Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Arizona AG 7, Freedom from Religion Foundation 0
The head of an Arizona agency visited France a few months ago, and offered to take employees’ “special intentions” on his visit to the Catholic holy site of Lourdes. Department of Economic Security Director Tim Jeffries’ email noted that he is a member of the Order of Malta, which is focused on “global works for the poor and the sick” and asked employees to reply with their intentions if they were comfortable doing so.
The Freedom from Religion Foundation (headquarted in Madison, WI, because of course they are) was deeply offended by the director’s kind offer and declared it a violation of the First Amendment (PDF).
It is unconstitutional to use DES staff and resources to promote your personal religious views. We request that you immediately cease promoting religion through DES email and do not involve DES employees in any future religious trips you take.
Government officials can worship, pray, and participate in religious events in their personal capacities. But they are not permitted to provide credibility or prestige to their religion by using the weight of their government office and government title to compel staff to track letters for a personal religious vacation, or use their government-furnished email to recount details of that personal religious trip to all employees.
…Please inform us in writing of the steps you are taking to ensure these constitutional violations do not recur.
This week, the Arizona Attorney General‘s office replied to the FFRF’s alleged concerns by addressing a different kind of Sunday morning ritual (PDF).
Imagine Mr. Jeffries emailed employees regarding an upcoming trip to visit Lambeau Field, home stadium for the Green Bay Packers, and offered to shout the names of employees from the stands. No reasonable person would conclude that this email violated the Constitution. But drawing a distinction between this email and the email Mr. Jeffries actually sent is more difficult than it may first appear.
First, as any Wisconsin organization is likely aware, many people venerate Lambeau Field as a sacred shrine to the Packers (the Packers’ official website proudly refers to Lambeau Field as “Hallowed Ground” and as “one of the most revered stadiums in the country”). Would your constitutional objections remain if Mr. Jeffries waxed rhapsodic about his reverence for the “hallowed ground” of Lambeau Field and offered to prayerfully whisper each employee’s name while watching video highlights of Aaron Rodgers’ successful “Hail Mary” passes from the 2015-2016 season? Conversely, many people view Lourdes as a small town in France worth visiting for reasons that have nothing to do with the Roman Catholic faith. Would Mr. Jeffries’ emails have been unconstitutional in your mind if he had stated that he was planning on visiting Lourdes to study the architecture of the buildings there, and offered to bring back postcards?
Ultimately, distinguishing between these examples would force the government to delve into the “real” reasons for personal vacations, the religious significance of various vacation destinations, and the sincerity of the trip-taker’s religious belief — a sensitive inquiry that itself would raise First Amendment concerns…
Well done, Attorney General; you’ve earned a Lambeau Leap.
Published in Law, Religion & Philosophy
Did the CoC mandate the excision of the last two words of the response?
I’m always deeply suspicious of individuals that band together for reasons other than doing charitable work. For example any group that begins with Friends of….. is placed upon my enemies list.
Although the Catholic Church does not have same the influence it had in the 1600 and 1700’s in Arizona, there is still respect for Father Kino that founded his first mission in Arizona at Tumacácori in 1691. The Kino Sports Complex, and the Kino Expressway bear his name, among other sites in the Tucson area.
Join a gym, swim club, or volunteer for a food bank. Do something useful, if your life is so empty that the only pleasure you get is interfering in the lives of others then see a therapist and join a support group.
That response was brilliant.
The initial letter of complaint, however, shows the same plodding, dullard, caught-up-in-a-catchphrase ignorance that’s always on display when people try to use the Constitution as a cudgel against religion.
“Separation of Church and State” is most definitely not one of “the most fundamental principal[s] of our system of government,” I don’t care how many times people quote it as if the text actually appeared in any of our founding documents (which it doesn’t). The text that is there, however, could not be more clear: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” and yet, people never tire of badgering lawmakers to use the power of their office in order to pass laws targeting religion and the free exercise thereof, all the while claiming that the clauses banning that very practice give them the legal justification to do so.
It would behoove the author of the initial complaint in this case to go read the entire text of the actual source document for her alleged “fundamental principle” of “Separation of Church and State,” namely, Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists, in 1802, which reads, in closing: I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Going by the standards put forth by the astute legal minds at the Freedom From Religion Foundation, I’d count a minimum of five “unconstitutional” religious mentions in that final paragraph alone.
Sure hope Jefferson didn’t compose it using Government time and resources.
“…strain at a gnat, but swallow a camel.” (Matthew 23:24)
Then there is this letter from Thomas Jefferson:
I wonder what in the world those paranoid nuns thought the government was going to do? Force them to go to court or something? Please. Like that would happen . . . [cue ominous music for the flash-forward]
The world has lost its collective mind within the devious strategy of political correctness – the fall out of this grievous error will be far reaching for many years to come – common sense and respect are no longer represented in the public place – only confusion, anger and turmoil. What a waste of time – since time as we now it is growing short, personally and collectively – use it wisely.
Ah, the Order of Malta, aka the Hospitallers. They have a nice piece of property on the Aventine Hill in Rome and cultivated a garden that gives a lovely view of a certain landmark three miles away.
They’re alright by me.
I dunno. I think Separation of Church and State is a good summary of what the First Amendment requires. If it’s not, that’s what 1A should say.
However, Separation of Church and State is not the same as Separation of Religion and Politics, which is forbidden by the First Amendment.
The Arizona AG made a good call, and backed it up with a good explanation.
Whoever found that photo for this article did a good job.
Good summary, sure (far be it from me to quibble over turns of phrase employed by Jefferson, of all people) but the initial complaint letter in this case is only the latest instance I’ve seen of people who 1) quote the phrase as if that’s the actual language of the Amendment and 2) seem to think that the sole purpose of that metaphorical wall is to “protect” people from religion, rather than to protect religion from federal oversight and intrusion.
I confess, I’m not sure what that means.
And made it a fun read, to boot. I thought it was a great response.
Statements like this really make me want to punch anti-Christian bigots in the face. How in the world does “Congress shall make no law establishing religion nor preventing the free exercise thereof” get conflated into the above quote from the piece? Seriously, I ever see this FFRF douche on the street I am going to punch him square in his face.
Yes, they do that. They are wrong, of course.
Church and State has to do with institutions. The original context was governments providing official support (tax revenues) for officially sanctioned churches.
Religion and politics refers to the fact that we all have religious reasons for doing the things we do, including our advocacy of legislation for religiously motivated reasons. When 1A speaks about “free exercise thereof,” it’s protecting our right to advocate legislation for religious reasons (for example).
I agree that we should have separation of church and state. Separation of religion and politics would be tyranny.
If only the First Amendment itself exemplified that separation. Note its list of freedoms:
The Amendment mixes together religion and politics. It’s almost as if it’s protecting the right to gather in a church, for the purpose of speaking about political topics and putting together a petition.
[edit]
Well, you pretty much answered this with your previous comment.
Reticulator 1, PC 0.