Christian supremacist judges abolish religious freedom

On February 2nd, Christian supremacists on the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals -- Judges Amy J. St. Eve and Diane P. Wood -- put the nails in religious freedom's coffin when the Court ruled 2-1 that a nativity scene on the Jackson County Courthouse lawn did not violate the Establishment Clause. The case is Woodring v. Jackson County, Indiana (7th Cir. February 2, 2021).

The court held that the HISTORY of Christianity in America was sufficient to ignore the First Amendment's Establishment Clause mandate that government may not prefer one religion over another or religion over nonbelief (McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky (2005)).

The court descended lower than the candy cane exception -- which balanced religious symbols (nativity scene) with secular symbols (candy canes) to make everything hundy-dory. 

Presidents Thomas Jefferson and James Madison are squirming in their graves to see the principle of separation of religion and government run over by judges unfaithful to the Constitution. R.I.P.

No Equal Justice Under Law In The Roberts' Court

There is a stench of Christian privilege at the U.S. Supreme Court. Today, the Court said "no" to women who want to obtain mifepristone, also known as RU-486, via the mail during the Covid-19 pandemic. Mifepristone, when combined with another drug, can induce the equivalent of an early miscarriage.

But there is a catch. The FDA requires mifepristone to be picked up in person by the patient at a hospital, clinic or medical office.

According to Justice Sotomayor: "Of the over 20,000 FDA-approved drugs, mifepristone is the only one that the FDA requires to be picked up in person for patients to take at home."  Food & Drug Administration v. American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, (US Sup. Ct., Jan 12, 2021, Sotomayor, dissenting).

The Court's decision, tho unsigned, was by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh Gorsuch and Barrett.  The Chief Justice filed a short concurrence writing in part: "courts owe significant deference to the politically accountable entities with the 'background, competence, and expertise to assess public health.'”  Translate: The Court's Christian supremacists use "deference" as a tool to subjugate women to their fundamentalist Christian morals.

Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Kagan, filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

Due to particularly severe health risks, vastly limited clinic options, and the 10-week window for obtaining a medication abortion, the FDA’s requirement that women obtain mifepristone in person during the COVID–19 pandemic places an unnecessary and undue burden on their right to abortion.  ...

What rejoinder does the Government have to the possibility that refusing to suspend the FDA’s in-person requirements for mifepristone during the COVID–19 pandemic will cause some women to miss the 10-week window altogether? No cause for concern, the Government assures this Court, because even if the FDA’s in-person requirements cause women to lose the opportunity for a medication abortion, they can still seek out a surgical abortion. What a callous response.

Justice Breyer, dissented, without joining or filing an opinion. 

Bottom line: religion (i.e., fundamentalist Christianity), not justice, controlled the outcome of this case.

I've been to the Supreme Court many times, including filing petitions for certiorari and friend of the court briefs. I am heart broken by a number of Court's recent decisions, including this case. The pillars holding up Equal Justice Under Law on the Court's West Pediment are crumbling.

Freedom From Government Sponsored Religion Is America's First Liberty

President Trump issued a lengthy Proclamation recognizing Dec. 29, 2020 as the 850th Anniversary of the Martyrdom of Saint Thomas Becket. The Proclamation reads in part: "Before the Magna Carta was drafted, before the right to free exercise of religion was enshrined as America’s first freedom in our glorious Constitution . . ." 

Actually, the "free exercise of religion" is the SECOND right listed in the First Amendment. The "FIRST right" is the freedom from "an establishment of religion" -- that is, freedom from government sponsored religion. Or, as Presidents Thomas Jefferson and James Madison expressed the principle, a separation of church and state. 

Robert V. Ritter, Founder, Jefferson Madison Center for Religious Liberty 

 

Photo: President James Madison. On June 8, 1789, (then) Virginia Representative Madison proposed a bill of rights in the First Congress. As modified, they would become the Bill of Rights in 1791.

 

Supreme Court: Change Your Morning Prayer

America has a serious problem of Christian privilege -- which starts at the Supreme Court with its morning prayer: "God save the United States and this honorable Court."

Under God" in the Pledge, "In God We Trust" as our motto and "So help me God" in oaths are serious violations of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. But don't expect these to change until the Court changes its prayer FIRST. 

In my opinion, this is where the American Humanist Association, Freedom From Religion Foundation, ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, etc. ought to focus their resources. 

Secularists cannot exterminate the Christian privilege of ceremonial deism unless and until the Supreme Court implements the First Amendment principle that government may not prefer one religion over another or religion over nonbelief. McCreary County v. ACLU of Ky., 545 U.S. 844, 860 (2005).

Mr. Chief Justice, how about: "Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! All persons having business before the Honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States, are admonished to give their attention, for the Court is now sitting.  May this Court have the wisdom to administer equal justice under the law." 

By: Robert V. Ritter, December 11, 2020

It is shocking that the U.S. Supreme Court commands us to murder, steal and commit adultery -- that's the English translation of the Adolph A. Weinman's bas-relief of Moses overlapping tablets on the South Wall Frieze of its courtroom: 

"Thou shall murder" (line 1), "Thou shall steal" (line 2) and "Commit adultery" (line 3). (Translation by Avrahaum Segol; verified at pp. 12-13 of the oral argument transcript of Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, Nov. 12, 2008.) (Photo: Steve Petteway, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States.)

By: Robert V. Ritter, Founder, Jefferson Madison Center for Religious Liberty

Agenda for Secular America

    I sincerely believe that black lives matter. As do LGBTQ lives. As do the lives of Atheists and all people. That is the foundation of our social contract -- all people are equal under the law.
    Blacks and LGBTQ have had their days in the Sun fighting for justice. It is time us to recognize Christian privilege and its injustice to Atheists and religious minorities..
    To this end, the Jefferson Madison Center for Religious Liberty today announces its Agenda for Secular America and a roadmap to stamp out Christian privilege.

1. the Supreme Court alter the prayer that opens each session -- G-d save the United States of America and this honorable Court
2. Amend 36 U.S. Code. § 302 by substituting "In People We Trust," "In Reason We Trust" or "United We Stand for "In G-d We Trust".
3. Repeal the 1954 addition of "under G-d" to the Pledge of Allegiance (4 U.S.C. § 4).
4. Repeal 36 U.S. Code § 119 directing the president to issue a National Day of Prayer proclamation annually on the first Thursday in May.
5. Prohibit military bands playing God Bless America.
6. Amend 5 U.S. Code § 3331 by removing "So help me G-d" from the oath taken by federal officials (except the president),
7. Amend 28 U.S. Code § 453 by removing "So help me G-d" from the oath taken by justices and judges.
8. naturalization oath
9. Religious Freedom Restoration Act 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb through 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-4 
10. No organization receiving funds from the United States of America shall discriminate with respect to the services they provide on the basis of religion or nonbelief., including reproductive services, adoption, food distribution or shelter..
11. Encourage politicians not to eonclude their speeches with "G-d bless America."
12. Move religious monuments to public property.
13. The Houses of Representatives and the Senate hire a secular chaplain or eliminate the chaplain position.
14. Repeal __ U.S. Code § __ (i.e. remove In G-d We Trust from U.S. currency). 
15. Repeal __ U.S. Code § __ (i.e. remove In G-d We Trust from U.S. coins).
16. Repeal the Boy Scouts of America national charter __ U.S. Code § __ if the organization does not eliminate its requirement for belief in a supreme being.
17. Encourage Little League Baseball and Softball and other quasi organizations to eliminate their requirement for belief in a supreme being.
18. Repeal I.R.C. § 107 (parsonage allowance).
19. Enforce the Johnson Amendment prohibiting houses of worship from endorsing a candidate for public office.

By: Robert V. Ritter, Founder, Jefferson Madison Center for Religious Liberty

Justice Amy Coney Barret cements Christian Privilege for an Activist Christian Nationalist Supreme Court

My fears of Christian Nationalism and Christian Privilege with the addition Justice Amy Coney Barrett are realized in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo -- a Supreme Court decision issued yesterday. In a 5-4 decision (Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett in the majority), the State of New York is enjoined from enforcing its #Covid-19 restrictions against churches based on a moronic interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. 

Under Employment Division v. Smith (1990), "the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a 'valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).' " 

So what did the gang of Christian nationalists do, they (1) failed to defer to state health officials with expertise and (2) falsely parsed the pool of secular comparables (i.e., instead of comparing churches to theaters, etc. where people are in close proximity for extended periods of time, the Court majority compared them to retail stores where people are more spread out and move about -- the former having greater restrictions, the latter less restrictive). 

Essentially, the Supreme Court has weaponized the Free Exercise Clause to promote Christian privilege.

By: Robert V. Ritter, Founder, Jefferson Madison Center for Religious Liberty, November 26, 2020

Establishment Clause: What's the test -- separation or neutrality?

The Supreme Court's June 30th decision in Espinoza v.Montana Department of Revenue:exposes the weakness of the Bill of Rights, namely, its vagueness. With respect to Espinoza, it's the vagueness of the religion Clauses that allows justices to interpret them according to .their own world views.

In the First Congress -- on June 8, 1789 -- Representative James Madison (Va.) proposed a bill of rights. A House committed on which Madison served considered his proposals, made some changes and the House its version of a bill of rights. The Senate took up the House bill and made some modifications. Madison served on the House-Senate conference committee and insisted on the House's version of the First Amendment. Senate negotiaters accepted the House's version of the First Amendment in exchange for some of its wording in other amendments. The states ratified ten of Congresses twelve proposals on December 15, 1791, including the religion clauses of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...

Madison promised during the ratification process of the Constitution that he would propose a bill of rights to fill a void that many felt was lacking in the Constitution.

The First Congress was very busy establishing a new form of government, leving little time for lower priority bill of rights. Tho there is little recorded of the committees discussions, one thing is clear that the Establishment Clause meant much more than prohibiting Congress from establishing a national religion. We know this because that proposal was voted down in the House committee.  Similarly, a proposal prohibiting Congress from enacing a law anything "touching religion" was likewise voted down. 

Where does that leave us as to the meaning of the Establishment Clause? Specifically, what does "an establishment of religion mean??

Textualism does not guuide us in interreting the Establiysment Clause because of its vaguendess. Secifically, "an establishment of religion" was not a phrase with establishmed meaning in 1789. What is clear, at least to me, is "an" is broad rather than narrow.

By: Robert V. Ritter, Founder, Jefferson Madison Center for Religious Liberty, July 11, 2020

Justice Breyer flip-flops on time makiing a wrong right

Justice Gorsuch, writing for the majority in McGirt v. Oklahoma, said today: "Unlawful acts, performed long enough and with sufficient vigor, are never enough to amend the law. To hold otherwise would be to elevate the most brazen and longstanding injustices over the law, both rewarding wrong and failing those in the right." 

I agree with both the Court's decision in McGirt and Justice Gorsuch's statement. Fifteen years ago, Justice Breyer, who signed on to Justice Gorsuch's opinion, had a different view in Van Orden v. Perry (2005). Justice Breyer concurred in the judgement in Van Orden, joining four Christian nationalist justices in holding that a 1961 Fraternal Order of Eagles Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol did not violate the Establishment Clause because it had been on the Capitol grounds for 44 years. 

In other words, in Van Orden, Justice Breyer opined that a wrong (i.e., a religious monument on public property) should be allowed to stay (i.e., go uncorrected) because the passage of time is an alchemy for making a wrong right (or, simply, let sleeping dogs lie). Hypocrisy at its finest -- in the Supreme Court of the United States. 

Bottom line: the Van Orden v. Perry decision is a blatant example of Christian privilege and needs to be reversed. It has resulted in 120 Eagles Ten Commandments monuments remaining on public property in violation of the First Amendment. 

By: Robert V. Ritter, Founder, Jefferson Madison Center for Religious Liberty, July 9, 2020

Still not "We The People" for everyone

I'm happy for the LGBTQ community for last Monday's Supreme Court decisions in Bostock v. Clayton County, Ga. and Altitude Express v. Zarda. 

It's now (actually past time) for the Court to strike down the last major form of discrimination in the United States -- that of Christian privilege of "In G-d We Trust", "under G-d" in the Pledge of Allegiance, oaths with "So Help Me G-d", etc. 

Unless the Court does so, We The People does NOT mean Everyone. 244 years and waiting for America to rid itself of Christian privilege and Christian nationalism.

By: Robert V. Ritter, Founder, Jefferson Madison Center for Religious Liberty, June 16, 2020

Trey Smith's "The Choice" - dramatic Christian Apologetics

In response to a comment that I posted on Facebook -- that the Bible is the greatest lie ever told -- one respondent asked me to watch a YouTube video "The Choice." https://youtu.be/S-SzIJngWqE

I watched the 22 minute video to which I replied:

I watched Trey Smith's video "The Choice: God in a Nutshell." I would ask you do what Trey asks at the end:-- "open your eyes." The video is pure Christian Apologetics fantasy. It rests on the false premise: "Yet by definition, the very definition of God with a capital G, is merely the intelligent source from which all creation extends to exist." From this false premise flows the unreality of Jesus as God. A lot of tearful graphics, such as a bloody Jesus on a cross and wolves tearing apart a human carcass, doesn't make any of it true. It just draws the gullible into the fold of misguided believers. For more than 50 of my 70 years I have not been aware of any credible evidence of the existence of a god. If you are aware of any credible evidence, I invite you to share it.

As a retired lawyer with a passion for observation, logic and verification -- reason and science -- evidence must meet a high bar of proof to be credible. Merely alleging that God created the Universe is not proof of the existence of God. Based on the lack of credible evidence of the existence of God, I conclude that the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God does not exist. However, should such evidence come to light before my demise, I will re-evaluate my belief. I do not intend to hold my breath in the meantime.

Supreme Court Trampels on Religious Freedom

The U.S. Supreme Court trampled upon the First Amendment today, all but abolishing religious freedom in America. In American Legion v. American Humanist Association, No. 17–1717, the Court held that the Bladensburg Cross on public property does not violate the Establishment Clause. This  decision reverses a 4th Circuit decision which held that the display of the preeminent symbol of Christianity on public property does violate the First Amendment. The decision is insane and truly shows how politically Christian Nationalist the Supreme Court has become.

As a footnote, the decision echoes one of the Court's worst decisions of all-time in Van Orden v. Perry (2005), particularly Justice Breyer's "let sleeping dogs lie"concurrence in the judgment opinion.

Robert V. Ritter

 (Disclosure Statement: I served as legal coordinator of AHA from 2007 to 2010.)

.

Open Letter to Senator Tim Kaine

Dear Senator Kaine,

As a constituent of yours and an adherent to Presidents Thomas Jefferson's and James Madison's constitutional principle of separation of church and state, your senatorial campaign ad alleging that WE are "one nation under God" is most disturbing.

The United States of America has NEVER been a nation under God. Permit me to remind you that you took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. The Constitution is clear: "We the People of the United States ... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The United States is a secular nation.

As confirmation, the Constitution makes no mention of a god or gods and gave religion no role to play in our government.

I call upon you to live up to your oath and submit a bill to repeal the 1954 act that added "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance.

Sincerely,

Robert V. Ritter
Falls Church, VA

Kavanaugh Unqualified for Seat on Supreme Court

The American political psyche is very divided. The multitude of views is the nature of the American politick. That was true at our founding and it is true today.

This being said, Judge Brett Kavanaugh is unqualified for a seat on the Supreme Court for a number of reasons. Foremost is his temperament. His behavior during the Senate Judiciary confirmation hearings was atrocious. His response to Senator Klobuchar's questions about his drinking were not only evasive but extremely disrespectful. I can envision Kavanaugh going ballistic during an oral argument should he be confirmed.

Some argue that millions don’t believe Kavanaugh assaulted Ford. On the other hand, millions of Americans believe Christine Blasey Ford's testimony was credible and that he did sexually assault her while he was drunk. Mark Judge has corroborate that Kavanaugh had a drinking problem while he was at Georgetown Prep. And others at Yale said likewise. Also that he was belligerent. There is also a police report concerning Kavanaugh that he was involved in a bar fight. A person who sits on the High Court should be beyond reproach and Kavanaugh is not that person. Too many question marks to say the least.


There is also serious concern that Kavanaugh may have committed perjury -- including, lying about his drinking problem and definition of sex terms.

And on top of all this, he is extremist in is views, and lacks both impartiality and fidelity to the Constitution. For example, his concurrence in Newdow v. Roberts, 603 F.3d 1002 (DC Cir. 2010)  (a case in which I was co-counsel in challenging the religious practices of the 2009 presidential inaugural ceremony) is indicative of Kavanaugh's support for Christian privilege (at the expense of non-theists and persons of minority religions) contrary to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

As a member of the Supreme Court bar and with these points in mind, I am of the opinion Judge Kavanaugh is eminently unqualified for a seat on the Supreme Court.

Robert V. Ritter

"In God We Trust" and the Fraud of Ceremonial Deism

How is it that the federal government can establish "In God We Trust" as our national motto, print IGWT on our currency and engrave it on our coins, have a Pledge of Allegiance with "one nation under God", military bands play God Bless America, etc.

The answer is quite simple: tyranny of the majority.  While the First Amendment prohibits government sponsorship of religion (i.e. establishments of religion), presidents, congressmen and women and judges and justices lack the courage to enforce it or, worse, are part of the problem.

In the last two weeks, we have two federal court cases with astonishing different results. First, on October 6, courageous U.S. District Court Judge Barbara B. Crabb held that the "parsonage allowance" found in I.R.C. Sec. 107(2) violated the Establishment Clause. The parsonage allowance provision allows "ministers of the gospel" (broadly construed by IRS) to exempt from their income taxes allowances for their housing -- including for mansions, swimming pools and lawn care -- while disallowing the exemption for similarly situated secular persons. Excellent decision in Gaylor v. Mnuchin (W.D. Wisc. Oct. 6, 2017) based on fidelity to the Constitution.

On the other hand, U.S. District Court Judge Amy J. St. Eve obediently whimped out in Mayle v. U.S. (N.D. Ill., Sept. 29, 2017) by regurgitating the sham legal reason of "ceremonial deism" (which states that it's OK for the government to promote the majority religion (i.e., Christianity) by using short phrases such as "In God We Trust," "under God" and "So help me God").

While I find every aspect of the Judge St. Eve's opinion repugnant and contrary to the Constitution, I would like to focus on two points.

First, Judge St. Eve found that compelling Americans to conduct financial transactions with U.S. currency and coins with "In God We Trust" is not a "substantial burden" under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). This is absurd on its face. Because I am an Atheist, I use a black permanent marker to line thru "In God We Trust" on the currency I carry in my wallet. (Too difficult to grind IGWT of coins but I like the idea.) Well, Judge St. Eve, it is at least as much a "substantial burden" as having Christian institutions signing a form saying they don't want to provide contraceptive coverage under the ACA. Actually more so.

Second, Judge St. Eve doesn't understand the Equal Protection argument. In her view, since everyone has to carry the unconstitutional currency, they they are "equal."  That's the wrong comparison.  Rather, the issue is that Congress has shown preference to the majority's religion by mandating a statement of belief in the monotheistic "God" be placed on our coins and currency.  The inequality relates to the Congress's lack of similar endorsements of Atheism and minority religions.  An absolutely blatant violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

The Supreme Court has said in numerous cases that government must remain neutral in matters of religion -- that government may not prefer one religion over another, or religion over nonbelief.  (See, e.g., McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky (2005).

Until the Supreme Court rids itself of its morning prayer of "God save this honorable Court" and declares ceremonial deism a sham, Atheists and practitioners of minority religions will continue to be second class citizens in the United States

Robert V. Ritter

An End To Faux Originalism

The Supreme Court's faux "originalist" has died. Last week, Justice Antonin Scalia, 79, passed while on a hunting vacation at a West Texas ranch. (Contrary to rumors, he wasn't shot by Dick Chaney.)

Justice Scalia has as been eulogized as a great intellect and mastermind of the conservative wing of the Supreme Court.

In my view, Justice Scalia failed on both counts. Rather than being a great intellect, he was an ideolog who used the "what did our Founders intend" mantra to cherry pick less relevant evidence to support his personal views. He did what a good debater has to do when the law doesn't support their position -- throw up a lot of detail in the hope that some of it sticks. Altho conservative acolytes found a lot to their liking, (true) constitutionalists were rarely convinced.

In the end, Scalia's so-called conservative leadership never garnered a solid majority -- largely because his views were often inconsistent with the Constitution.  For example, Justice Scalia, in his dissenting opinion in McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky (2005), opined that government may "favor religion over irreligion" notwithstanding the First Amendment prohibition "respecting an establishment of religion."

And contrary to the plain text of the Second Amendment that the right to bear arms is linked to being in the militia, Justice Scalia was only able to eke out 5-4 majority for his ideologically motivated individual gun rights position (D.C. v. Heller (2008)).  So much for looking to the text of the Constitution.

Justice Scalia was a flip-flop too. In his majority opinion in  Employment Division v. Smith (1990), the Court held that a government need only demonstrate a rational basis for a neutral law of general applicability but burdened a person's free exercise of religion. The Justice Scalia did an about face in joining opinions support Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) which gives religion a preference by requiring government to show a compelling interest in order to burden a person's free exercise of religion.

May Justice Scalia and America rest in peace.

Robert V. Ritter

The Chief Justice skinks with the ship

The Supreme Court today held that gay marriage is a fundamental right that states cannot deny. Sadly, the Chief Justice and three other justices decided to sink with the Christian Right ship rather than affirm America's core value of equality.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, (Sup. Ct., June 26, 2015) and was joined by Justices Ruth Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Helen Kagan. Kennedy gave four reasons why gay marriage was a fundamental right (Slip Opinion, pp. 12-17). The bottom line is that the majority held that the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution "[do] not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex." (P. 27)

The dissenters were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito -- all conservative Roman Catholics.

This reminds me of the 1960 presidential election in which some voters worried that if John F. Kennedy were elected president, he would take orders from the Pope. Then senator, Kennedy responded to this concern in an address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on September 12, 1960:

 I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

The Chief Justice, Scalia, Thomas and Alito obviously cannot say the same--for they voted to deny gays the right to marry just as the Catholic Church would want them to.

The Chief Justice sadly tells those who support the decision: "Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it." (P. 29)
This ridiculous statement is consistent with a justice who lacks fidelity to the Constitution, specifically its due process and equal protection clauses.

Like the seemingly unsinkable Titanic, the Christian Right has sunk.

As a final comment, Justice Alito worries that those who oppose gay marriage will be called bigots. He should be worried. Quite frankly, they are bigots because there is no rational basis for their discriminatory belief. Their religion is no excuse. But they are free to be wrong.

Are Arkansas Christians bad at math and history?

I don't get it: Are Christians in Arkansas bad at math and history? Or is it just their legislators?

Here's the deal. I was reading a blog post today at Religion Clause in which Howard Friedman informed us that the Arkansas legislature had passed S.B. 939. The bill, called The  Ten Commandments Monument Display Act (full text), directs the secretary of state to arrange for private groups to erect a 10C monument on the State Capitol grounds.The text of its commandments would read (I've added numbers for clarity):

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven images.
3. Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5. Honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
6. Thou shalt not kill.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house.
11. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his 34 maidservant, nor his cattle, nor anything that is thy neighbor's.

As you can clearly see, there are eleven commandments not ten. I feel sad for Arkansas students who are taught this kind of crazy math.

But, you know, it's not just Arkansas. The Fraternal Order of Eagles had a similar problem on some of its Ten (or Eleven) Commandments monuments that it erected in public parks, state capital grounds, courthouses, libraries and public schools.

Even more troubling is the Arkansas legislature's revisionist American history. Our founders did not believe that "God" ordained our government. Our founding document--the Constitution of the United States of America--explicitly says in the Preamble: "We the People of the United States ... do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America."

While I'm quibbling, the bill also states: "The Ten Commandments ... are an important component of the moral foundation of the laws and legal system of the United States ..." What? Commandments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10 and 11 (above) are not part of our legal system. Moreover, commandments 6 (not kill), 8 (not steal) and 9 (not bear false witness) are secular in nature and are common in non-Judeo-Christian societies.

And did you know that the words "Ten (or Eleven) Commandments)", "Creator", "God", "Supreme Being", "Jesus" and "Christianity" are not mentioned in the Constitution?  Not once.

The conclusion is unmistakeable, neither the Biblical Ten Commandments nor Arkansas' Eleven Commandments had little or no influence in the founding of our system of governance in the United States.

Robert V. Ritter

Judge O'Scannlain on the Wrong Side of Gay Marriage

Judge O’Scannlain of the 9^th Circuit has fallen out of the boat in declaring “we have ignored another circuit’s reasoned contribution to the [gay marriage] debate.”  Latta v. Otter (9th Cir., pet. for rehearing en banc denied, January 9, 2015) (Scanlon, J., dissenting).  Rather, it is the 6th Circuit and Judge O’Scannlain that have ignored the clear mandate of the U.S. Constitution.

First, I would disagree with Judge O’Scannlain’s characterization that the 6th Circuit’s decision in DeBoer v. Snyder (6th Cir. 2014) is a “reasoned contribution” to the debate.  Here’s why.  Equality is the quintessential core America – “all men are created equal.”  Admittedly, the Declaration of Independence is not our charter of government and equality was not firmly embedded in the original test of the Constitution.  It took the Civil War and the 14th Amendment to steer us back to the legal mandate of equality: “nor shall any State deprive . . . any person . . . equal protection of the law.”

Second, Judge O’Scannlain apparently believes that minority rights are subject to vote and equal protection of the law does not apply to gay persons.  He and Christian Dominionists are wrong.  The purpose of the Bill of Rights and a number of other amendments was to protect minority rights by removing them to popular vote.

Third Judge O’Scannlain’s characterization of a “clear circuit split” is stretched.  The 6th Circuit’s decision is an outlier among the circuits.  There is nothing to be gained at this point by the 9th Circuit hearing Latta v. Otter and companion cases en banc.  Moreover, gay marriage cases are already pending before the Supreme Court.  Thus there is no need at this point for circuit courts to expend further judicial energy considering gay marriage.

And as a final point, Judge O’Scannlain’s parsing of the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. __ (2013) (Docket No. 12-307) to argue that the Court has not decided the gay marriage issue is underwhelming.  While O’Scannlain is literally correct, Justice Kennedy writing for the majority in Windsor said of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA): “The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity.” 

Even Justice Scalia, dissenting in Windsor, recognized “the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition.”  It's time for Judge O’Scannlain to climb in the life boat and raise the white flag of equality.

Robert V. Ritter

Congress Blesses Mt. Soledad Christian Cross By Sham Land Sale

Sadly, the Senate ignored the FIRST RIGHT protected by the Bill of Rights -- freedom from government sponsored religion (a.k.a. the Establishment Clause) when it passed the National Defense Authorization Bill on Friday, December 12.

Section 2852 of the bill requires the Secretary of Defense to sell the Mt. Soledad Veteran's Memorial to the privately incorporated Mount Soledad Memorial Association. What is significant about the memorial is that its principal component is a 29-foot Christian cross on top of a 14-foot base for a total height of 43 feet. That's a powerful religious endorsement of Christianity telling persons of minority faiths and nonbelief that they are unwelcome or second class citizens.

The Mount Soledad Cross has been the subject of litigation for over 20 years. The City of San Diego and the U.S. government have lost at every step of the way, including a 2013 federal judge ruling from the bench upholding the Ninth Circuit's ruling and ordering that the cross must come down.

Time and again Christian dominionists have used the instruments of government to protect Christian crosses and Ten Commandments monuments on public lands by sham land sales where the religious symbol remains in place within the larger public park or other public property. Only the "donut hole" becomes private property!

A sham land transfer was also used by Congress to "save" the Sunrise Cross in the Mojave National Preserve in California. (I authored an amicus brief in opposition to the sham land transfer in Salazar v. Buono, Sup. Ct. No. 08-472, on behalf of the American Humanist Association, et al.)

Similar sham land transfers were also used by local governments to prevent the removal of Eagles-donated Ten Commandment monuments on public property in La Crosse (Cameron Park), Wisconsin, Hanover, Pennsylvania (Wirt Park), Frederick, Maryland (Memorial Park) and Nebraska City, Nebraska (Otoe County Courthouse).

These governmental acts demonstrate complete disrespect for, if not violation of, the First Amendment. Passage of the National Defense Authorization Bill is a sad day for religious freedom in America.

In concluding this post, I would like to take this opportunity to rebuke my Virginia Senators Mark Warner and Tim Kaine for their vote supporting this egregious violation of religious freedom and remind them that Congress has no authority under the Constitution to prefer one religion over another, or religion over nonbelief.)

Robert V. Ritter