Religious bias is not constitutional
PETER LILLBACK’S column in the Journal (“Church-state separation not part of Constitution,“Oct. 15) is lacking. It’s incomplete and misleading. The title may be correct, just per se, but the column shows lack of facts and a religious bias.
Some facts or quotes are out of context. You follow (Supreme Court Chief Justice William) Rehnquist’s dissenting “… court opinion in 1985 … ” beautifully. That makes his position irrelevant therein for statutory purposes. Quoting various letters, comments or referencing drafts of people or statesmen on religion is not law.
Finally “… to preserve ‘rights of conscience’ …” is also out of context. To quote (Thomas) Jefferson’s full sentence, “Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.” How is the last phrase, beginning with “convinced,” refer to one religion over others?
Very simply, the Supreme Court itself first validated Jefferson’s letter in 1879 and in at least 15 decisions since including the 1947 expansion to cover states. Article VI of the Constitution says U.S. courts are the law of the land and bind state courts.
To date, many such statutes have been overturned. Otherwise, we get religious discrimination in modern statute. True, there is a 2014 Supreme Court decision, somewhat muddied, that is an aberration and clearly fixable. To allow a private benefit — an infringement on the rights of many for a very private employer — will be there again. “Closely held” is incorrect. Hobby Lobby is allowed to discriminate against its 13,000+ employees.
If private business owners can discriminate against their employees en masse, federal statutes, e.g., Fair Housing, Civil Rights and ADA, are up for grabs. The Constitution gives no level of government the right to religious discrimination, one or more such over others. We are free to worship at home in our religious institutions and to proselytize in the public square without interference, period. Supporting discriminatory legislation at any level? Sorry.
JERRY NACHISON Las Cruces