power of the United States.  This power is extended to a long list of cases which just about covers all possible cases.  However, it did not gain a solid reputation until the tenure of John Marshall (1801-1835).  Many of the cases brought before his court have become landmarks that are cited again and again.

However, the Court is composed of many with a variety of political beliefs.  Some decisions are unanimous, many decisions are divided.  And divided decisions may have more than two or more reasonings.  What a Court in the Nineteenth Century decided may be overturned by a Court in the Twentieth Century.

Appointees to the Supreme Court have often surprised the Presidents who nominate or approve them.  A case of point is Justice Earl Warren who put together many liberal decisions that upset the conservatives of the day; for example, Brown vs. Board of Education, making school segregation illegal.

Interestingly, the cries of “activist court” became very shrill during Warren’s tenure and beyond.  Not surprisingly, those voices were stilled during the time that the Court put corporations before people.  And “corporation” does not even appear in Constitution.

Finally, be really wary that the Constitution will protect our rights.

When the mathematician John von Neuman, a refugee from Hitler’s Germany, went for his citizenship interview, he was asked if he was glad he was in the U.S. where that couldn’t happen.  He had read the Constitution thoroughly and replied that it could.  Fortunately for von Neuman, the interviewer didn’t follow up on his answer.

It took me awhile to understand his reasoning.  Take a minute to try to answer this.

The Constitution can be amended!  What if the political will is there to make the current President the President for life?

Can’t happen?  Think again.  The Eighteenth Amendment forbade the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors.  It was very popular.  And then intoxicating liquors became even more popular.  It took fourteen years for the Amendment’s repeal.  If there was an amendment to make someone President for Life, wouldn’t an amendment to prevent further amendments follow?

Also published in the Reader Weekly, 2015-07-30 at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2015/07/29/5702_the_misunderstood_constitution.

This version includes a few grammatical or spelling corrections.

The United States is NOT a Christian Nation

...and it was not founded as such.

The United States may have many people who call themselves Christians, but evidence abounds that very few practice Christianity.  I’ll get back to this.

Many who proclaim that the United States is a Christian Nation cite the Declaration of Independence.  But “Christian” or “Christianity” do not appear in it or the Constitution.  The closest to a religious statement in either is “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

But Thomas Jefferson, the drafter of the Declaration, was a hypocrite.  He held slaves and did not pass on their Creator-given inalienable rights of liberty.  Furthermore, what did “men” mean at that time?  People of male gender as in the Adam and Eve story.  Or people as in on the sixth day “God created man in his own image…male and female created he them.” - Genesis 1:27, King James Version.

The only “religious” word that appears in the original Constitution is “religious”, as in “but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”  Given all the religious tests that have been required, “ever” was not a very long time.

It took over 170 years for a Catholic to be elected President.  And he felt compelled to be vetted by a group of Protestant ministers.  It took a bit less for a Jew to be appointed to the Supreme Court.  John McCain and Barack Obama had to be vetted by an Evangelical minister to prove their “Christianity”.  Shame on Obama, the Constitutional professor, for submitting to this religious test.

And this same Constitutional professor is sponsoring his own “Prayer Breakfasts”.  And shame on all the other politicians who do not have the political will to object to this religious test.

These prayer breakfasts also prove that these politicians are hypocrites.  “And when thou prayest, thou shall not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men.”  Matthew 6:5.

What does a Christian practice?

For starters the greatest commandment is to “Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and soul.”
The second is “Like unto it, to love thy neighbor as thyself.”  And who was “thy neighbor”?  The hated Samaritan who helped a Jew beaten and robbed by the side of the road.

A variation of the second commandment is “Do unto other as you would have them do unto you.”  Would we like foreign troops stationed in our country?  One of the reasons of the American Revolution was the stationing of British Troops in many of the Colonial cities.  But we have bases in dozens of countries, sometimes welcomed by the populace, sometime hated by the populace.

Many congregations recite the “Lord’s Prayer”: “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.”  The United States and many other countries have forgiven Germany and Japan for World War II, but has the U.S. gotten around to forgiving others that they have trespassed against?

U.S. mobsters practically ran Cuba and the U.S. supported the dictator Batista.  Is it any wonder that a Cuban leader arose to oust Batista?  And is it any wonder that leader wanted to reclaim the ill-gotten gains.  But there are many “Christians” in the U.S. that still don’t want to forgive the Cuban government.  Very strange that the U.S. had “good” relations with other Communist governments, including China.

The U.S. was implicit in the overthrow of Mohammad Mossaddegh of Iran and the support of the Shah with his brutal Savak.  Is it any wonder the Ayatollahs have little love for the U.S?  Who should be the first to “forgive those who trespass against us”?

“Blessed are the peacemakers” is part of the Beatitudes, but is U.S. peacekeeping around the world only making matters worse?  See above about the British troops keeping peace in the Colonies.  Are nuclear weapons peacemakers?  Oh, yes!  The Colt Peacemaker has the blessing of the Bible!

We definitely don’t have any “Christian” banks.  How many of them are going to forgive loans every seven years, even for loans to Christians?  Are “Christian” farmers not going to till the land every seven years?  Unless they are farming only for themselves and have saved a lot of food, they would go bust.

Now we have many people asserting that their “freedom of religion” allows them to refuse to associate with certain people or to not have to abide by certain laws.  There is a certain logic in this because “conscientious objectors” are allowed to avoid military service, but they have to do other public service instead.  So if the “Christians” at the top of a corporation object to paying health insurance for abortions, should they then be required to contribute to a fund for child care?

My take of the “freedom of religion” clause in the First Amendment is that we are free to believe what we want, whether it’s the Big Guy in the Sky, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or a Golden Calf.  It isn’t anybody else’s business.  The writers of the Bill of Rights were only too aware of all the persecutions that had happened because somebody believed the “wrong” thing.  The “freedom of religion” clause guarantees that we are free to believe what we want.  In return we should let others believe what they want.

Also published in the Reader Weekly of Duluth, 2015-05-14 at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2015/05/13/5275_the_united_states_is_not_a_christian_nation

Arizona women demonstrate against “free exercise of religion”

Fortunately, this action was not needed because Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed the amendment to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  The purpose of the amendment was “Modifies the definition of exercise of religion and allows a person to assert a free exercise claim or defense in a judicial proceeding regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceeding.”

The supposed intent of the amendment was to allow businesses to refuse service to gays and lesbians if the owner’s religious views disapproved of gays and lesbians.

Imagine the shock some of the female legislators would have had when a Muslim shopkeeper refused them service because their heads weren’t covered and their skirts were too short.  Imagine the shock of all when a strict Muslim or Orthodox Jew insisted that men and women sit in separate rooms in his restaurant.

Imagine the outcry from “patriotic” Americans if a strongly pacifist Quaker refused service to any past or present military personnel, in or out of uniform.

The list of religious and philosophical ideas that call for people to resist certain actions goes on and on.  Sorry, we all have to get along and accept behaviors which we do not approve of.  The only legitimate resistance are behaviors that impinge on our physical space.  Even making a list of those is a difficult task.

Freedom of religion means freedom of others to believe differently

Many are complaining that this or that law is impinging on their freedom of religion.  However, some of these same people believe they have a right to impose their religious views on others through law.

Those who wish to impose their views on law seem to forget a tenet of Protestantism - the right to interpret the Bible for yourself, not just take on faith what the church tells you.  So, why is one Protestant church telling another Protestant church how to interpret the Bible?