Comments for What Happened to the First Amendment? at http://www.thecatholicthing.org , comment 1 to 10 out of 10 comments http://www.thecatholicthing.org Fri, 24 May 2013 15:30:26 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/what-happened-to-the-first-amendment.html#comment-4591 Many Americans who knew of Justice Thomas’s religious beliefs were concerned that the “Holy Ghost” whom Senator Danforth invoked during these prayer sessions might have more sway over Thomas than constitutional principles (if the two ever came into conflict). We needed—and probably did not get—a judge who would impartially interpret the Constitution regardless of his personal religious beliefs. The spectacle of Thomas praying in this way with Senator Danforth sounded some alarm bells, and with good reason. Separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of our system of government, and we should all be grateful to those who stand guard over it. We are not “less free” because of the CLS v Hastings decision. On the contrary. The Court’s decision did nothing to abridge CLS’s freedom, but it did affirm the freedom of publicly-funded institutions to set their own policies. CLS is every bit as free as before, but henceforth it may not receive funding from Hastings College. - Bentang Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:41:22 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/what-happened-to-the-first-amendment.html#comment-4579 I'm surprised that no one brought up a comment made by Justice Alito in his dissent saying in effect that Christians are now second class students. That says it all. Constitutional nitpicking allows a "thoughtful" sidestepping of the reality on the ground. In law school I was definitely treated as a second class American. Quite simply you could not, for example, challenge the abortion default position no matter how much the facts of a case required it. To obsess about "funding" misses the point. Members of the CLS will always be suspect and the very act of joining is now discouraged in the eyes of faculty and students. That's the reality. We are less free day by day. And what it means is that Americans are now getting a second-class legal education because there is no real debate or thought going on. (And my fellow Catholics wonder why I get so discouraged by ending abortion in this country.) Isn't this exactly what Jesus talked about again and again in the gospels in regard to the actions and words of the Jewish priesthood and their obsession with legalistic religion? In his memoir, MY GRANDFATHER'S SON, Justice Thomas describes in painful detail his confirmation hearings. His sponsor and guide was Sen. John Danforth who is also an Episcopal priest. Before each day of hearings, Fr. Danforth would kneel with Justice Thomas and pray. Then he would tell Thomas to let "the Holy Ghost speak through you." Can you imagine how outraged the president and his followers would be if he found out that was going on with soon-to-be Justice Kagan? There are only a handful of law professors in this country who would not be outraged by Justice Thomas's story. - Graham Combs Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:58:10 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/what-happened-to-the-first-amendment.html#comment-4570 Here’s a parallel that may throw some light on the CLS v Hastings decision: Brigham Young University makes a distinction between two kinds of academic freedom—one for individual faculty members to “teach and research without interference,” and the other for the institution to “pursue its distinctive mission.” Obviously, these freedoms may sometimes be at odds, so the faculty are subject to what BYU calls “reasonable limitations.” They may not contradict or oppose LDS Church doctrine or policy in public, they may not deride the LDS Church or its leaders, and they must not violate the “honor code.” Is any of this a violation of faculty’s First Amendment rights? No, of course not. BYU faculty may say what they like about the LDS Church as long as they are prepared to seek employment elsewhere. When they signed their employment contract at BYU, they agreed to certain restrictions on their speech. This is why CLS’s case against Hastings was without merit. They wanted funding and recognition from Hastings but refused to comply with Hastings’ non-discrimination policy. Hastings said, in essence, “You’re free to associate in whatever way you choose, but not on our dime.” If the Supreme Court had decided against Hastings, every organization in this country, from corporations to churches, might have lost the power to set its own policies. Face it—that power comes from the ones holding the purse strings. In Hastings’ case, it was the taxpayers. - Bentang Tue, 27 Jul 2010 16:59:07 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/what-happened-to-the-first-amendment.html#comment-4569 Howard, I didn’t make the point that you attributed to me in your paragraph 2. My position—and apparently the court’s—is that any student organization that refuses to comply with Hastings’ non-discrimination policy should be considered ineligible for funding and recognition. It doesn’t matter whether that organization is for Muslims, for Jews, or for born-again Christians. If they have discriminatory membership policies, they should take their organization off-campus. I would agree with you that certain functions (e.g., straights-only proms) should probably be handled by organizations that do not receive state funds. This should not be a problem. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t suppose the Newman Centers expect funding from the universities around which they are based. Why, indeed, should taxpayers support any organization that practices discrimination of the sort that goes on in CLS? - Bentang Tue, 27 Jul 2010 15:52:45 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/what-happened-to-the-first-amendment.html#comment-4568 The Manhattan Declaration suggests the time may be coming for civil disobedience. On this issue we need to figure out how to be be so disobedient, without having to incur the usual court costs. Can any good lawyer figure out how to do that? - Pat Fagan Tue, 27 Jul 2010 13:48:54 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/what-happened-to-the-first-amendment.html#comment-4565 I agree with Bentang -- to a point. Official recognition by a university is not a prerequisite to free speech, as I'm sure we would be pointing out if someone tried to sue Franciscan University of Steubenville on First Amendment grounds for not recognizing a "gay pride" student group. However, he goes on to suggest that because Hastings is a public university, it is appropriate for them to exclude CLS on the basis of their beliefs and practices but not, for example, a Muslim group for its beliefs and practices. This is a bit of a stretch; I suppose the truly interesting test will come when a Muslim group (or an Orthodox Jewish group) applying for recognition with similarly explicit moral standards in its charter. The ONLY way to steer clear of any impression of supporting one side against the other is probably to drop the idea of "recognized student groups" altogether and to eliminate the student activity fees that go to their support. I think similar steps will have to be taken in many areas of education -- like leaving parties, proms, and graduation ceremonies to be provided (or not) by social organizations not related to the school. (Churches? The YMCA? The United Way? The American Legion? The Boy Scouts and/or Girl Scouts?) - Howard Tue, 27 Jul 2010 07:51:27 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/what-happened-to-the-first-amendment.html#comment-4560 Saunders asks, “What happened to the First Amendment?” Answer: Nothing. CLS’s First Amendment rights were not violated by Hastings College’s policy or by the Supreme Court’s decision in Hastings’ favor. CLS may continue to discriminate against those who do not agree with its principles, and this is right and proper. Their First Amendment rights of free association, free speech, and free exercise are intact. What CLS may not do is receive funding or recognition from Hastings College. This is because CLS’s discriminatory membership policies violate the college’s own non-discrimination policy, which withholds recognition from campus groups that seek to exclude people on the basis of religious beliefs or sexual orientation. The Court’s decision in CLS v. Hastings makes complete sense to me, and I agree with Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s opinion that CLS was seeking preferential exemption from Hastings’ policy. To have decided against Hastings, the court would have needed to show that their non-discrimination policy was unconstitutional, and they couldn’t very well do that without running into problems with the Equal Protection Clause (the 14th Amendment). Like it or not, state universities have a right—and I would say an obligation—to set and enforce non-discrimination policies. Everyone in the state—Christians, gays, Muslims, Jews, blacks, women, and all the rest—supports state universities with tax dollars. Their children should not have to experience exclusion based on any of these identities. The fact that CLS has now been “excluded” may seem unfair until we remember the reason—i.e., that their policies are exclusionary. This is one of those paradoxes—like being intolerant of intolerance—that we should learn to live with. Exclusion due to violation of a policy is not the same as exclusion because of race, sexual orientation, or religion. - Bentang Mon, 26 Jul 2010 15:50:07 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/what-happened-to-the-first-amendment.html#comment-4558 I've begun to apologize to my grandchildren for the insanity we are leaving them. - john mccray Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:38:21 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/what-happened-to-the-first-amendment.html#comment-4557 It is true, as the author here says, that we must be careful about whom we put onto the Supreme Court, but in matters of social manipulation, the fix is in. The Court's self-granted and indefensible power under its doctrine of judicial review and its manifest willingness to use whatever expedient at hand to have its way, show that in the end, the justices will do as they please when given opportunities to remake American society to their liking. This may seem a dreary and defeatist approach and, well, it is, but not unrealistic. - James Danielson Mon, 26 Jul 2010 05:53:18 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/what-happened-to-the-first-amendment.html#comment-4556 Good critique of an inexplicable decision - agenda driven and antithetical to the rule of law - written by a majority who wish to impose their liberal views on the rest of the country. This majority was elevated to the Supreme Court for exactly that purpose by the "ruling class" Until the "ruling class" is replaced we will get more of the same. - Ray Hunkins Mon, 26 Jul 2010 05:27:38 +0100