by Big Daddy Weaver » Mon May 23, 2011 10:44 pm
The constitution "simply states" many things. I doubt any here would deny that there exists a constitutional right to privacy (at least to some extent). You're not going to find that right explicitly stated anywhere in the Constitution. We, of course, have to interpret the text.
There are quite a few constitutional scholars - with differing views about modern church-state debates - who disagree with the reasoning and decision in the Mormon decision (Reynolds). I don't think religious liberty was maximized with that ruling.
As to the use of peyote for religious purposes by Native Americans, that was Scalia's handiwork in Oregon v. Smith. Everyone from the Catholic Bishops to Americans United to Richard Land's CLC came out in opposition to that ruling. Fortunately, many states have taken steps to reverse the harmful effects of that ruling and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (passed in response to Scalia's Smith decision) is still applicable at the federal level.
No law declaring Sharia law illegal is going to pass constitutional muster. A law can't single out a religion. Killing someone, assaulting someone, that is and has always been illegal. A federal judge prevented the Oklahoma law from being implemented. That's a symbolic law and blatantly unconstitutional. Are there even any conservative Christian groups defending it in court?
Every major Jewish group has come out against the OK law for obvious reasons.
To respond to your last comment about moderate Baptist hypocrisy.
There's no hypocrisy just misunderstanding. Moderate Baptists (and American Baptists) have always called for Christians to be "lobbyists" to be advocates. The concept of Christian Citizenship has always been popular among moderates.
Dunn liked to say that the issue was not that the fundys were wrongly involved but that they were involved wrongly. In other words, the issue was not their participation in the political process but their tactics and approach which equated being a good Christian with supporting the Republican Party, with supporting certain public policies, etc.
I think though, Sandy, that you have a point about the voucher issue. I wrote about this recently in a Baptists Today blog post in response to Marv Knox's blog advocating on behalf of the Tuition Equalization Grant program (which is or was on the chopping block, not sure what happened? all the Baptist college presidents have been lobbying the legislature to not cut the program)
I basically argued that I see no real difference between providing a voucher to a 16-18 year old high schooler and providing aid via TEG to a 17-19. Some will try to draw a distinction between a high schooler and a freshmen or sophomore in college. I'm around freshmen and sophomores each semester - hundreds of them - more often than not, I don't see that difference in terms of maturity level.
But, it should be said, that Texas Baptists were many decades ago vehemently opposed to programs like TEG. When these laws were passed and implemented - despite Baptist opposition - Baptist separationists slowly became supporters of the policies they once opposed. So the line of church-state separation moved, generally, from opposing indirect aid to direct aid with K-12 treated differently than colleges and universities.
My book:
My Baptists Today column:
My blog: