Review: Chapter 3 (New Worms)
In chapter 3 Levin opens a new proverbial can of worms: he broaches religion. He recounts the role of religion in America from the beginning - George Washington's proclamation of Thanksgiving day - to the state of affairs in the present day - Newdow's suit regarding the phrase under God in the pledge of allegiance. At places he sighs and despairs about the vision and intentions of the founders being misinterpreted and misrepresented in the context of religion.
Levin's accusation of the Supreme Court in these matters is of the case of misinterpretation of the constituion.
(Since this chapter is immediately after Judicial Review, I was expecting to read about cases of judicial review and not cases about misinterpretation. So, in a way, this chapter is out of order.)
Most of this chapter is about what he alleges to be the abuse of the concept separation between Church & State. According to Levin, Hugo Black, a justice presiding over the case Everson v. Board of Education, originated the abuse when he dug up and used the idea of separation, apparently introduced by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to a group of Christians.
Not enough detail has been provided about both Jefferson's letter and Hugo Black's writing of the case - so it is difficult to tell with certainty if Black's interpretation was absurd, as Levin accuses.
Then he mentions a list of cases where the separation concept is wrongly applied.
Now a bit of personal beliefs section here. I side with Levin regarding a few cases' outcome: case regarding school vouchers for students going to theological schools, the case regarding under God in the pledge of allegiance, etc.. Regarding other cases (like prayer in schools), I would like more information to be able to make an educated opinion.
Mostly, I went to Christian schools. So, I grew up studying catechism / Bible lessons every year - and I loved it. I was able to identify and relate to the catechism and / or Bible teachings. For a few years I went to a Hindu school and I hated it - especially the few times when they performed Hindu rituals in the school assembly. (Hinduism is the majority's religion in India; and Christianity is practised by less than 1% of the population). So, as a Christian minority some of the insensitive things that we were made to go through in our Hindu schools were not particularly pleasant. Now in the US the roles are reversed: the 'Christians' form the majority. Therefore, I feel, from my background experience in India, that sometimes we need to be conscious of the feelings of the minorities in the context of religion.
In the same vein, I feel, Levin's argument is very one-sided: I wish he had discussed a few cases where minorities' religious rights (Islam, hinduism, etc.) were at stake.
Key statement, from Levin's point of view, for the chapter: "The Supreme Court has simply abolished your right to the free exercise of your religion in public." I am unsure how true this statement is. What do you think?
Levin's accusation of the Supreme Court in these matters is of the case of misinterpretation of the constituion.
(Since this chapter is immediately after Judicial Review, I was expecting to read about cases of judicial review and not cases about misinterpretation. So, in a way, this chapter is out of order.)
Most of this chapter is about what he alleges to be the abuse of the concept separation between Church & State. According to Levin, Hugo Black, a justice presiding over the case Everson v. Board of Education, originated the abuse when he dug up and used the idea of separation, apparently introduced by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to a group of Christians.
Not enough detail has been provided about both Jefferson's letter and Hugo Black's writing of the case - so it is difficult to tell with certainty if Black's interpretation was absurd, as Levin accuses.
Then he mentions a list of cases where the separation concept is wrongly applied.
Now a bit of personal beliefs section here. I side with Levin regarding a few cases' outcome: case regarding school vouchers for students going to theological schools, the case regarding under God in the pledge of allegiance, etc.. Regarding other cases (like prayer in schools), I would like more information to be able to make an educated opinion.
Mostly, I went to Christian schools. So, I grew up studying catechism / Bible lessons every year - and I loved it. I was able to identify and relate to the catechism and / or Bible teachings. For a few years I went to a Hindu school and I hated it - especially the few times when they performed Hindu rituals in the school assembly. (Hinduism is the majority's religion in India; and Christianity is practised by less than 1% of the population). So, as a Christian minority some of the insensitive things that we were made to go through in our Hindu schools were not particularly pleasant. Now in the US the roles are reversed: the 'Christians' form the majority. Therefore, I feel, from my background experience in India, that sometimes we need to be conscious of the feelings of the minorities in the context of religion.
In the same vein, I feel, Levin's argument is very one-sided: I wish he had discussed a few cases where minorities' religious rights (Islam, hinduism, etc.) were at stake.
Key statement, from Levin's point of view, for the chapter: "The Supreme Court has simply abolished your right to the free exercise of your religion in public." I am unsure how true this statement is. What do you think?
posted by George | 11:31 PM
5 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
George,
Thanks for the review on Chapter 3. It made me think of a couple of things, so I just wanted to add them to what you said. But first, to EVERYONE I'm providing another link here to the speech Kevin found that gives very plain examples of how the Supreme Court has went astray. It actually comes from one of the Supreme Court Justices themself, Justice Scalia. Now if you have not yet read it at full length, STOP immediately and read the whole thing, and then read it again just to let it sink in. Enough about that.
Now on to the comments -
"The Supreme Court has simply abolished your right to the free exercise of your religion in public."
Several things come to mind after reading this statement. What is the question? Do we really have the right to exercise our religion (whatever it may be) freely in public? If we do, then two things:
First, in any society there is always going to be one majority religion and many other minorities.
Second, it can never be lawful (based on the right to exercise our religion freely in public, regardless of what religion is the majority) to limit the expression of people exercising their religion in public simply because it is the majority. Apparently, when someone exercises the majority religion in public, it is somehow portrayed as discrimination or worse.
Now it is important to note that the examples of this kind of thing actually happening (at least at the local level) are too numerous to list. So I will simply provide a link to a good resource where you can find more information.
It would be interesting to know if this kind of injustice (NOTE: I am assuming this is wrong based on the identified right to freely exercise religion in public, you may not agree) has anything to do with the actual beliefs of the majority religion, or if it wouldn't matter at all what the majority believes. My first thought is that it does matter. But the more important question is, should it matter, if we are truly free to believe and exercise those beliefs?
George, In India do they ever limit the expression of the majority religion because it could be portrayed as discrimination or something worse which merits not allowing its expression?
The idea of the separation of church and state is an interesting one and if I had more time I would say much more. For now let me just ask the question where did that idea really come from anyway? Note: I don't think it is found in the Constitution (I really need to read that again). And even if someone wrote it in a letter, be it a President or whomever (think Supreme Court Justices) where is the objective definition? Or can we just make up our own? (This principle of interpretation or whatever you want to call it, is alluded to in the Justice Scalia speech READ IT!)
George, you make some interesting comments in this post. I don't have time to do the research necessary to address them properly right now but I did want to see if I'm acurately understanding your perspective before I go on a big rant about something on which we agree. I can tell already, though, that this is going to generate some interesting posts.
It sounds like your gripe with the current state of affairs re: religion and government is that there needs to be equal opportunity for everyone, right? Not that there should never be any religion allowed in any public setting.
The other thing on which I'd like a little clarification is your statement that Levin "sighs and despairs about the visions and intentions of the founders being misinterpreted and misreprestned." What exactly do you perceive the "visions and intentions" to be? Are they even worth considering?
Fellas, I am abso-bleeding-lutely tired to write anything sensible here now. So, excuse me while I delay in responding to your questions.
Meanwhile, just go ahead and assume the worst case answers from me - and carry on with the discussion. :-)
(Liberties and rights... who needs them? All I need now is my fluffy white pillow.)
Since we have been talking about rights, thought I would write a bit of my thoughts about it.
Liberties and rights are quite complex. Personal or collective liberties do not necessarily give one the license / authority to do things.
This is because we live in a heterogenous society - after all, one man's meat is another man's poison.
A simple example: my personal liberties do not really allow me to play the trumpet at midnight, when my neighbour is ear-shot away. But my neighbour is expected to put up with my horrible cacaphonic playing by day because of some unwritten law.
So, simply put: it is safe to exercise one's personal liberty as long as it does not infringe upon another's personal liberty. But almost all of one's actions affect someone else - unless one is in a vacuum.
So, how do we even exercise our liberties? Welcome to the concept 'give and take' - just like my neighbour who puts up with my crappy playing of the trumpet in the daytime. Also my neighbour is willing to put up with loud parties in my home late night for a night - because they know that there will be a day when I will have to put up with their loud late night partying.
I want to leave you with just the concept - and not discuss any specific case pointed out by Levin.
Post a Comment
<< Home