The First Meeting Of The White House Religious Liberty Commission

On Monday, the President's Religious Liberty Commission held its first public meeting. I was honored to testify on the fourth panel.

Panel 1

• Mark Rienzi, President and CEO of the Becket Fund
• Gerard Bradley, Professor of Law at Notre Dame Law School

Panel 2

• Mark David Hall, Professor in Robertson School of Government at Regent University

Remarks by Attorney General Bondi

Panel 3

• Barbara Elliott, Fellow of the Dominican School of Philosophy and Theology and Assistant Professor of Liberal Arts at Houston Christian University

Panel 4

• Stephanie Barclay, Professor of Law at Georgetown Law Center
• Josh Blackman, Professor of Law at South Texas College of Law Houston
• Kristen Waggoner, CEO and President of Alliance Defending Freedom

Comments

[hobie]

I couldn't figure out why you'd post this on a legal blog, but then I saw the photo with our 'national thought leader' in it. Then I knew.

Also, how come Blackman got a tankard of water while everyone else just got a bottle?

[ScottK]

This blog hasn't been written for actual practicing lawyers for a while now, and certainly Blackman isn't writing for us.

[FBlarstan]

Nice group of Christians and Jews. Probably a good sign 😐

[hobie]

I wish it were so. The Nazis lead the Jews to slaughter for racist reasons. But American Christians have a different objective. They have one arm around the Jews but a knife in the other. All this bizarre fawning over Israel when all other people on earth are hated is, of course, pretext for getting our Jewish friends all lined up for slaughter in the end of times to fulfill prophesy.

The Jews understand this and accept all the ridiculous charity, but they have no intention of sacrificing themselves to satisfy you hayseed's doomsday cult fantasies.

[mike petrik]

You are talking about the tiniest cohort of what used to be called fundamentalist Christians and making them out to somehow be represented by this Commission. That is stupid.

[Magister]

A quarter of the US are evangelical Christians, and a majority of them believe that Israel fulfills biblical prophecies for the return of Jesus. Which would pretty much end Judaism. That's not the tiniest cohort.

[bye]

No, that is called Supersessionism. Condemned by Bible
Romans 11:29
for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable.

CATHOLIC CATECHISM
The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People, 326 "the first to hear the Word of God." 327 The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ", 328 "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable." 329

840 And when one considers the future, God's People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.

[Magister]

So? There are large numbers of self-identified Christians who believe and practice things that are condemned by the Bible.

[bye]

You must always distinguish formal and material
Every Christian (every believer in fact!!) is a material heretic , believing what is actually not true.
But a formal heretic maintains what is materially false and does so knowingly

[bye]

NO, you are talking so.
And they were never called Fundamentalist

1920 in the religious sense, from fundamental + -ist. Coined in American English to name a movement among Protestants c. 1920-25 based on scriptural inerrancy, etc., and associated with William Jennings Bryan, among others.

Doesn't apply to even ONE ~!!

[bye]

You are a disgusting person but I know (from experience) that you know you are disgusting.

[Brett Bellmore]

Wow. You have approximately zero understanding of American Christians. Only approximately because negative numbers aren't zero.

You also, of course, don't understand Islam, and why exactly the Iranians are perfectly serious about destroying Israel even if they die in the process, and so Israel dare not let them gain that capability.

[Swede425]

LOL!
I was in an Iraqi border fort on the Syrian border, drinking chai with a fat little Iraqi major. He had been educated in England and spoke perfect English, with a slight lisp. We had captured some guys smuggling booze and cigarettes from Iraq into Syria and were keeping them in the cells at his fort. Anyway, we were having a perfectly fine conversation while some of our MI guys were talking to these prisoners. My interpreter, a Yazidi, was translating between the MI guys and the prisoners. The major and I were watching them from the couch in his office. Out of nowhere, he leans over to me and says "Your interpreter is Yazidi". I said "Yes, quite of few of our interpreters are. Most can speak Arabic, Yazidi, and Kurdish". He says "They worship the devil". Now, there was the smallest kernel of truth in this statement. From a certain perspective. But the misunderstanding that this major had was vast and glaring. Kind of like this retard Hobie.

[Magister]

Evangelical Christians overwhelmingly support President Donald Trump because they believe he'll cause the world to end.

Many have questioned why devout evangelicals support Trump, a man who has bragged about sexual assault, lies perpetually and once admitted he never asks God for forgiveness. Trump's lack of knowledge of the Bible is also well-known.

Nevertheless, many evangelical Christians believe that Trump was chosen by God to usher in a new era, a part of history called the "end times." Beliefs about this time period differ, but it is broadly considered the end of the world, the time when Jesus returns to Earth and judges all people.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-will-bring-about-end-worldevangelicals-end-times-779643

There are varying views of the end times, but lots of suffering for those who don't fall in with the Christian line, like Jews who don't accept Jesus as their messiah. There are plenty of Christians who want to use Israel to accelerate the arrival of the end times.

[bye]

NO, according to the study by Salena Zito, they first voted for Trump with great hesitation only stirred to do so by Hillary's hate speeches and anti-Christian remarks.

[Magister]

Whatever hesitation they started with, they supported him strongly in the election.

[Brett Bellmore]

On the basis that, while he might be a deeply immoral person, he was at least a deeply immoral person who wasn't out to get them.

[bye]

No, you two make the same root error : People support Trump in the same way you go to your surgeon without asking if he is an adulterer. You can be a rotten perons and a great cook, street sweeper, roofer, mathematician, or car repairman.

[Magister]

More on the basis of him being out to get people they didn't like. (Did Obama or Biden really "get them" on a level comparable to what Trump did, even just in his first term? Gonna preemptively exclude the conspiracy theory stuff that never happened.)

[Darwinnie]

Or the Judeo-Christian Nationalist Front might be a better name.

[bye]

Except you obviously don't know the meaning of the word 'front'

[bernard11]

Interesting that the opening prayer ended with, "We make all these prayers in Jesus' holy name." Not very ecumenical or inclusive, considering that there are at least two Jews present.

Could he at least have said, "I make all these prayers....?"

[Darwinnie]

The evangelical Christians of course believe Jews are going to hell. The only reason they so strongly support Israel is because they see it as a necessary prerequisite to Jesus return per the Book of Revelations. I mean, does anyone actually think Mike Huckabee doesn’t believe Jews must become Christians to gain entrance to Heaven?

[Martinned2]

Why do you think he was literally praying for nuclear war in the Middle East the other day?

[y81]

I don't think you understand evangelical Christians: how many do you know? Speaking as one, I support Israel because it is a liberal democracy, and since the English Revolution, we have identified liberal democracy with the will of God. (We could be wrong, of course; maybe God or the dialectic or the world-spirit or whatever intends something else.) As soon as there is a Muslim liberal democracy, we will embrace it too.
To answer the theological question: Jews or anyone else probably cannot enter Paradise unless they recognize Jesus as lord and savior. But Jews mostly don't believe in Paradise anyway, so I don't know why they would complain.

[bernard11]

I don't think you understand evangelical Christians: how many do you know?

Having lived much of my life in the Bible Belt, I actually know quite a few, and have had friends and co-workers who were evangelical Christians. I haven't discussed religion with many, however.

But Jews mostly don't believe in Paradise anyway, so I don't know why they would complain./i>

Well, first, the alternative is not that attractive (nor particularly consistent with the idea that Jesus loves everyone).

More important, it leads, and has led, to the conclusion that anything one does to convert Jews, and I mean anything, is justified because you are trying to save their eternal souls from hellfire, and what could be more important.

Need I discuss the consequences of that belief?

[Brett Bellmore]

I hardly think it leads to the conclusion that anything one does that achieves that is justified.

[David Nieporent]

Empirically, that's wrong; historically, it has led to that conclusion.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, it has never led to anything that extreme. Not anything.

[loki13]

/facepalm

You're either trolling, or ignorant of history. Look, I don't want to get into the debate above about the motives of people today, but for anyone to try and paint a picture of the history of Christianity and Judaism with a shrug and a "Hey, no biggie, right," is just weird.

[Brett Bellmore]

Or maybe I just understand the meaning of the word, "anything". There have ALWAYS been limits, and they're a lot more stringent today.

[Sarcastr0]

...really, Brett?

[loki13]

Is this one of those, "Unless I was there to see Obama being born, I can never say where he was born" things?

I honestly don't know what to say to this. If you are defining "anything" to mean "being shot into space and used for alien laser target practice" then sure- the Christians of history couldn't do impossible cruelty to the Jews. But there's a reason that we have words like "pogrom" and "blood libel." Convert or die? Torture? Wiping out whole communities (babies included)? All of it is in the sad history, Brett.

So ... tell us, what are these limits that the Christians of history observed that led to such a wonderful and peaceful past that we all know about?

[Magister]

Nobody expects limits on the Spanish Inquisition.

[bernard11]

What do you think the limits are, Brett, and why?

Isn't the fundamental logic that there is nothing more important than to save someone's soul from eternal damnation.

I grant you it's subtler than that. Does Jesus accept the completely coerced convert? Kind of a bind if you think about it - let the guy through because of the suffering, even though he's not a sincerer believer, or condemn him anyway, despite the fact that your own preaching led to the mess.

Of course, many Christians have rejected the whole formulation, the Roman Catholic church not least. Good for them.

[bye]

Almost unbelievable ignorance in this post

So what of the group fostered by Cardinal Burke
THE ASSOCIATION OF HEBREW CATHOLICS
May 18, 2017 — Nearly one-in-five newlyweds in their 30s (18%) are married to someone of a different race or ethnicity

THere is even a Mass in Hebrew.

Now,Bernard,years ago you would be saying the exact thing about Anglicans but guess what ? You can maintain your entire Angllican heritage and be Catholic

One of the late Pope Benedict XVI’s most notable achievements was to create a personal ordinariate for Anglicans whereby members of the Anglican Communion could enter the Catholic Church while retaining their heritage and liturgy.

YOu are arguing in supreme ignorance

[Brett Bellmore]

"There is even a Mass in Hebrew."

Yeah, one of my relatives is a Messianic Jew. Basically Christians who celebrate the Sabbath on Saturday and observe Jewish dietary law.

[bye]

Yes, but the largest denomination does not.
The Salvation of Jews
Yes, they can, and indeed salvation is from the Jews, as Jesus Christ teaches (John 4:22). But anyone who is saved is saved by Jesus Christ, the Jewish Messiah and Savior of all mankind, and through his Catholic Church (see CCC 846-848). In addition, we should not presume upon the salvation of non-Catholics, nor on our own salvation

[bye]

Such advertized ignorance 🙂

Zionism of the Founding Fathers
Israel’s creation matches the principles of statesmen who established our republic.

Joseph Prud’homme
https://modernagejournal.com/zionism-of-the-founding-fathers/241092
"especially strong personal support three major founders—Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, and John Quincy Adams—extended to Judaism. The latter two even explicitly endorsed the reconstitution of a Jewish state in the Holy Land. "
[long article giving more information, then...]
"Given these parallels, it’s fair to surmise that when the U.S. delegation to the United Nations, with the full support of President Harry Truman, voted for the resolution to create Israel, it endorsed a country whose structure and basic values were consistent with key principles espoused during our founding era. "

EXTRAORDINARY IGNORANCE

[Darwinnie]

I mean, Ted Cruz said his support for Israel comes from a Bible verse.

[mike petrik]

I don't think you know what ecumenical means, but I agree that the ending was thoughtlessly impolitic.

[bye]

It is not ecumenical to pretend you aren't a Christian, nor does 'we mean 'they' the prayer for all is before 'we make this prayer (already made) in Jesus name'
That is how prayers work

[Sidney r finkel]

Thank God Josh is out there leading the fight against the awful discrimination against white Christians.

[bye]

This only shows racism or ignorance on your part because

[Doug Heffernan]

The liberty of the religious residing in the US doesn't seem to be in much jeopardy nowadays. I guess I'll need to watch all of those videos in order to see what they are so worried about.

[mulched]

You've got as much liberty as Doug thinks you should have, so bake the damn cake!

[Doug Heffernan]

The cake baker won his case. The religious side has won almost all cases, the outliers being just the early pandemic cases, which also eventually went to them too. The circumstances of the early pandemic cases were not normal, so those cases by themselves shouldn't be considered some everlasting precedent that still currently restricts religious liberty. The court has made it quite clear that the non-religious must bend to the religious.

[Brett Bellmore]

The cake baker won his case, and the case after that, and the case after that... Every time he won a case he was instantly back in court on a very slightly different basis, they didn't exactly just give up and go away when the Supreme court ruled in his favor. The latest case was resolved last October.

Well, it was pretty much the same guy playing Ahab to the cake baker's White whale, repeatedly, so maybe when Scardina lost last year that WAS the end of it.

[Magister]

There were only two cases involving that baker. As I recall, neither resulted in the baker being allowed to do what he did in the first case; the Supreme Court overturned the Colorado rulings on the basis of religious hostility that they imagined was there, and the second was dropped because of a lack of standing. It's like somebody gets away with a crime because the evidence was excluded for an improper search or failure to give Miranda warnings, and then the criminal subsequently commits the same crime over and over again, and Brett will complain bitterly of case after case against that poor guy (as long as the guy fits with Brett's priors).

[Brett Bellmore]

"on the basis of religious hostility that they imagined was there,"

On the basis of extensively documented hostility. Pro tip: When you're going to screw somebody over on account of their religion, don't say so publicly on the record.

I am, frankly, not found of modern public accommodation law. I think it's understandable that you'd prevent the one hotel in town from refusing a room to somebody stranded by a blizzard, but hard cases DO make bad law.

Still, it was sort of vaguely defensible in the case of necessities that are local monopolies.

In the case of luxuries in a competitive market? No, screw that! I believe that BOTH sides of transactions should be free, not just one side.

It's kind of stupid, actually: We started out warring against slavery, banned it in the Constitution, and after a long legal game of telephone, eventually got around to compelling unwilling labor... Kind of lost the thread of why we objected to slavery in the first place, didn't we? It wasn't because it was discriminatory!

[loki13]

"I am, frankly, not found of modern public accommodation law. I think it's understandable that you'd prevent the one hotel in town from refusing a room to somebody stranded by a blizzard, but hard cases DO make bad law."

Um, it actually wasn't "hard cases." Do you actually know why we have these laws? It wasn't just because of de jure segregation; it was also because we had de facto segregation- because private parties refused to serve, to hire, to accommodate, to contract with, etc. - blacks, Jews, women, and so on. It was a noble attempt to remove that type of discrimination ROOT & BRANCH from our society.

And yet, Brett, it's very easy for someone who is an older hetero white man to say, "What's the big deal?" But ... it is kind of a big deal. The best way to end discrimination (to borrow a phrase) isn't to get rid of the laws about discrimination, but to stop discriminating.

"Kind of lost the thread of why we objected to slavery in the first place, didn't we? It wasn't because it was discriminatory!"

I mean ... I agree that chattel slavery is evil ... per se. But I also think that we didn't need to free all those White Slaves, did we?

[Magister]

Allowing discrimination in public accommodations is exactly how you get local monopolies. (And Collectivist Brett wants the government to decide which are necessities and which are luxuries.)

[bye]

actually the Court said the opposite, many times, explicitly.
Take Masterpiece Cake. it did not mention non-religious at all

" the Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case, which showed elements of a clear
and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs motivating his objection. As the record shows, some of the commissioners
at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that
religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere
or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and
characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of
his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust. No commissioners objected to the comments. Nor were they
mentioned in the later state-court ruling or disavowed in the briefs
filed here. The comments thus cast doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the Commission’s adjudication of Phillips’ case. "

THRILLED TO DEBATE YOU ON THIS

[bye]

Your posts show great ignorance of things religious so of course you wouldn't notice, would you

[bye]

Doug, they are in great jeopardy so much so that in the Masterpiece Cake case (almost unbelievable you don't know this) the Supreme Court thought that case showed the HUUUUGE attack on religious liberty went all the way up to the highest state levels

"As the record shows, some of the commissioners
at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that
religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere
or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and
characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of
his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust. No commissioners objected to the comments. Nor were they
mentioned in the later state-court ruling or disavowed in the briefs
filed here.

[SimonP]

To be clear, the administration that is disbanding committees in charge of advising the government on how best to regulate food and drug safety, manage pandemics, avoid economic disasters, etc., feels that it is worth the time and resources to empanel a bunch of self-promoting asshats to talk about "religious liberty" in a country where it is already extremely well-protected.

Every person who chooses to accept a role handed to them by Trump shows us the content of their character.

[bye]

Let me embarrass you in front of the Founders

"Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion." —John Adams, in a letter to Benjamin Rush. 1812

"[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.

[Magister]

Not seeing why any of this would embarrass anyone.

Yes, the founders thought religious freedom was important, and accordingly it is well protected in this country, as SimonP said. None of these quotes suggest that they didn't view the things that are being neglected as unimportant.

[bye]

As I said to you many times, you don't read the actual cases !!!

Here is the SCOTUS response , officially, on the Masterpiece Cake case

As the record shows, some of the commissioners
at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that
religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere
or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and
characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of
his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust. No commissioners objected to the comments. Nor were they
mentioned in the later state-court ruling or disavowed in the briefs
filed here.

[Magister]

SCOTUS protecting someone's religious freedom demonstrates that religious freedom is in fact well protected. Now consider the many other important things that are neglected in favor of this commission that is not likely to do anything important.

[bye]

Obviously you are wrong because it had to go all the way to the Supreme Court TO BE PROTECTED

You say 'the many other important things" and don't name a one !!! Anyway, this is a Hillary Compaint : Things aren't perfect....Waaaaaaah

[Magister]

SimonP listed the neglected things.

[SRG2]

So basically all conservative Christians with a right-wing (wannabe) court Jew.

Exactrly what one would expect if you want this country to become more of a Christian theocracy.

[bye]

Like pregnancy, one is a theocracy or it isn't. no in-between, doesn't even make logical sense

[SRG2]

Wrong again. If you weren't so intent on incorrectly correcting me, you wouldn't come over as so stupid.

[bye]

I come over as stupid to you but you actually make no rebuttal. People notice this about you

[SRG2]

What "people"? FWIW I posted an extended rebuttal to your first idiocy, about dangling participles, which, not surprisingly, you failed to respond to. But generally, I assume that if you post 2+2=5, it is sufficient to point out the stupidity, rather than having to prove that 2+2=4, Most posters here are intelligent and educated enough - even if I may disagree with some of them frequently - to realise that real-world political categories are seldom the clear-cut binaries you appear to think.

[Magister]

bye just seems pretty stupid; often his "corrections" aren't relevant to the comment he's responding to, despite his absurd confidence that he has refuted something (that was not asserted, but often isn't even refuted anyway).

[BrotherMovesOn]

"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!"

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I don't have high hopes for this commission, but it would be of some interest to get an insider's account of what it did.

The insider here is a rather imperfect narrator but that would be true for many involved. So, seriously here, it would be helpful if he provides some insider commentary of how things go.

[bye]

This is exactly why our Founding Fathers banned insider accounts 🙂

Secrecy Rules at the Convention
One of the Convention's first decisions was to adopt secrecy rules. The delegates agreed “that no copy be taken of any entry on the journal…and that nothing spoken in the [Convention] be printed, or otherwise published, or communicated without leave.”

Read why and you will see your error

[JoeFromtheBronx]

He provides video, so regardless of the evidence that they did not truly follow Fight Club rules, that is of limited relevance.

[loki13]

As others have pointed out, this is not defending religious freedom. This is a panel of, and for, right-wing Christians. With, of course, Josh Blackman to provide his token support. And I mean that in the worst possible way.

Fundamentally (ahem) this is just Christian supremacism with a bone thrown to Judaism. There are, in fact, many other religions. The greatest lie the devi... the majority Christian faith of this country ever told is that, in fact, Christianity is the religion that is under attack and needs special protection. It is a worrying thing when the majority of a people band together to demand special protection (ahem) from the minority- this usually doesn't end well.

Now, in saying this, I would also add that religion in America flourishes because it is pluralistic, because it is free. and because it is separate from the state. Not because some religions are more equal than others.

[bye]

Wow, such ignorance about the Founding and the law !!!

IT IS NEVER SEPARATE FROM THE STATE. You can think what you want but not do whatever you want

MANY MANY EXAMPLES but let's go to one that specifically addresses your false claim.You are like the person in that case saying "america is pluralistic and my Mormon religion says I can be a bigamist"
Rynolds v. United States (1879)
Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?

So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? 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. . . .
==========================
To get rid of slavery and bigamy many brave people had to fight defenders like you.

[loki13]

Yes, I agree that Employment Division v. Smith was Scalia's finest hour.

Thank you.

...I'll let that sink in. Because you've either angrily agreed with me, or truly missed the point.

[M L]

What's interesting is to try and define the word "religion", first generally as you please, then as a matter of original meaning under the Constitution. Logically, it becomes immediately obvious that it can't just mean anything you please. It is of course heavily infused with a Christian viewpoint and understanding of the concept of religion itself. Meanwhile the pluralistic freedom of religion in the U.S. consisted primarily of the mutual tolerance and coexistence of various differing Christian or ostensibly Christian sects, which had previously been rather intolerant of each other at some points in history.

[apedad]

Care to give a legally accepted definition of religion in the US since in United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78 (1944), the Court held that the First Amendment precludes courts from instructing juries to adjudicate the truth or falsity of religious beliefs?

[Hugh]

(c) The Counties’ second display, unlike the first, did not hang the Commandments in isolation, but included the statement of the government’s purpose expressly set out in the county resolutions, and underscored it by juxtaposing the Commandments to other documents whose references to God were highlighted as their sole common element. The display’s unstinting focus was on religious passages, showing that the Counties posted the Commandments precisely because of their sectarian content. That demonstration of the government’s objective was enhanced by serial religious references and the accompanying resolutions’ claim about the embodiment of ethics in Christ. Together, the display and resolution presented an indisputable, and undisputed, showing of an impermissible purpose. Pp. 21–22.

(d) The lower courts’ conclusion that no legitimizing secular purpose prompted the Counties’ third display, the “Foundations of American Law and Government” exhibit, is amply justified. That display placed the Commandments in the company of other documents the Counties deemed especially significant in the historical foundation of American government. In trying to persuade the District Court to lift the preliminary injunction, the Counties cited several new purposes for the third version, including a desire to educate County citizens as to the significance of the documents displayed. The Counties’ claims, however, persuaded neither that court, which was intimately familiar with this litigation’s details, nor the Sixth Circuit. Where both lower courts were unable to discern an arguably valid secular purpose, this Court normally should hesitate to find one. Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U. S. 578, 594. The Counties’ new statements of purpose were presented only as a litigating position, there being no further authorizing resolutions by the Counties’ governing boards. And although repeal of the earlier county authorizations would not have erased them from the record of evidence bearing on current purpose, the extraordinary resolutions for the second displays passed just months earlier were not repealed or otherwise repudiated. Indeed, the sectarian spirit of the resolutions found enhanced expression in the third display, which quoted more of the Commandment’s purely religious language than the first two displays had done. No reasonable observer, therefore, could accept the claim that the Counties had cast off the objective so unmistakable in the earlier displays. Nor did the selection of posted material suggest a clear theme that might prevail over evidence of the continuing religious object. For example, it is at least odd in a collection of documents said to be “foundational” to include a patriotic anthem, but to omit the Fourteenth Amendment, the most significant structural provision adopted since the original framing. An observer would probably suspect the Counties of reaching for any way to keep a religious document on the walls of courthouses constitutionally required to embody religious neutrality. Pp. 22–25.

(e) In holding that the preliminary injunction was adequately supported by evidence that the Counties’ purpose had not changed at the third stage, the Court does not decide that the Counties’ past actions forever taint any effort on their part to deal with the subject matter. The Court holds only that purpose is to be taken seriously under the Establishment Clause and is to be understood in light of context. District courts are fully capable of adjusting preliminary relief to take account of genuine changes in constitutionally significant conditions. Nor does the Court hold that a sacred text can never be integrated constitutionally into a governmental display on law or history. Its own courtroom frieze depicts Moses holding tablets exhibiting a portion of the secularly phrased Commandments; in the company of 17 other lawgivers, most of them secular figures, there is no risk that Moses would strike an observer as evidence that the National Government was violating religious neutrality. P. 26.

354 F. 3d 438, affirmed.

Souter, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stevens, O’Connor, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. O’Connor, J., filed a concurring opinion. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Thomas, J., joined, and in which Kennedy, J., joined as to Parts II and III.

Read More
Opinions
Opinion (Souter) Concurrence (O’Connor) Dissent (Scalia)

O'CONNOR, J., CONCURRING

McCREARY COUNTY, KENTUCKY, et al., PETI- TIONERS v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF KENTUCKY et al.
Justice O'Connor sums it up well, as usual in McCreary County v
Justice O'Connor, as usual, sums things up well on McCreary County v. ACLU:
The First Amendment expresses our Nation’s fundamental commitment to religious liberty by means of two provisions—one protecting the free exercise of religion, the other barring establishment of religion. They were written by the descendents of people who had come to this land precisely so that they could practice their religion freely. Together with the other First Amendment guarantees—of free speech, a free press, and the rights to assemble and petition—the Religion Clauses were designed to safeguard the freedom of conscience and belief that those immigrants had sought. They embody an idea that was once considered radical: Free people are entitled to free and diverse thoughts, which government ought neither to constrain nor to direct.
Reasonable minds can disagree about how to apply the Religion Clauses in a given case. But the goal of the Clauses is clear: to carry out the Founders’ plan of preserving religious liberty to the fullest extent possible in a pluralistic society. By enforcing the Clauses, we have kept religion a matter for the individual conscience, not for the prosecutor or bureaucrat. At a time when we see around the world the violent consequences of the assumption of religious authority by government, Americans may count themselves fortunate: Our regard for constitutional boundaries has protected us from similar travails, while allowing private religious exercise to flourish. The well-known statement that “[w]e are a religious people,” Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U. S. 306, 313 (1952), has proved true. Americans attend their places of worship more often than do citizens of other developed nations, R. Fowler, A. Hertzke, & L. Olson, Religion and Politics in America 28–29 (2d ed. 1999), and describe religion as playing an especially important role in their lives, Pew Global Attitudes Project, Among Wealthy Nations U. S. Stands Alone in its Embrace of Religion (Dec. 19, 2002). Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: Why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?

[Hugh]

Sorry for the excessive cut and paste, I was aiming for Justice O'Connor's wise words toward the end.