The First Amendment reflects a principled but shrewd attitude toward religion, which can be summarized: Government should keep its big fat nose out of matters of faith. The current Supreme Court, however, is not in full agreement with that proposition. It is in half agreement — and half is not enough.
This section of the Bill of Rights contains two commands. First, the government can't do anything "respecting an establishment of religion" — that is, sponsoring, subsidizing or providing special favors for religious institutions or individuals.
Second, the government may not infringe on the "free exercise" of faith. Americans are entitled to practice their religion without government interference. In short, the government should be scrupulously neutral — not the champion of religion in general or any particular belief and not the enemy.
When it comes to free exercise, this Supreme Court is as vigilant as a hungry tiger, ever alert to any policy that penalizes believers — as it should be. On June 21, the court rebuked Maine for an official bias against religious education.
Because the state's people are widely scattered in rural areas, many school districts lack enough students to justify their own high schools. The state provides tuition assistance so that parents can send their kids to any secondary schools they want, public or private.
There is just one major caveat: The school must be "nonsectarian." Parents who think a religious school is their best option don't have a prayer.
The state thinks this policy is required by the First Amendment, on the theory that public money can't be spent to support religion. But letting families use their tuition aid for accredited religious schools is not state support of religion. The state doesn't decide where the money goes. The choice lies with parents.
It's not state sponsorship of religion for them to spend it on a religious school — any more than it would be to spend unemployment benefits that way. The state, wrote Chief Justice John Roberts, may not "exclude some members of the community from an otherwise generally available public benefit because of their religious exercise."
Religious freedom is often seen as a weapon for Republicans to use in the culture wars — by exempting a religious baker from designing a cake for a same-sex wedding and by sparing Hobby Lobby from providing insurance coverage for contraceptives because of its religious objections.
But the court has also upheld the religious rights of people not normally favored by conservatives. It said Arkansas couldn't forbid a Muslim prisoner from having a beard as mandated by his faith. It said a Texas death row inmate was entitled to have his pastor hold his hand and pray aloud during his execution.
Unfortunately, this court's sharp eye for religious freedom violations sometimes blinds it to other concerns. In a recent case, it sided with Joseph Kennedy, a public high school football coach who made a habit, after games, of kneeling at the 50-yard line and praying aloud. Before long, most of his players were joining him. The coach also invited opposing coaches and players to participate.
Kennedy insisted he was merely engaged in a personal ritual on his own. But he was acting in his capacity as a public school employee while players were under his supervision and control.
He could have waited until they had gone home before returning to the field to commune with the Almighty. Instead, he made a conspicuous public display, which created pressure on his players to join him — including some whose parents said they took part because they felt obligated. Who knows? Boycotting prayers might mean riding the bench.
The First Amendment is supposed to prevent some religious exercises — namely those conducted by agents of government to advance religion. The football coach, however, used his official position in a way that visibly endorsed a particular faith and had a coercive effect on students. And the Supreme Court cheered him on.
It was a bad decision that will have bad consequences. University of Virginia law professor Douglas Laycock told me: "It appears to repudiate the very idea of government neutrality as a constitutional norm. Government is now free to promote religion, and apparently free to promote Christianity in particular, at least in the public schools and possibly much more broadly." The decision doesn't enhance religious freedom; it endangers it.
The First Amendment was supposed to ensure official neutrality on matters of faith. This Supreme Court, however, is happy to see the government doing work that should be left to pastors.
Reprinted with permission from Creators.
Advertising
Start your day with National Memo Newsletter
Know first.
The opinions that matter. Delivered to your inbox every morning
Retired United States Secret Service agent Jonathan Wackrow said on Saturday that Tony Ornato, the one-time head of former President Donald Trump's security detail whom Trump installed as deputy White House chief of staff for operations in 2019, tarnished the Secret Service's reputation as an apolitical organization.
Ex-White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson revealed during her testimony before the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol last week that Ornato informed her on the day of the insurrection that an irate Trump had tried to commandeer his presidential vehicle after Secret Service agents refused to drive him to the Capitol.
Wackrow explained to CNN anchor and chief domestic correspondent Jim Acosta that Secret Service personnel have expressed concerns that Ornato's unprecedented role chipped away at the agency's historical neutrality.
"This is a big question. I know that a lot of agents are talking about that. I mean, it's very hard to maintain your independence when you were a political appointee. And I think this is a very unique situation that Tony has put the Secret Service in, you know, they have to defend somebody while they were in a political role not under the operational control of the Secret Service. It's very difficult," Wackrow said.
"And I want to just take that as an outlier. That is not the norm. So for the viewers, this is a very individual issue. But I think that we're seeing the integrity of the Secret Service come into question now," Wackrow continued. "But I believe in the institutional integrity of the Secret Service and their motto, 'worthy of trust and confidence.' Tony is an outlier in this situation. It is not representative of the women and men every single day that are out there providing that protection to our governmental leaders."
Watch below:
ICYMI: I asked former Secret Service agent @JDWackrow if he thought it was appropriate for Tony Ornato to return to the Secret Service after serving in the Trump WH - when the service is meant to be apolitical. Wackrow calls Ornato an "outlier" at the agency. pic.twitter.com/WaPPiV1z9A
— Jim Acosta (@Acosta) July 2, 2022
Reprinted with permission from Alternet.
Cassidy Hutchinson
Secret Service agents are coming forward to say that for months after the January 6 insurrection, they heard stories very similar to the account former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson said she was told by a Trump loyalist and White House aide. The right-wing pro-Trump propaganda machine latched on to parts of her story in which she said she was told the outgoing president lunged at an agent, and “grabbed at” the steering wheel of the presidential limo, which on January 6 was an SUV.
Trump “angrily demanded to go to the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, and berated his protective detail when he didn’t get his way,” CNN reports, citing “two Secret Service sources who say they heard about the incident from multiple agents, including the driver of the presidential SUV where it occurred.”
That directly supports Hutchinson’s remarks before the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack in her surprise bombshell testimony last Tuesday. “The sources tell CNN that stories circulated about the incident,” CNN adds, “in the months immediately afterward the US Capitol attack and before she testified this week.”
CNN also reports that “one source, a longtime Secret Service employee, told CNN that the agents relaying the story described Trump as ‘demanding’ and that the former President said something similar to: ‘I’m the f**king President of the United States, you can’t tell me what to do.’ The source said he originally heard that kind of language was used shortly after the incident.”
Hutchinson had told the committee that a Trump aide, Anthony Ornato, had told her Trump got into the presidential limo, which was not “The Beast,” as right-wing propagandists are claiming, but an SUV, and said: “I’m the f-ing president! Take me up to the Capitol now!”
“The president reached up towards the front of the vehicle to grab at the steering wheel,” Hutchinson also told the committee, citing Ornato as her source. Referring to Secret Service Special Agent Robert Engel, she said, “Mr. Engel grabbed his arm, said, ‘Sir, you need to take your hand off the steering wheel. We’re going back to the West Wing. We’re not going the Capitol.’”
“Mr. Trump then used his free hand to lunge towards Bobby Engel,” Hutchinson then added. “When Mr. Ornato had recounted this story to me, he had motioned towards his clavicle.”
Watch CNN’s report from Friday below or at this link:
Sources say he “lunged toward the steering wheel in an effort to try and get the detail to take him to capitol hill” pic.twitter.com/QKI8ByLomV
— Acyn (@Acyn) July 1, 2022
Reprinted with permission from Alternet.
- 'Terrified' Trump On Newsmax Prompts New Witness Tampering ... ›
- Trump Lashed Out At Cassidy Hutchinson During Testimony ... ›