The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Justice Alito Speaks On Religious Liberty
"It is hard to convince people that religious liberty is worth defending, if they don't think that religion is a good thing that deserves protection."
In an earlier post, I commented on Justice Alito's new beard. Here, I will highlight his remarks at the Notre Dame Religious Liberty Summit. You can watch them on YouTube, and I've transcribed them here.
Alito stated that religious liberty is under attack, and people must learn that religious liberty is a good thing that warrants protection.
Religious liberty is under attack in many places, because it is dangerous to those who want to hold complete power. It also probably grows out of something dark and deep in the human DNA. A tendency to distrust and dislike people who are not like ourselves. I'm not very well positioned to talk about religious liberty outside the United States, Europe, and other economically advanced countries. But in those places, religious liberty is facing a different challenge. And Professor Glendon has referred to that. This challenge stems from a turn away from religion. Polls show a significant increase in the percentage of the population that rejects religion or thinks it's just not all that important. And this has a very important impact on religious liberty, because it is hard to convince people that religious liberty is worth defending, if they don't think that religion is a good thing that deserves protection. I'm reminded of an experience I had a number of years ago in a museum in, in Berlin. One of the exhibits was a rustic wooden cross. A young, an affluent woman, a well dressed woman and the young boy, were looking at this exhibit. And the young boy turns to the woman, presumably his mother, and said, "Who is that man?" That memory has stuck in my mind as a harbinger of what may lie ahead for our culture. And the problem that looms is not just indifference to religion, it's not just ignorance about religion. There's also growing hostility to religion, or at least the traditional religious beliefs that are contrary to the new moral code that is ascendant in some sectors. The challenge for those who want to protect religious liberty in the United States, Europe and other similar places, is to convince people who are not religious, that religious liberty is worth special protection. And that will not be easy to do. As most of you know, I think a dominant view among legal academics is that religion doesn't merit special protection. It doesn't merit special treatment. A liberal society, they say, should be value neutral, and therefore it should treat religion, just like any other passionate personal attachment, say rooting for a favorite sports team, pursuing a hobby or following a popular artist or group. Now, I think we would all agree that in a free society, people should be free to pursue those avocations. But do they really merit the same protection as the exercise of religion? The support for a sports team, for example, really merit the same protection as religious devotion In posing that question, I put aside the question of support for the Notre Dame football team, which I understand has a quasi religious significance.
Justice Alito also remarked on his Dobbs opinion:
Over the last few weeks since I had the honor this term of writing, I think, the only Supreme Court decision in the history of that institution that has been lambasted by a whole string of foreign leaders who felt perfectly fine commenting on American law. One of these was former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, but he paid the price. Post hoc ergo propter hoc, right.
LOL. And a dig at Prince Harry:
Post hoc ergo propter hoc right. But others are still are still in office, President Macron and Prime Minister Trudeau I believe are two. But what really wounded me what really wounded me was when the Duke of Sussex [Prince Harry] address the United Nations and seemed to compare the decision whose names may not be spoken with the Russian attack on Ukraine. Well, despite this temptation, I'm not going to talk about cases from other countries. All I'm going to say is that ultimately, if we are going to win the battle to protect religious freedom, in an increasingly secular society, we will need more than positive law.
Read the entire remarks.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Despite being an atheist, I respect religion. It is 100 times more effective than the lawyer profession at persuading people to be nice. The ones prohibiting alcohol, such as Islam and Methodist, are free of its scourges, including over half of crime. Even the poorest like Egypt have low crime rates as counted the gold standard method of the DOJ, the Household Crime Victimization Survey.
Religious societies are more productive and wealthier. Compare the US to shithole secular Europe, where even the rich live like animals.
When asked whether he is a believer, Jordan Peterson replied that no, he isn't, but he tries to live as if he were.
The amount of behaviour 'living like a believer' could potentially encompass is nearly limitless, and a lot of it is not good.
It is not just religion. Free speech is under attack, and in some cases the right of free assembly. Freedom of the press is either vibrant, or moribund depending on whether or not your consider individuals on the Internet venting hatred as part of the press.
Even if we feel that religion does not merit special treatment, The Constitution mandates it. If we feel strong enough, we can ament it, but short of amendments, we're stuck with it.
As to your last point, the question is whether lack of belief or, even, horror of horrors, a liberal versions of the One True Faith, also deserve First Amendment protection. And the not-very-hidden subtext of Alito's speech is that not only that his answer is "no", but that he views the very existence of non-believers and liberals as a First Amendment violation.
That "not-very-hidden subtext" must require special glasses to see. May we ask where you got your secret decoder?
Once you agree (with "liberals" and "progressives") that it's OK for the government to silence "individuals venting hatred," you've killed freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly.
Shorter Alito: "Non-believers are a violation of the First Amendment."
It’s not a leap to see that Alito thinks it’s the courts’ job to favor conservative Christian religions over nonbelievers. And from there to favor them over other religions. That’s where this is going. Ie, Christian nationalism. It’s scary.
Well Samuel 'the Inquisitor' Alito should know since he is one of the leaders of those who are attacking religious freedom. Under his law I pay taxes to support religious schools whose religion I do not subscribe to and students are forced by peer pressure into prayer and although my religion supports abortion rights and his does not, I am forced to adhere to his religion.
What an asshole!
Last time I checked there is a whole bunch of crap that my taxes pay for that I don't agree with.
That’s funny, my tax dollars are going to where I direct them when I chose a private school.
Which is fine, except my tax dollars are also going to your private school, which if it is Christian Fundamentalism is teaching students to hate me and my religion.
"I am forced to adhere to his religion."
Sidney,
Plan and simple, "You lie."
All I'm going to say is that ultimately, if we are going to win the battle to protect religious freedom, in an increasingly secular society, we will need more than positive law. — Alito
Nico, at a minimum, that, "we," ought to bar Alito from every religiously-related case which comes before the Court. If Alito thinks battling from the bench on behalf of his co-religionists is justifiable, and he cannot be dissuaded, he ought to be impeached and removed. An intent to increase from the Court the degree of religiosity in society is, at a minimum, an attempt to establish religion over secularism. The Establishment Clause bars doing that. Beyond that, it would take naivety to an extreme not to recognize that this Justice has taken Roman Catholicism as his cause to champion. He is far over the line.
What he means by "more than positive law" is that positive law can't protect religious liberty if a majority of the population genuinely don't want it protected; Positive law is a paper barrier. The "more than positive law" is actually convincing people that religious liberty ought to be protected.
"The challenge for those who want to protect religious liberty in the United States, Europe and other similar places, is to convince people who are not religious, that religious liberty is worth special protection. And that will not be easy to do."
As I've remarked before, the need for religious liberty is a product of our living in a generally unfree society. If we lived in a free society, there would be no need of specifically "religious" liberty, because you'd already be able to do, regardless of motive, anything it would make sense to permit out of religious motives.
Don't try to sell the a-religious on religious liberty, it's futile. Sell them on liberty, period.
Of course, we already blew that one, letting our institutions of education and cultural transmission be taken over by people who didn't value liberty for its own sake at all. So we're probably screwed.
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0593087399/reasonmagazinea-20/
"Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn famously said that one of the biggest mistakes people make is assuming totalitarianism can't happen in their country. Many American Christians are making that mistake today, sleepwalking through the erosion of our freedoms. Live Not By Lies will wake them and equip them for the long resistance."
Non-religious freedom-loving dissidents might also find this book useful.
Selling people on liberty means noting all the ways in which religion has and does impinge people's liberties, both secular and religious. Like the last but one election where all the Christians voted for the guy promising a Muslim Ban.
Sorry, not ALL the Christians voted for him, but most of the people who voted for him were Christian.
Most of the people who vote for any candidate in the US who doesn't totally tank are going to be Christian. At last count, about 65% of Americans reported themselves as being Christian. Admittedly, that's been dropping, it was 85% in 1990. But it's still a pretty healthy majority.
And all those Christians voted for the guy promising to Ban Muslims. Great moments in religious freedom.
Nitwit. If all of them had voted for Trump, we'd be in his second term right now.
Thank God for that, eh?
What "challenge?"
Contrary to the constant whining, freedom of religion for Christians in the US is in exactly zero danger.
I fail to understand the point of Alito's Berlin anecdote.
The young boy was not being raised as a Christian. So what? If this tells us anything it tells us that Alito finds that shocking. Hardly the attitude of someone strongly committed to religious freedom.
Anyway, I myself see the two religion decisions this term as harmful to religious freedom, though they do reflect the court's approval of evangelical Christians' claim to special privileges.
The point of the anecdote is to indicate that secularists are an inferior type of a person, and thus the proper constitutional order will consider them at best as second class citizens.
Justice Alito is unwilling to tolerate a marketplace of ideas at which religion is dealt a fair hand.
I encourage him, and others, to recognize that the same thumb on the scale that currently favors religion (certain religion in particular) could and someday likely will be used to disfavor religion, particularly as organized religion continues to fade in advanced communities.
Yeah, that favored religion being shoved down our throats by government. Nothing like Obamacare politely asking Sisters of the Poor to pay for contraceptives.
Rev Kirkland, you spout nonsense.
First of all, It's been 250 years, how long does your marketplace remain open? What we have is what you don't like 🙂
That scale is non-existent. Those rights are God-given and unalienable except to people like you
I knew a ton of people in seminaries (I've had 10 years of experience) who were like you. They were all idealistic and talking about common good and subsidiarity and human rights but they knew zip about their own American Founding and Constitution.
How exactly do you see the two "religion" decisions this term as harmful to religious freedom?
The fact they had to rule at all on a coach kneeling silently in prayer. It’s not hard if you just stop and think for a second.
Once again proving state and local governments can’t understand that allowing free expression is not the same thing as “establishing” a religion.
He wasn’t kneeling silently. He was leading high school football players in Christian prayer sessions.
Would you be OK if he’d been leading Muslim prayers?
I would have been. It's not as though he was forcing anybody to join in.
Old enough to remember you your ilk going ballistic over black guys kneeling at games.
I'm old enough to remember that I never watched professional football in the first place.
Seem to remember you still had mighty strong opinions about it, though.
They ruled on a government official publicly leading prayers while on the job.
The Kennedy case is a clear Establishment Clause violation. He wasn't praying "privately." he was making a big show, waving a helmet around, going to the media, not waiting until the players had left, etc. Gorsuch simply lied in his decision.
The Maine case was another violation. Government support of explicitly religious, blatantly discriminatory, schools is a perfect example. And the arguments in favor are disingenuous.
Alito wants Christianity established as a state religion. Period.
God Bless!
bernard11 : Alito wants Christianity established as a state religion. Period.
True enough, but when you look at the Kennedy case there may be another factor as well: childhood nostalgia. Remember : We had a large scrum of praying football players, led by the coach who runs their team & decides their football fortunes, done in public for max theatrics, and staged in front of the assembled community in the grandstands.
How could a majority of Justices decide there was no possibility of coercion in this high school setting? Simple : They don't know average high school life from Adam. Kavanaugh, Roberts, Thomas Barrett and Gorsuch all went to exclusive private Catholic schools. A thumb on the scales for establishing religion was probably like reliving their childhood days. They probably got warm and fuzzy memories reliving the Good Old Days.....
While Thomas did go to Catholic school for high school, I doubt it was an "exclusive" school, given his circumstances growing up.
It's true that defense of religion brings us to absurdities.
We protect belief in God, but not belief in little green men. I once said, "I don't believe in little green men, ghosts, alien abduction, Elvis on Mars, or gods." A religious friend became very offended that I compared God with little green men.
It is difficult to reason with gullible, superstition people.
It’s impossible to reason with elderly losers. They squandered their opportunity to have a good life, and now we’re forced to constantly tune-out their nihilistic whining. Thank God for the mute button!
Fortunately, they’ll soon be dead. Or at the mercy of the kind of state-provided institutional “care” they so deserve.
not as easy as buggering young boys? "Reverend"
Blogger with no self awareness reports on Justice with no self awareness.
“With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.”
― Steven Weinberg
Religion or ideology.
What was Lenin's and Hitler's religion?
(hint: It's the same religion adhered to by "progressives" and "liberals" today.)
Christian. Lenin trained to be a priest.
Yeahnope. Hitler was an animist, to the extent he worshiped anything, it was nature. That's how he justified the Holocaust; Survival of the fittest is the universal rule in nature.
I can find absolutely nothing in Lenin's biography to suggest he'd studied to be a priest. He studied law, not theology.
It's common for militant atheists to claim basically every monster in history was a Christian.
D'oh! You;re right it was STALIN who went to the seminary, mea culpa. It's true Hitler was some oddball thing, but Germany was a deeply Christian, conservative country. Still is, mostly.
Right.
Whatever Hitler's religion, pretty much all Nazis were Christians. Check out Luther's opinions of Jews some time.
SW is often among the stupidest of the stupid. Said Ben Franklin to Thomas Paine: „If Men are so wicked as we now see them with Religion what would they be if without it?“
How childishly dumb to divide humanity into good people and bad people!!! Nobody is all good nor are good people good all the time.
Don't feed on the false wisdom of morons.
"The challenge for those who want to protect religious liberty in the United States, Europe and other similar places, is to convince people who are not religious, that religious liberty is worth special protection. And that will not be easy to do."
I disagree, strongly. The real challenge is to convince members of the dominant religion that minority religions and non-religion are worth just as much special protection.
See Brett Bellmore's comment above. The problem isn't a lack of religious freedom. It's a lack of freedom.
That's sophistry. Lack of Freedom must include lack of religious freedom, and most importantly lack of that freedom since the Founders placed it in first place.
Yes because atheism, secularism, and humanism are under constant attack from government scared they may be establishing a religion if they allow free expression.
That's right; the last time a secular humanist tried to become a federal judge, a senator ominously said to them: "The dogma lives loudly within you!"
qetzal,
you argue against yourself. Let me show you.
Those are God-given unalienable rights. That is settled if you are an American.
And your challenge is pointless. Any view of God and morality that is not in contention with the Founding is protected.
You seem unaware of Madison's predominant aim, to avoid the Tyranny of the Majority... which leads us back to unalienable rights. If every citizen in the US but one wants to deprive that one of his rights, they can't and still say they abide by our Founding.
"Justice Alito Speaks On Religious Liberty" would make a a nice match for "Josh Hawley Speaks on Manhood"
(search on "Senator's ‘Manhood’ goes on sale next May."
As for Alito, his explicit position seems to be that the 1st Amendment’s Freedom of Religion clause really means...
Freedom of [Everyone to Practice MY] Religion.
What sentence(s) led you to your inference?
"seems' the great word of the dishonest.
In fact, logically you are arguing for that anyway. True Freedom of Religion would give everyone freedom to practice my religion 🙂
Alito always insists that his personal policy preferences have no impact on his judicial rulings. So why does he deliver speeches where he lays out in detail his personal policy preferences? If they don’t impact his judicial rulings, why should we care? (And to be clear, this is a purely rhetorical question).
I suppose for the same reason a judicial nominee would, implausibly, claim not to know what a woman was.
Same reason that Lincoln CONSTANTLY opposed slavery while saying that he upheld the Constitution in his professional life. Lincoln always said that if the mind of the people is not changed first then no law really has any positive effect. Alito is utterly on target in acting that way.
and that is exactly why I do care to hear what he thinks.
That incident in the museum isn't necessarily a harbinger of the end times. It's the question asked by the youngest: "Why is this rood different than all other roods?"
Mr. D.
As illustrated by this comment thread, the problem isn't the non-religious, they simply don't care, it's no skin off their noses if somebody spends their school voucher at a religious school, or they catch sight of somebody praying. They have a live and let live view of things.
The problem is actually the anti-religious, who are affirmatively offended by religion. Who feel that they've been somehow harmed if somebody else's taxes end up as a voucher going to a religious school, who think merely being exposed to prayer in public is an offense.
The ones who don't just want to opt out, but instead want rid of religion. Because, whether they realize it or not, they've been recruited into a competing religion, just one that doesn't call itself a "religion".
So much for championing those who just want to be left alone by the state.
This is a really amazing double standard for you - saying those who don't want the government sticking it's nose in and picking winners are the real problem. Heck, I guess that's a faith now!
Conflating public prayer with performatively public prayer by a government employee while at work
I know plenty of Jews who do not care for all the performative state-funded Christianity around, but just lump it.
I'm not personally offended by our ceremonial deism up to this recent conformation-pressure prayer thing (though I'm a Christian, so YMMV). But I am offended by your telepathy, dismissiveness, and sudden love for government action.
No, I'm not saying that "those who don't want the government sticking it's nose in and picking winners are the real problem". Quite the opposite. In the Maine case, for instance, the complaint coming from your side is exactly that the government isn't picking secularism as the winner. It's letting people spend the vouchers at a religious school if they want to.
So, the complaint is literally that the government didn't foreclose options the secularists object to, not that it forced religious choices.
In principle I have no constitutional issue with a vouchers system being faith-neutral.
However, has has been pointed out to you multiple times, in practice in this case it is basically a giveaway to religious schools. Just like one small town diner refusing to serve blacks was technically not keeping them from going to a diner, but in reality was absolutely doing so.
So the complaint is 'hey look at the real world' and you saying 'why do you hate the beautiful clean policy that lives in my head?'
"However, has has been pointed out to you multiple times, in practice in this case it is basically a giveaway to religious schools. "
So, basically, you have no objection to vouchers being faith-neutral, so long as it doesn't in practice end up with people spending them at religious schools.
Because you know damned well that there's no "giveaway" here, they're vouchers that the religious school only gets if they provide an education, and a secular school could get them, too, on the exact same basis. Nothing AT ALL being given away.
No, Brett. As I said, my issue is when in practice being the government providing a subsidy that only goes to religious schools.
Come on, man. I said nothing like what you just wrote.
"As I said, my issue is when in practice being the government providing a subsidy that only goes to religious schools."
Not what was going on in Maine. Unless maybe you mean that, in some locations, only religious schools ended up with the money because there weren't any secular private schools competing with them.
But it's still not a "giveaway", because they had to supply the education the money was to pay for, and the only reason the religious schools ended up with the money is that the people given the vouchers chose to spend them there.
Unless maybe you mean that, in some locations, only religious schools ended up with the money because there weren't any secular private schools competing with them.
Zounds. You think that may have been part of the case, perhaps? Or what bernard has been telling you over and over for at least a couple of weeks now?
Funny to see you insisting a subsidy is not a giveaway. Quite the change from your usual attitude about government spending!
It is neither a subsidy nor a giveaway. The state, in areas where the government isn't providing public schools, is giving parents money with which to procure a private education.
I guess you could call that "subsidizing" their children's education, but no more so than if the government were using that money to run public schools.
The parents, then, decide what private school to buy the education from. It isn't a "giveaway" because the private school has to actually provide the education it's being paid for; Paying for something isn't a giveaway.
Neither a subsidy nor a giveaway, and you want the program funding private schools to discriminate against religious private schools.
Under your logic, if the government paid people only in Appleby's gift cards that is not a subsidy of Appleby's.
You know better.
That is just stupid, and I wish I could say it was beneath you.
Please walk me through why your vouchers only to a religious school does not comport with the analogy I made.
Because they aren't "vouchers only to a religious school", that's a dishonest description of the situation.
If I have an Applebee's gift card, I can only spend it at Applebee's, regardless of what other restaurants are available locally. If I have a simple visa gift card, though, I can spend it at any restaurant. That there might only happen to BE an Applebee's in town does not transform it into an Applebee's gift card.
What you've got here is a voucher which can be spent at any available educational institution, religious OR secular. That there happens only to be a religious one nearby on account of that being what the local parents want does not turn it into a restricted voucher.
YOU are the one who wants the voucher restricted, so that even if there's a secular AND a religious school nearby, the parents can only spend it at the former regardless of their preferences. I just want where it's spent to be up to the parents.
Your complaint would only be valid if the voucher were not permitted to be used at secular schools, which is hardly the case. What you're really complaining about is that the parents get to make a choice you don't like.
A gift card for any restaurant when the only establishment in town is Applebee's is still a subsidy.
So, the complaint is literally that the government didn't foreclose options the secularists object to, not that it forced religious choices.
As usual, you ignore any reality that conflicts with your opinion.
In your imagined situation the Christian schools are just one of many options available to parents. But that's exactly the opposite of the facts. These are thinly populated rural areas. They will not support more than one school. So if a group of families, representing a significant share of the local population, organizes a religious school and sends their kids there there will be no other local option.
Now, you can say, "too bad." I'm sure you will. And yes, they can do that. But the state shouldn't support it, because it has exactly the opposite of the intended effect.
Are others worse off? I'd say it's quite possible. After all, without the subsidy some of the religious parents won't be able to afford to send their kids to the religious school, and may join with others to start a secular school, or do something else to ease the collective problem. Maybe they will lobby to get a public school. Who knows?
The main point here is that contrary to your fantasies, there is no plethora of choices here.
So, what your complaint boils down to, is that if people are allowed to spend their vouchers at religious schools, too many will decide to do just that. And so there won't be enough parents who want to avoid religious schools for the secular school to be viable.
Yeah, "Too bad". What other answer would you expect? You literally want the religious option barred because it's too popular, the secular schools won't be viable unless parents who want religious schools are forced into the secular schools.
This isn't neutrality. It's outright hostility to religion.
In your imagined situation the Christian schools are just one of many options available to parents. But that's exactly the opposite of the facts.
Brett, your inability to read this is getting ridiculous. The point being made is that there is effectively no decision to be made in many areas. How are you continually misunderstanding this?????
I am not misunderstanding this: Under circumstances where the local population is thought to only be sufficient to support one private school, you want payments to religious private schools barred out of fear that they'll be too popular for the secular private school to be viable. You want parents who'd prefer the religious private school to be forced into the secular one, to preserve its viability.
In my book, that's active hostility to religion, not neutrality.
No, your telepathy is acting up again.
The concern is when a government that passes a law whose only effect is to give money to a religious school.
You don't see concerns about implications, motives, dare I say, Establishment?
I think you do, and that's why you can't stop leaning on that strawman of *too popular* like it'll bring about a revival or kill the public school system.
No one thinks this, Brett.
you want payments to religious private schools barred out of fear that they'll be too popular for the secular private school to be viable. You want parents who'd prefer the religious private school to be forced into the secular one, to preserve its viability.
No. Absolutely not. I don't want them forced into secular schools. Let them send their kids to religious schools.
But don't subsidize the religious schools. Let the parents who want that pay the damn tuition.
Some, no doubt, won't be able to afford it and will want a subsidized secular alternative. Others will.
I don't think the state should be creating a situation where only those who want a Christian - by some definitions - education for their kids get a convenient subsidized school and everyone else has to make do.
And it doesn't make a FF if they are in the majority.
Suppose, instead of vouchers, the state gave the local government the money to set up a school. The town council, or whoever, being majority Christian, decided to spend it on an exclusively Christian school. Or, they held a referendum and the Christian school got more support than a secular one. Pretty clearly a violation, no?
Yet there is no functional difference. Under the Alito "freedom of religion" doctrine if enough parents in your area want the local school to be Christian, that's what it is, and too bad for you if you don't share the particular beliefs involved.
What he wants, and you want, is for the local dominant religion to control things. That's the opposite of religious freedom.
Four wholes in your statement.
1) You either teach Christianity or you don't , there is no middle way. As the Supreme Court said : Abington v Schempp
it might well be said that one's education is not complete without a study of comparative religion or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization. It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment. But the exercises here do not fall into those categories. They are religious exercises, required by the States in violation of the command of the First Amendment that the Government maintain strict neutrality, neither aiding nor opposing religion.
Religious Freedom at the time of the Bill of Rights was overwhelmingly LOCAL. Almost 20 versions of State Constitutions existed before and as a basis for the Federal right in the First Amendment and we know that that freedom was decided locally, was to encourage religion without being sectarian and that the name schools the Founders went to were at that time RELIGIOUS
You literally want the religious option barred because it's too popular, the secular schools won't be viable unless parents who want religious schools are forced into the secular schools.
That's pretty much what establishment of religion looks like. The established religion is generally the popular one. Other folks get the choice to conform or become outcasts.
In a secular state, the notion, "Our religion is the popular one around these parts, so we call the shots," is how religious freedom falls apart. It is members of minority communities, the non-believers and the heterodox, whom the Establishment Clause is supposed to protect. There cannot be in American constitutionalism any notion that local majority or plurality religious populations get on that basis legitimate power to run local governments according to their doctrines.
No, "You can take this money to any religious institution, or even to the local chapter of the Madeline Murray O'Hair society" is not what an established religion means. "Established" means the government is calling the shots.
You're projecting your thoughts about religion to attack something not remotely close to what Brett wrote.
So many comments in this thread prove Alito's exact point.
I'm religious, though.
Your comment does a great job illustrating Alito's mindset.
Bullshit, Brett.
That's complete idiocy.
Bellmore, my experience, and the experience of a great many people my age, includes being compelled by government to pray. If it takes anti-religion to prevent that happening again, then I am all for anti-religion, at least to that extent.
I have all my life valued and wanted protected the private practice of religion. I think that serves liberty, and can be a bulwark for democracy. Religion by public compulsion is the opposite of that. As Alito's outrageous remarks show, it will take defense of a firm line to keep the religionists away from compulsion. It is hard to listen to Alito without concluding that it would be wise to keep his kind of public-pressure religiosity out of government altogether.
Bellmore, my experience, and the experience of a great many people my age, includes being compelled by government to pray. If it takes anti-religion to prevent that happening again, then I am all for anti-religion, at least to that extent.
My experience also.
Sure, it's my experience also, but that doesn't lead me to be anti-religion. Didn't even before I decided to return to the Church. Seems I can distinguish between not mandating, and mandating not.
Brett, this isn't anti-religion. It's the government bit. No one is mandating no religion.
But when you work for the government, you speak with some of the coercive force and imprimatur of the government.
And with that power comes responsibilities.
Brett, I'm not anti-religion.
I'm anti in-your-face "our religion is privileged and fuck you" attitudes. I'm anti the sense of complete entitlement that comes from so many not grasping that there are those who don't share their beliefs and that those who don't are entitled to operate in the public sphere without having them shoved in their face.
Bernard,
The foul language makes your case hard to believe.
You have no awareness of schools if you think that your type is persecuted in the current system. I taught for 5 years. Religion is what gets you persecuted. Your type runs the whole show.
Seems I can distinguish between not mandating, and mandating not.
Some times, in some places, under certain circumstances, it is appropriate to mandate not.
Again, no one here is saying that the Maine parents can't send their kids to the Christian academies, just that they shoudn't be privileged.
But the Christian academies are not in any way, shape, or form, privileged over the secular academies. The complaint here is that the secular academies aren't being privileged over the religious ones!
But the Christian academies are not in any way, shape, or form, privileged over the secular academies.
Of course they are. Because there are no secular academies. You continue to refuse to see that. A local majority has, with state support, created a situation where the only local subsidized school option is the Christian academy.
It's analogous to local government deciding public schools should be Christian.
I mea, you could argue that its the parents, not the academies, who are privileged over secular parents, but so what.
In the situation that exists - the actual situation, not some imaginary one - the only people who can use tuition subsidies at a local school are those Christian parents.
And it doesn't even matter if there would be no school otherwise, any more than it would if the city council were only willing to build Christian schools.
"Of course they are. Because there are no secular academies."
Some places there will be no secular academy, some places no religious one, there's no privileging going on here AT ALL. The only people advocating privileging here are the people advocating that the vouchers be restricted.
Brett,
First, what I described is privileging, whether you want to admit it or not.
Second, the absence of a religious school, and the presence of a secular one, is not privileging anyone. Everyone has the same options, and parents and churches can see to religious instruction on their own.
And there is a further point here. The decision as to whether to build a public school is not made by the state, but by local government - "School Administrative Units," of which there are 260 in the state.
Gee. How hard is it to imagine that some of the people making these decisions really want there to be a Christian school, maybe even send their kids there.
But after Carson, if they open a public school then the lovely tuition subsidy goes away. You think that might influence the decision-making? You think that might be an Establishment Clause violation?
And I get called a conspiracy theorist.
article 3 Northwest Ordinance.
Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.
The Maine parents are paying for two educations and you are being privileged to force that. Give them true liberty to choose the school and not also to pay twice.
Stephen, It is easy for you to make your argument because whatever you disagree with you label as "religious" !! And I know you have waves of self-congratulation over using the phrase Private practice of religion -- but as most of the Founders said in reply to that kind of statement: it defangs every single action of conscience while pretending to protect conscience itself.
attend to what they actually said:
"[T]hat the opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty." —Thomas Jefferson, 1779.
"The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man: and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate." —James Madison, 1785.
"Driven from every other corner of the earth, freedom of thought and the right of private judgment in matters of conscience direct their course to this happy country as their last asylum." —Samuel Adams, Speech on August 1, 1776.
"While we are contending for our own liberty, we should be very cautious not to violate the conscience of others, ever considering that God alone is the judge of the hearts of men, and to Him only in this case are they answerable." —George Washington, in a letter to Benedict Arnold.
"Conscience is the most sacred of all property." —James Madison, 1792.
=================
I would be curious to know your take on homosexuality and Baker's cases...It surely offends the conscience of the Baker and by my reading of the cases so far, it has NO conscience implications for the homosexuals.
The "liberal" and "progressive" state does not tolerate any competing institutions that might lay claim to people's allegiances; it must subordinate or destroy them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Constitution_of_the_Clergy
Well, most of US history has been the process of getting blacl people out from under repression and discrimination of white nationalism closely associated and part of the belief system of US Christians, getting LGTBQ people out from under repression and discrimination closely associated and part of the belief system of US Christians and getting women out from under repression and discrimination of misogynistic beliefs and behaviours closely associated with and part of the belief system of US Christianity - those are the things that have been and are in competition with US Christianity - and with the support of many Christians themselves, to be fair. You may see that as a religion in competition with another religion that doesn't call itself a religion, but really it's regressive and repressive religious traits in competition with secular and religious traits that promote liberty and equality.
Nige, I am seeing a real racist streak in you 🙂
I bet when you see "Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians" your brain goes into an infinite loop. "They can't be Pro-Life, that offends me"
Oh, and to complete your incipient heart attack, do check out "Secular Pro-Life"
I have to think up a name for that very popular herd you belong to , that constantly talks about liberty and equality but labels all opposition as religious. To quote the aforementioned secular pro-life about its membership :
Church vs. State 41% never participate in prayer, scripture study, or religious education; 17% seldom or never attend religious services; and 12% consider themselves unaffiliated with religion. Pro-choice people frequently claim those trying to restrict abortion violate the religious freedom of their fellow citizens. But the pro-life position isn't solely a religious one.
Millions of nonreligious Americans oppose abortion, because abortion is a human rights violation. Religious freedom doesn't justify human rights violations.
Here is how it has been going lately:
Religionist: I have a right to practice my religion.
Secularist: Indeed you do. And I support that.
Religionist: And my religion requires me to conduct myself religiously at all times.
Secularist: And I support that too.
Religionist: Which means I must be free to exercise religiously in public.
Secularist: Well, okay, I guess. You got any bounds on that conduct?
Religionist: Of course not! My right to religion is to practice my religion maximally in public, which tells me I must use every means I can get my hands on to spread God's truth among the non-believers.
Secularist: That is not a deal breaker. But we are going to have to keep you out of government, and deny you use of the corporate form in business. Otherwise, your religious insistence will deny the rest of us any ability to practice secularism.
Religionist: Tyranny!
Stephen of course wants to pretend to be the disinterested moderator of that discussion but we all see through that !!
3 logic errors of course
1) as illustrated by the hijab controversy in France, you can forbid something religious without it being because of religion.
2) maximally must include the secularist too or it has no meaning. Does an attacker of a pregnancy center have a leg up because he is secular? and the pregnancy center -- does it necessarily have to be religious? of course not
3) "we are going to have to keep you out of government" -- but it was the government that ENCOURAGED what Secularist is opposing!!!! . In his Farewell Address of September 1796, Washington called religion, as the source of morality, "a necessary spring of popular government," while Adams claimed that statesmen "may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand."
Like the other 9 Amendments, it seems that even SCOTUS justices forget that the 1st isn't conferring a right upon citizens, it is restricting "government" from action. It doesn't insure, protect, or guarantee the right of anyone to be able to practice any religion or abhor the very idea of religion free from all judgement or comment by their fellow citizens, nor does it suggest that anyone should practice or abhor religion, specifically or generally. All it does is restrict "Congress" - the government (once federal, now state and federal) - from establishing a religion or infringing upon the free exercise of religion.
Madison himself said the he "apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any Manner contrary to their conscience." 1 Annals of Cong. 730 (Aug. 15, 1789).
I would offer that "government" gets itself into the most trouble, and causes the most trouble, when it elbows its way into things that are not governmental functions, e.g., religion, abortion, gender identification, etc. A plumber attempting to lawyer or a lawyer attempting to plumb will not work out well for anyone in most instances.
In basic terms, I respect your right to self-ID as a gender-fluid they/them kumquat who wants to cross-pollinate with non-pronouning marigolds if you so choose. Please respect my right to think you are batshit crazy if you do.
The government already got into that.
The 14th Amendment affirms the sanctity of life. ( And gender identification is people like you trying to change what was already known to be true and right. )
By the end of 1868, thirty of the thirty-seven states prohibited abortion.
A liberal society, they say, should be value neutral, and therefore it should treat religion, just like any other passionate personal attachment, say rooting for a favorite sports team, pursuing a hobby or following a popular artist or group. Now, I think we would all agree that in a free society, people should be free to pursue those avocations. But do they really merit the same protection as the exercise of religion? The support for a sports team, for example, really merit the same protection as religious devotion
In what way does support for a sports team deserve less protection than religious devotion? Isn't that also protected by the First Amendment?
Also, who the hell says a liberal society should be value neutral?
They do. Alito never quite gets around to identifying them. But note, too, that we all agree that people should be free to pursue religion, hobbies, rooting for a team, or following artists and groups.
I mean, being liberal IS a value, and not a neutral one, it has very definite views about things, unless there's some specific meaning for the phrase I'm forgetting.
You know my view: Religion shouldn't require more protection than sports teams or hobbies, but that's because their liberty should be leveled up, not religious liberty leveled down.
How in the world could you implement that? A world where everyone gets a constitutional exception to all but the most malum in se laws is anarchy.
But reductio ad anarchum is what we do here.
Your problem is that you think anything short of the amount of government YOU want qualifies as "anarchy".
That's not what I said.
Your problem is that you think anything more than the amount of government YOU want is tyranny.
That government involves ordering people around and harming them if they don't obey makes that fairly reasonable, though I'll admit that a democracy is typically only going to be tyrannical in regards to the minority, which is it's chief advantage over oligarchy or dictatorship.
Look, the fact is that Sarcastro would declare the level of government we had for a good deal of our history to be "anarchy", just because it wasn't doing things he thinks government should do. But "anarchy" doesn't mean less government than somebody wants, it means NO government.
You have no idea what I think, you're making it up based on your telepathy again. I don't call everything anarchy.
I pointed out that your system is not implementable, and explained why.
You pivoted directly to telepathy. Which is wrong, btw, but the main point is you didn't engage with the comment but with the commenter.
I also take issue with your understanding of tyranny/monarchy. It's really Brett's experience based. It is largely about theoretical choices, not actual operational possibilities, and keeps things academic gives zero attention to the policy's effect on the real choices of anyone who isn't situated like you (and I).
It just feels like levelling down because religions tended to infringe so much on other people's liberties the ways sports teams and hobbies generally didn't. On the other hand, plenty of sports teams and hobbies acted as if their lberties were being leveled down because, eg, black people and women were being allowed in, so maybe the illusion of levelling down is remarkably common...
Okay, that's your view. But it has no basis in American history or the Founders. And I point to your sophistry in using the word 'leveled'
But funny you use that word !!
The Levellers and Oliver Cromwell
Marx and Engels knew that the Levelers were before their time and said so often, but they wrote also: “We find the first appearance of a really functioning Communist party in the bourgeois revolution at the moment when the constitutional monarchy is removed. The most consistent republicans, in England the Levelers, in France, Babeuf, Buonarroti, etc. are the first who proclaimed these ‘social questions.’” (“The Moralising Criticism and Critical Morality,” Marx-Engels Gesamtausgabe, Abt.I, Bd.6.)
I’ve tended to agree with conservatives that the Lemon/Smith regime resulted in an Establishment clause that was too strong a Free Exercise clause that was weak to the point of near-nonexistence. All tensions between the two got resolved in favor of the Establishment Clause. I agree this was wrong and the Free Exercise Clause needs real teeth. You need a real balance that gives effect to both.
But Alito’s approach seems to be the opposite, a strong Free Exercise Clause and an Establishment Clause weak to near-nonexistence, with every tension between the two resolved in favor of the Free Exercise Clause.
I am coming to conclude that this approach is just as wrong as the previous one was. You need a balance that gives both clauses real effect.
But the First Amendment was not the result of a balancing. It was one of the God-given unalienable rights. the Founders definitely wanted all interpretations to favor the 'civil religion' that was the basis of what bound Americans together. You have to declare some religions things wrong and do so on religious grounds.
So on point one:
In his Farewell Address of September 1796, Washington called religion, as the source of morality, "a necessary spring of popular government," while Adams claimed that statesmen "may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand."
And Point two, using the Mormon Bigamy case: Chief Justice Morrison Waite wrote: “To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. The government could exist only in name under such circumstances.”
Say, does hostility to religion include a gubernatorial candidate’s ties to someone who says things like this?
“My policy is not to conduct interviews with reporters who aren’t Christian or with outlets who aren’t Christian, and Doug has a very similar media strategy where he does not do interviews with these people,” Mr. Torba reportedly said. “He does not talk to these people. He does not give press access to these people. These people are dishonest. They’re liars. They’re a den of vipers and they want to destroy you.”
Because I have an odd feeling that if, if you changed “aren’t” to “are” in that quote, we’d never hear the end of it from Justice Slurp’s fellow travelers.
Alito’s, that is. Not sure how autocorrect did that.
Perhaps auto-correct knows something neither we nor they do.
Thrax2, Nobody who loves freedom would approve of your use of the word 'ties' !! If the person saying that isn't improved by association with a good gubernatorial candidate then neither is a person degraded for ties to someone who says that.
Yes, Guilt by association. Did the governor approve that statement? And if he did, just don't vote for the jerk.
You want to send him to a Gulag but that never worked.
I hope I'm not the only one to find Alito's remarks deeply disturbing coming from a Supreme Court Justice.
The theme is well encapsulated here:
But in those places, religious liberty is facing a different challenge. And Professor Glendon has referred to that. This challenge stems from a turn away from religion. Polls show a significant increase in the percentage of the population that rejects religion or thinks it's just not all that important.
[...]
And the young boy turns to the woman, presumably his mother, and said, "Who is that man?" That memory has stuck in my mind as a harbinger of what may lie ahead for our culture.
Basically Alito seems the point of the constitution not as protecting the freedom of religion, but instead as encouraging religion, which is a very very different thing.
Not to mention his hypocrisy in complaining that foreign leaders had commented on prominent cases, only to go on and then take digs at those same leaders. Surely a justice of a Supreme Court should be held to a higher standard than politicians and Princes who quit their job?
Agreed. I'm probably going to regret pointing this out but.... The Klan and other anti-integration groups in the mid-20th Century also hated Catholics, which they called "papists." Their argument was that Catholics pledged fealty to the Pope, and therefore could not be proper American citizens upholding proper American values. (I know, I know, the "proper" values were protestant ones.)
I'm just saying it might be nice if Justice Alito could be a little less overt about embodying the dark fears of the least defensible groups of the last century.
And encouraging religion is exactly what virtually all the Founders wanted !!
"In his Farewell Address of September 1796, Washington called religion, as the source of morality, "a necessary spring of popular government," while Adams claimed that statesmen "may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand."
Your last point exposes certain hypocrisy on your part. You say you hold them to a higher standard but you find his remarks deeply disturbing coming from a Supreme Court Justice -- but has a Justice no right to an opinion like you do? I take digs every day at people who have however said or done good things/bad things.
You must learn to deal with issues and not with personalities.
Abington School District v. Schempp
We agree, of course, that the State may not establish a “religion of secularism” in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus “preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe” (Zorach v. Clauson).
From Alito's comments:
***As most of you know, I think a dominant view among legal academics is that religion doesn't merit special protection. It doesn't merit special treatment. A liberal society, they say, should be value neutral, and therefore it should treat religion, just like any other passionate personal attachment, say rooting for a favorite sports team, pursuing a hobby or following a popular artist or group.***
This may be the second most disingenuous thing I have heard a sitting Justice say. No legal academic teaches that religion is indistinguishable from being a Mets fan. Many SCOTUS cases over more than a century have repeatedly carved out special status for genuinely held religious practices. Respect for religious practices is weakest where non-mainstream faithful (Santeria, Satanism, Hopi Tribal) demand liberty to practice their faiths. But the notion that Religious Liberty, writ large, especially for Catholics and Protestants, is dying in America -- is a lie.
What he presumably really means is "religious establishment" of favored practices by government sanction. Yes, Sam. Establishment of religion has been under sustained attack in this country. Since... 1791.
(BTW the most disingenuous thing was when Justice Scalia told an audience that applying originalism was no different from reading Shakespeare with a glossary of archaic terms.)
Let's dismiss Scalia right away. He was no originalist to those who hold a principled Originalism, the Harry Jaffas and the Clarence Thomases.
You are fatally wrong in your selective use of religions.. For the Biblical and Natural Law founding of the US specifically rejects religious views that are not in accord with our Founding: Chief Justice Morrison Waite wrote: “To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.” -- and that was the Mormon Bigamy case.
You have to equate Scalia with Originalism in order to make your comment work. But how can there be any legal objectivity to a comparison like that anyway 🙂
I was in academia and many do say what you find so outrageous.When I was teaching, the students had to read Bertrand Russell and his: "God and immortality … find no support in science… No doubt people will continue to entertain these beliefs because they are pleasant, just as it is pleasant to think ourselves virtuous and our enemies wicked."
My favorite article on this topic:
https://apologetics.org/resources/articles/2020/08/03/as-an-atheist,-i-truly-believe-africa-needs-god/
Alito is so right and virtually all the Founders would and did agree. But let's not obscure the constitutional basis for what Alito says, which is that our Freedom in all our opinions and voting is protected against any legal coercion into WHY we hold the views we hold.
To call something a religious belief or opinion is to do 2 things
-- It is to label your opposition as religious
-- it is to illogically think that even if a view were somehow religious that it couldn't be so because one logically held that view prior to any religous commitment.
I bring in my favorite examples
Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians
Secular Pro-Life
Democrats for Life
The first 2 make the case that abortion is a violent abuse of a human right.