Federal Court Rules that Establishment Clause Allows Government to Run Religions
The City of San Francisco recently labeled the Catholic Church to be a hateful organization and engaged in a tirade of anti-Catholic rhetoric. It’s not surprising that the City of San Francisco would engage in a childish rant because the Catholic Church reiterated a theological position that has been held for thousands of years, after all, they same council expressed support convicted cop-killers. What is surprising is that the attempt of the City to intervene in a purely ecclesiastical matter was ruled “constitutional” by a Carter-appointed federal judge.
In writing on the case, the federal judge states:
In view of Article IV, section 10, of the Considerations statement, Resolution 168-06 is a measured response. It does not constitute excessive entanglement under existing case law. There is no regulatory enforcement, no law adopted nor other action taken by virtue of the Resolution. It is merely the exercise of free speech rights by duly elected office holders. In sum, Resolution 168-06 does not create an impermissible entanglement between government and religion. Because plaintiffs have also failed to establish that Resolution 168-06 lacks a primarily secular purpose or a primarily secular effect, plaintiffs have failed to plead a cause of action under the Establishment Clause.
In short, that the public action of these officials in speaking on religious matters, in dictating that local Church officials should disregard Vatican directives, does not violate the Establishment Clause. Yet, somehow, when a public official prays in Jesus name that “entanglement” is so severe that the entire weight of the federal judiciary must come down upon it. Taking the common interpretation of the Separation of Church and State (despite that is not what it really means), how can this be reconciled? How can the Establishment Clause at once seek to avoid religiously-run states yet simultaneously allow state-run religions?
The court boldly proclaims that it is not San Francisco’s fault the conflict occurred. It never is the fault of the person behaving badly.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith provoked this debate, indeed may have invited entanglement, by its Considerations statement.
Wait, I thought there was no entanglement?
Let’s do a brief timeline. 33 AD – Jesus dies, the Catholic Church is founded and holds among a great many other things, that Jewish teaching (which is thousands of years old at that point) on homosexuality is valid. 1776 AD – some Spanish settlers come along and found San Francisco. 2006 AD – In inventing entirely new family structures, the City of San Francisco has a foot-stomping temper tantrum that the Catholic Church decides not to change thousands-of-years-old theological doctrines to suit the whims of the City. That’s provocation?
The Catholic Church and its teaching have remained and will remain, unchanged, for centuries before San Francisco exists and centuries after San Francisco no longer exists. In fact, the idea that Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) for a Church that has a population 1,735 times larger than that of San Francisco was picking a fight with the City is absurd. The City of San Francisco is a fart in the wind compared to a Church with 1.1 billion members in every country in the world. Somehow, I don’t think the CDF knows, much less cares, about the childish rants of city officials.
The City of San Francisco has deigned to tell the Church what it can or cannot believe. It has told local Church officials to disregard Church teaching or “face the consequences.” Catholic Charities in San Francisco simply believes that gays don’t make good parents. This presents no challenge to the freedom of gays to adopt because they can go to another agency. That’s the remarkable benefit to freedom; you can choose to do business with people who share your values instead of being dictated to from on high. Yet, to San Francisco, not accepting the dictums of the liberal elite amounts to hate.
As amusing as the cognitive dissonance of the City board is, infantile rants on the taxpayer dime show more hatred and contempt than the Catholic Church has shown. The only one engaging in name-calling and disparaging is San Francisco.
The federal court, in this case Judge Marilyn Hall Patel, has shown what the left-wing idea of separation of church and state means. It does not mean the institutions are actually separate. It means that religion most conform to whatever absurd and intellectually malformed ideas the left has on a given day. To them, the state must remain supreme.
John Bambenek is the Assistant Politics Editor for Blogcritics and is an academic professional for the University of Illinois. He is a syndicated columnist who blogs at Part-Time Pundit and the executive director of The Tumaini Foundation which helps AIDS orphans and other children in Tanzania to get an education.
He is the current owner of BlogSoldiers, a blog-only traffic exchange.
Email This
Posted by John Bambenek on December 14, 2006 11:17 pm
» Filed Under Uncategorized
Trackback URL:
Comments
14 Responses to “Federal Court Rules that Establishment Clause Allows Government to Run Religions”
-
-
-
Affiliations
The Giants
Advertise
-
-
Our Store
- Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
-
- More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
My understanding is that resolution 168-06 does not say the church leaders can’t speak out against homosexuality. It just says they shouldn’t speak out against homosexuality. The court ruled that this is an important difference. The church is still free to do as it pleases. The city just stated its opinion for the record.
The church is considered the provocateur because they brought the legal challenge. They claimed the city had no right to issue such an opinion. The court disagreed.
Jeff, any way you cut it this is a blatant inconsistency, especially considering the setting.
“There is no regulatory enforcement, no law adopted nor other action taken by virtue of the Resolution. It is merely the exercise of free speech rights by duly elected office holders.” quoted by jcb
According to this interpretation no action favoring religion is a violation as long as there is no regulatory enforcement or other action taken. I hate to remind judges that the freedom of speech has been used to cover actions like the burning of flags. Since actions would be covered then placing a manger scene on public property would just be an expression of speech. Having a council prayer is just an expression of speech. Any judge that adheres to the rule of law will overturn this judgment on the quick as councils can now at the least make referendums praising a particular religion as well as criticizing it.
All I can say is thank you San Francisco.
That was only one part of the reasoning. Here is the other:
Yet when someone prays as a City Council member, not demanding others do so, that’s unconstitutional.
Yes, if the prayer “lacks a primarily secular purpose or a primarily secular effect.”
Ok, got it, the constitution allows hyperventilating temper tantrums to demand changes in Church doctrine because they are based on some absurd secular notion.
Jeff Molby,
You can not prove that the San Francisco lacks a primarily secular purpose or a primarily secular effect because it is an opinion held by a religious organizing. For the court to take sides in a religious argument is in fact a violation of the First Amendment. The same of course is true of the city council. The church merely has to prove that the government is criticizing their doctrine without a noble cause. If I was the Catholic Church I would denounce the San Francisco council as an oppressive regime in every church in the nation as being bigots and Anti Catholic. The question is whether the Catholic Church has the courage to stand up for freedom and against intolerance.
Could you clarify that? I think you mistyped a couple things and I’m not sure of its meaning.
From where did you derive this “noble cause” test and how does it differ from the court’s “primarily secular purpose” test?
“Jeff, any way you cut it this is a blatant inconsistency, especially considering the setting.”
What is inconsistent about the ruling? The setting is irrelevant.
Also where does the resolution say anything about changing church doctrine? Am I missing something>
“From where did you derive this “noble cause†test and how does it differ from the court’s “primarily secular purpose†test? ”
The Noble Cause test is used by the Courts in some cases under different guises. It is mentioned in Thomas Locke’s “Second Treatise on Civil Government†which according to Thomas Jefferson’s papers is one of the cornerstones of the U.S. Declaration and the U.S. Constitution. Locke definitely made a case that libertine behavior is not a noble cause. From the context of his writing and that of the U.S. Declaration I would conclude that violating the right of life, health of yourself or others in not acceptable behavior unless there is a cause such as self defense, pursuing justice, defending your own or others natural rights for unjust infringement, and some other reasons like that.
One case the Supreme Court used the noble cause test in is REYNOLDS v. U.S. 98 U.S. 145 (1878) when they said it is legal to outlaw polygamy since polygamy is harmful to society in that it encourages a patriarchy. I question this ruling because I am unsure about the constitutionality of the Federal government overruling state law in areas where Congress was not given jurisdiction by the U.S. Constitution. (Tenth Amendment v. Fourteenth Amendment dispute)
“Could you clarify that? I think you mistyped a couple things and I’m not sure of its meaning.” JM
In cases of religious opinion the Church holds jurisdiction over the State. In this case the city has to prove their opinion does not interfere with or is not hostile to the free exercise of religion by Catholics. The noble cause test would apply on both sides.
The secular test is nonsense as it allows a group of religions to force its opinion on other religions.
You might want to restate that. The Catholic Church most definitely does not have “Authority or control” over religious opinion in any part of this country.
I’m sorry you feel that way. It’s pretty well established.
How so? Are you implying that that happened in this case?