Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Religion News
#NoMuslimBan

#NoMuslimBan

Last updated on: June 28, 2018 at 10:57 pm by Guest Contributor

#NoMuslimBan 2018-06-28T22:57:48-04:00 Guest Contributor

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Religious liberty is rightly called “the first freedom” and it has defined us as a nation. At least up until Tuesday, June 26, 2018.

The Supreme Court of the United States, the very body charged with protecting constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, has put that freedom in jeopardy by their decision in “Trump v. Hawaii” to allow a policy to stand that targets people just because they are Muslim.

In a verbal gymnastics exercise that would probably score a 10 at a Judicial Olympics, the majority opinion of the Supreme Court argues that a policy that manifestly discriminates against people based on their religion actually does not. It doesn’t fly.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out, in her vigorous dissent, that “What began as a policy explicitly ‘calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States’ has since morphed into a ‘proclamation’ putatively based on national-security concerns…But this new window dressing cannot conceal an unassailable fact: the words of the president and his advisers create the strong perception that the proclamation is contaminated by impermissible discriminatory animus against Islam and its followers.”

I must say I am not surprised by this decision from the court of Chief Justice John Roberts. In 2005, I was invited to be an expert witness, due to my academic training in American Religious History, in the Judiciary Committee’s confirmation hearings on John Roberts appointment to be Chief Justice. You may find my testimony on C-Span.

I argued before the Judiciary Committee that I saw very disturbing trends, even in the limited amount of his papers released by John Roberts. In my oral testimony I said, “there is evidence — and I have cited detail in my written testimony — that his [Roberts] judicial posture is more toward permissiveness in religious establishment and is less than vigorous in the defense of religious minorities and their freedoms.”

If you watched those hearings, you might recall that John Roberts had promised to bring “no agenda” and to take a minimalist approach to Constitutional interpretation. He compared his way of interpreting the law to that of an “umpire calling balls and strikes.”

Well, the “Establishment Clause” of the First Amendment just struck out in my view, despite the fact (or because of it?) that the majority opinion takes the extraordinarily contradictory position of chiding Donald Trump for his inflammatory statements such as “Islam hates us” or his repeated calls to “ban Muslim immigration,” while at the same time upholding the Trump approach that is manifestly a Muslim ban.

The majority opinion actually quotes the outlandish statements by Donald Trump re Muslims as a group, and then going on to quote the balanced and rational views of his predecessors on protecting religious liberty. The majority opinion goes to great lengths in this peculiar argument, from citing George Washington’s famous 1790 argument that “the Government of the United States…gives bigotry no sanction,” to both Presidents Eisenhower and George W. Bush speaking at the same Islamic Center, at different times, both urging that religious liberty and “respect and dignity and human worth” make America a “great country.”

Yes, two previous Republican presidents thought it was “religious liberty” that made America great. And they were very explicit that they did not mean ‘religious liberty for only certain sects of Christianity.’

What is particularly astonishing to me is that the majority opinion in this decision waxes eloquent on religious liberty for all faiths, while denying it with their decision.

This is politics, not the plain reading of the Constitution. In fact, Justice Roberts, you looked away from the plate while the batter struck out and called it a home run.

I further believe with Justice Sotomayor that the “repackaging” did nothing to change the fact that “a reasonable observer would conclude that the Proclamation was motivated by anti-Muslim animus.”

Justice Sotomayor concludes “The United States of America is a Nation built upon the promise of religious liberty. Our Founders honored that core promise by embedding the principle of religious neutrality in the First Amendment. The Court’s decision today fails to safeguard that fundamental principle.”

I concur.

This was a very bad call, Justice Roberts.

As Americans, we need to do everything we can to protect the First Amendment of the Constitution, and not only the free exercise of religion, but also the indispensable freedoms of speech, of the press, to assemble peaceably and to petition the government. They are all threatened in this time.

We are facing a titanic struggle for the next Supreme Court appointment. Let’s make sure anyone nominated has a strong track record on protecting all these freedoms.

Nominees for the Supreme Court should be asked if they agree withGeorge Washington’s Letter to the Jews of Newport, Rhode Island (1790).

The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for giving to Mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection, should demean themselves as good citizens.

And Washington’s concluding paragraph is of particular value as reminder exactly why Trump v. Hawaii should not have been upheld.

May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.

Dr. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite—Professor of Theology and President (1998-2008), Chicago Theological Seminary

Previous Post

June 26, 2018

Do Not Tolerate the Intolerable: Public Shaming Can Be a Justice Action

Next Post

July 5, 2018 Feel Awful? How to Identify Trump's Politics of Abuse and Subvert It

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Story of God Uncategorized

Select a Month September 2022 August 2022 January 2022 December 2021 August 2021 July 2021 February 2021 January 2021 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 November 2017 October 2017 August 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 October 2014 September 2014 July 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who was Jochebed?

Select your answer to see how you score.

David's mother Samuel's mother Moses' mother Jesus' mother