In recent years, the Bush administration has recast the federal governments role in civil rights by aggressively pursuing religion-oriented cases while significantly diminishing its involvement in the traditional area of race.
Paralleling concerns of many conservative groups, the Justice Department has successfully argued in a number of cases that government agencies, employers or private organizations have improperly suppressed religious expression in situations that the Constitutions drafters did not mean to restrict.
The shift at the Justice Department has significantly altered the governments civil rights mission, said Brian K. Landsberg, a law professor at the University of the Pacific and a former Justice Department lawyer under both Republican and Democratic administrations.
Not until recently has anyone in the department considered religious discrimination such a high priority, Professor Landsberg said. No one had ever considered it to be of the same magnitude as race or national origin.
Well, whats the problem with that, really? The Free Exercise of religion is protected in the First Amendment, after all. Its one of the bedrock principles of this countrys founding. Whats the big deal if the Bush Administ er, Justice Department wants to focus on ensuring that pillar of American liberty?
Well, it could be because theyre promoting one aspect of the First Amendment (the Free Exercise Clause) at the expense of another (that thing about the Establishment)
The changes are evident in a variety of actions:
Intervening in federal court cases on behalf of religion-based groups like the Salvation Army that assert they have the right to discriminate in hiring in favor of people who share their beliefs even though they are running charitable programs with federal money.
Supporting groups that want to send home religious literature with schoolchildren; in one case, the government helped win the right of a group in Massachusetts to distribute candy canes as part of a religious message that the red stripes represented the blood of Christ.
Vigorously enforcing a law enacted by Congress in 2000 that allows churches and other places of worship to be free of some local zoning restrictions. The division has brought more than two dozen lawsuits on behalf of churches, synagogues and mosques.
Herein lies the problem of prosecutorial discretion. The Justice Department, like all government agencies, does not posses unlimited resources. Thus, it must chose its battles carefully and attempt to maximize the effect on the greater good. While they cant take on every case for purely economic reasons, once the Justice Department makes its determination that they intervene in a case, they bring the full weight of the federal government with them.
Possibly more problematic is the DoJs notoriously shitty hiring practices. According to the New York Times:
Along with its changed civil rights mission, the department has also tried to overhaul the roster of government lawyers who deal with civil rights. The agency has transferred or demoted some experienced civil rights litigators while bringing in lawyers, including graduates of religious-affiliated law schools and some people vocal about their faith, who favor the new priorities. That has created some unease, with some career lawyers disdainfully referring to the newcomers as holy hires.
Nothing wrong with a little Nepotism in the Name of The Lord, eh? Especially when those hires come from such top-flight law schools as Catholic University (Tier 2, according to the U.S. News and World Report Law School Rankings), Regent University (Tier 4), and legal powerhouse Ave Maria School of Law (Tier 4).
[Former Civil Rights Prosecutor Rigel] Oliveri recalled that when she was hired in 2000 by the Justice Department, she was impressed by the accomplishments of her peers. But once the political appointees controlled the hiring, she said, The change in the quality of people who were chosen was very pronounced.
When the front office sent around the résumés of those newly hired for the honors program, she said, It was obvious what they had: conservative and religious bona fides.
The DoJ justifies these policies by citing constitutional and congressional mandates.
[Cynthia] Magnuson, the Justice Department spokeswoman, said it was justified in devoting so much attention to the issue because Congress has demonstrated its interest by including religion in the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 and enacting the 2000 law involving zoning restrictions, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.
Ms. Magnuson also said the department had not diminished its interest in enforcing racial and national origin discrimination cases. The changes at the Justice Department began under Attorney General John Ashcroft, but have accelerated under Alberto R. Gonzales, his successor.
Mr. Gonzales has increasingly cited his agencys record on behalf of religious causes as among his most important accomplishments, often noting the successful intervention in cases on behalf of people who had suffered discrimination for wearing Muslim head coverings. In speeches, he routinely says that religious freedom is the nations first freedom because our founders saw fit to place it first in the Bill of Rights.
Last I checked, the First Amendment actually placed a restriction against mingling religion with the state first. But what do I know? Im just a first-year attorney, not the nations most powerful law-enforcement official.
Still, the question remains: Why is this a problem?
At the same time, the department has sharply reduced its efforts to combat voting rights plans that may dilute black electoral strength.
[..]
Joseph D. Rich, who recently stepped down as head of the voting rights section after a 37-year career at Justice, said that only the federal government had the resources to bring voting dilution cases, while private groups have been able to bring the language cases. The civil rights division also brought the first case ever on behalf of white voters, alleging in 2005 that a black political leader in Noxubee County, Miss., was intimidating whites at the polls.
The shift in priorities at the criminal section of the civil rights division has been especially stark. The criminal section which previously had mostly focused on hate crimes or lawsuits against police officers who may have violated someones civil rights began taking on human trafficking cases that had previously been handled elsewhere.
[ ]
Pursuing trafficking cases, rather than those involving hate crimes or police abuse, was seen as important to moving ahead in the department, current and former career officials said. They added that political appointees in supervisory positions frequently vetoed proposed hate crime investigations or questioned them to death.
You only needed for that to happen a few times and people got the message they shouldnt be eager to send up such cases, said one lawyer who would talk only on condition of anonymity.
American religion really is backward, isn't it?
Hasn't anyone ever heard of the reformation over there or someink?
Sensible Americans wouldn't hate religion so much if it was a little more... you know, sensible; like it is in other parts of the world.
Like where religion and progress can actually work together.
Or do American authorities throughout history just have a problem with people called Martin Luther?
Last I checked, the First Amendment actually placed a restriction against mingling religion with the state first. But what do I know? I'm just a first-year attorney, not the nation's most powerful law-enforcement official.
Damn atheofascist. The constitution gives us the right to do whatever the hell we want to do to whoever the hell we want whenever the hell we want. Because we're the party of America. [/sarcastic bush voice]
On a positive note though, maybe the next time the Democrats are in office my C+ in criminal procedure from Lewis and Clark will get me a job as a DA.
I really do not understand what you are trying to say in this article. I can omit that at this moment and time it is the worst possible time to be religious in America. As a matter of fact most people are anti religious, to be more precise anti christian. As for the rate of religious hires, wouldn't it be a breach of the first ammendment if religious people were not hired if they applied for jobs? As for the salvation army they stated they were a church, could you picture a baptist church with a Hindu minister, funny as it may sound it would not work. Look, I am not a christian, but honestly the way I see it religious rights will began to be abused more not the reversal. It seems that your case is almost stating that people are abusing others with their religious rights. The kids with the candy canes what is wrong with that, it is a clear breach of the first ammendment to punish them for that. Or are you simply saying the D.O.J. seems to be getting involved with only religious cases. I could see that as a problem, but perhaps they are getting involved with cases that breach the constitution, if thats the case more power to them.
I dunno. I think the general idea of the government supporting and enforcing religious programs is disgusting, but the actual examples of it that you've listed here really don't seem like anything I could really get out of bed to raise some ire about. Meh.
aldushuxley said:
I really do not understand what you are trying to say in this article. I can omit that at this moment and time it is the worst possible time to be religious in America.
Wrong
As a matter of fact most people are anti religious, to be more precise anti christian.
Even wrong-er. America has never been as religious as it is now.
aldushuxley said:
I really do not understand what you are trying to say in this article. I can omit that at this moment and time it is the worst possible time to be religious in America. As a matter of fact most people are anti religious, to be more precise anti christian.
That's just utter bullshit. If it's so terrible to be religious, why is every major political figure on either party falling all over themselves to prove how religious they are. Are you for real?
As for the rate of religious hires, wouldn't it be a breach of the first ammendment if religious people were not hired if they applied for jobs?
Uh, no. Way to read the article. The question is not that they are being hired because they are or are not religious. (For the record, if that were the case it would violate the prohibition against religious tests in Art. VI, sec 3). The issue is that they are being hired ahead of people from better schools because of their religious affiliation. It's less about this violating the law and more about this being horrifically bad policy.
As for the salvation army they stated they were a church, could you picture a baptist church with a Hindu minister, funny as it may sound it would not work.
They are not a church, actually. They are a charitable organization that receives federal money and thus should be subject to federal hiring laws.
Look, I am not a christian, but honestly the way I see it religious rights will began to be abused more not the reversal.
I have no idea what the hell you're saying here.
It seems that your case is almost stating that people are abusing others with their religious rights.
That's not what I'm saying at all.
The kids with the candy canes what is wrong with that, it is a clear breach of the first ammendment to punish them for that.
Not really. Students have some first amendment rights, but those rights are not absolute for a number of reasons. If those students were passing out anti-religious or white supremacist literature, they'd be suspended in a heartbeat.
Or are you simply saying the D.O.J. seems to be getting involved with only religious cases.
Yes. Well, me and the NYTimes and all the people they quoted.
I could see that as a problem, but perhaps they are getting involved with cases that breach the constitution, if thats the case more power to them.
Nokturn said:
American religion really is backward, isn't it?
Hasn't anyone ever heard of the reformation over there or someink?
Sensible Americans wouldn't hate religion so much if it was a little more... you know, sensible; like it is in other parts of the world.
Like where religion and progress can actually work together.
Or do American authorities throughout history just have a problem with people called Martin Luther?
Well you lot didn't exactly send the best and the brightest over here to get the party started in the first place. 250 years and we still haven't been able to completely shake off the puritanical influence.
aldushuxley said:
I really do not understand what you are trying to say in this article. I can omit that at this moment and time it is the worst possible time to be religious in America. As a matter of fact most people are anti religious, to be more precise anti christian. As for the rate of religious hires, wouldn't it be a breach of the first ammendment if religious people were not hired if they applied for jobs? As for the salvation army they stated they were a church, could you picture a baptist church with a Hindu minister, funny as it may sound it would not work. Look, I am not a christian, but honestly the way I see it religious rights will began to be abused more not the reversal. It seems that your case is almost stating that people are abusing others with their religious rights. The kids with the candy canes what is wrong with that, it is a clear breach of the first ammendment to punish them for that. Or are you simply saying the D.O.J. seems to be getting involved with only religious cases. I could see that as a problem, but perhaps they are getting involved with cases that breach the constitution, if thats the case more power to them.
Ha ha, this is rich. Most people in America are anti-religious? Anti-Christian, no less? Care to back that up? No? Well I will for you: Statistically, the most recent data indicate that 76.5% (159 million) Americans identify themselves as Christian, while a whopping 3.2% state that they have no belief in God. In other words, the evidence isn't exactly on your side here. But then, that's the risk you run when you talk out of your posterior.
It's always amusing when the vast Christian populace, which has a direct line to the White House, stands up and whines about beng oppressed. Meanwhile nonsense like this keeps rearing its ugly head.
I really only wanted to address the first part of your comment, since the rest of it indicates that you're confused and don't understand the article in the first place.
I am sorry, never been more religious. That is so much kind of crap that it is freaky. Where do you get the information to support that. Let's review some of the things in this day and age, that never been more religious America has accepted. Gay marriage is now accepted in several states, Homo sexuality is now accepted unless you are over thirty five, generally speaking the baby boomer generation is more conservative. From My view point we have become an almost anti religious state where only a small majority of religious individuals stand out or come into power. Look at the guys post under yours tell me again why is america so religious now. The average American is less religious than ever right now.
aldushuxley said:
I can omit that at this moment and time it is the worst possible time to be religious in America.
No, it's not. While American societal prejudice against Islam is on the rise, American culture and politics used to be much more openly anti-Catholic and antisemitic. Charles Coughlin preached virulent antisemitism to a radio audience of over 40 million Americans in the 1930's, for example.
aldushuxley said:
As a matter of fact most people are anti religious, to be more precise anti christian.
What on earth leads you to think that most Americans are "anti-Christian"?! Wouldn't that be at odds with the huge number of Christian churches around the country?
Can you imagine someone running for Congress using "I'm anti-Christian" as a successful campaign strategy?
aldushuxley said:
I am sorry, never been more religious. That is so much kind of crap that it is freaky. Where do you get the information to support that. Let's review some of the things in this day and age, that never been more religious America has accepted. Gay marriage is now accepted in several states, Homo sexuality is now accepted unless you are over thirty five, generally speaking the baby boomer generation is more conservative. From My view point we have become an almost anti religious state where only a small majority of religious individuals stand out or come into power. Look at the guys post under yours tell me again why is america so religious now. The average American is less religious than ever right now.
Please explain how increasing acceptance of homosexuality has anything to do with whether America is more or less religious.
Also, if you're looking at the reactions on SuicideGirls.com as representative of America's general feelings on the subject of religion then you're a fucking idiot.
I guess I am kind of removed from the bulk of Americans, being part of an "elitist" society you naturally class people in two categories, guy who's got your back and civilians. So I don't really know what is going on with civies most of the time I use sights like this to get my news. Yes I am serious. For your previous question about homosexuality that doesn't affect me so I do not worry about it.
aldushuxley said:
For your previous question about homosexuality that doesn't affect me so I do not worry about it.
Then why'd you bring it up? Also please explain how increasing acceptance of homosexuality has anything to do with whether America is more or less religious.
aldushuxley said:
I am sorry, never been more religious. That is so much kind of crap that it is freaky. Where do you get the information to support that.
Here's one, I'll find more if you want. It's not exactly a secret that America is, well, a tiny bit religiou:
Baylor University study,September of last year:
But an ambitious new study by Baylor University affirms that the nation is more religious than ever. Fewer than 11 percent of Americans have no ties to a congregation, denomination or faith group. Yet more than 60 percent of these unaffiliated citizens say they believe in God. Moreover, nearly one-third of the unaffiliated pray and 11 percent believe Jesus to be the son of God.
Now back up your claim that we are "an anti-religious state."
Subrosa said:
Also, if you're looking at the reactions on SuicideGirls.com as representative of America's general feelings on the subject of religion then you're a fucking idiot.
Almost every Christian I have met is anti gay. As a matter of fact it is a clear tenant in all christian religions. I have been told this by multiple pastors, the bible specifically say's that for two men or two women to have sex is wrong. Again this does not mean I am christian or anti gay, that is not my argument and I do not want to make it my argument.
Subrosa said:
Also, if you're looking at the reactions on SuicideGirls.com as representative of America's general feelings on the subject of religion then you're a fucking idiot.
haha! ya took the words right outta my mouth...thank you.
aldushuxley said:
I am sorry, never been more religious. That is so much kind of crap that it is freaky. Where do you get the information to support that. Let's review some of the things in this day and age, that never been more religious America has accepted. Gay marriage is now accepted in several states, Homo sexuality is now accepted unless you are over thirty five, generally speaking the baby boomer generation is more conservative. From My view point we have become an almost anti religious state where only a small majority of religious individuals stand out or come into power. Look at the guys post under yours tell me again why is america so religious now. The average American is less religious than ever right now.
Here's something that may blow your mind: Just because you think it's true doesn't mean it is.
GASP!
Here's just one source where I got my info: http://www.coloradocollege.edu/Bulletin/March2006/?importance You could've looked it up yourself in ten seconds, but of course you didn't, because again, it's clear you're only interested in talking out of your ass. Read the numbers...if you can.
From every source we see that religiosity in America is in fact on the rise, specifically religious fundamentalism, which is perhaps in part being spurred on by those horrible, horrible homosexuals and their desire to be treated like human beings. I wish you were right about gay rights advances indicating a drop in religiosity, but again, the data just aren't there.
Your "point of view" is just that...and the facts show it as clearly wrong. You say you're not a Christian, but I don't believe you. Only a person of faith would make such an effort to squirm around the facts. The alternative is that you're just extremely low-functioning, so I suggest you come clean.
Subrosa
San Francisco, CA
July 2004
JUN 14, 2007 03:03 PM