Friday, August 12, 2022

Justice Alito's Militant - and Frightening - Religious Beliefs

This post follows up the theme of yesterday and the threat now posed to religious freedom for non-believers and non-Christians by the extremist majority on the U.S. Supreme Court, particularrly Justice Alito who seemingly would have felt at home with the Spanish Inquisition.  Alito's position is basically you will give deference and special privileges to his religious beliefs and the beliefs of other far right "Christians" even if it means the denegration of the rights of others, both in terms of religion and basic rights.  In Alito's view, religious freedom for the minority trumps all else and if you disagree with him, too bad.  Alito's mindset is akin to that who over the centuries caused Christianity to inflict all kinds of evils ranging from genocide against Native Americans to imposing Christianity across vast portions of the world.  Those who opposed this militant Christianity were marginalized or, more often killed and eliminated.  A column in the New York Times by a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist looks at Alito's militancy and the danger he and his fellow extremists pose to the nation. Here are highlights:

Barely a month after handing down the majority opinion that erased the right to abortion, Justice Samuel Alito traveled to Rome to give a keynote address at a “religious liberty summit” convened by the Religious Liberty Initiative of the University of Notre Dame’s law school. As the video that Notre Dame posted of the bearded justice delivering his remarks made clear, this was a victory lap.

The press coverage of that speech last month mainly focused on his snarky comments about world leaders who had the effrontery to criticize what the Supreme Court had done in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. . . . . One can debate the degree of bad taste displayed by such a remark, but that’s not my concern. What interests me about his talk was its substance: a call to arms on behalf of religion.

“The challenge for those who want to protect religious liberty in the United States, Europe and other similar places,” Justice Alito said, “is to convince people who are not religious that religious liberty is worth special protection.”

On one level, there is nothing surprising about such a declaration from Justice Alito. We know where he stands on religion. He is the author of a long string of opinions that have elevated the free exercise of religion above civil society’s other values, including the right not to be discriminated against and the right to enjoy benefits intended for all.

He was a vigorous dissenter during the early months of the Covid-19 pandemic, when the court upheld the attendance limits that governments were placing on religious as well as secular gatherings.

[H]e was part of the five-member majority that established a new “most favored nation” status for religion — meaning that any time the government, for whatever reason, grants a secular entity an exemption from a restriction or regulation, the failure to offer religion a similar exemption is presumptively unconstitutional.

But Justice Alito’s Notre Dame speech still merits close examination for what it reveals about the assumptions built into his worldview. What does it mean, for example, to assert that it is “people who are not religious” who need to be persuaded that religion is worthy of special treatment? Do all religiously observant people naturally believe that religion merits more protections than other values? There’s scant evidence for that; in any event, that has not been our law, at least not until recently.

Justice Alito followed his observation with a scornful appraisal of law professors (presumably exempting the many in attendance at his speech). “A dominant view among legal academics,” he said, was that society should treat religion “just like any other passionate personal attachment, say rooting for a favorite sports team, pursuing a hobby or following a popular artist or group.”

Justices and legal scholars alike have struggled for decades to identify the right balance for religion within a pluralistic society, an effort Justice Alito reduced to a cartoonish either/or. . . . . He offered no acknowledgment, none, of the harm that can occur when religion is elevated above all other claims to recognition and respect.

For example, in the aftermath of his opinion in the 2014 Hobby Lobby case, tens of thousands of women have never received the contraception coverage to which the Affordable Care Act entitled them because they work for employers with objections to particular forms of birth control. His opinion in 2020 extending the so-called ministerial exception to cover nonministerial employees of religious organizations stripped those employees of the protection of federal laws that prohibit job discrimination. And, of course, the very opinion he bragged about to his audience in Rome, an opinion that as I have recently explained was grounded in religious doctrine rather than constitutional law, took no account of its devastating impact on women.

This was the Alito of his opinion dissenting from the Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which recognized a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. He predicted then that “those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such.”

In Rome, more clearly than in the past, Justice Alito provided his own definition of religious liberty, an expansive definition that mirrored the court’s holding in this summer’s praying coach case. . . . . The court, which in the past was notably stingy when it came to the free speech rights of public employees, endorsed this expression of militant Christianity.

In his Rome speech, Justice Alito did not refer explicitly to that case, but his definition of religious liberty underscored and explained the court’s remarkable departure. Religious liberty must mean more than simply “freedom of worship,” he said. “Freedom of worship means freedom to do these things that you like to do in the privacy of your home, or in your church or your synagogue or your mosque or your temple. But when you step outside into the public square, in the light of day, you had better behave yourself like a good secular citizen.” And he added, “That’s the problem that we face.”

If that is a problem, it’s one that Justice Alito has solved for himself. His religion does not reside in the quiet recesses of his home or chambers. His is religion on the march. And that’s the problem the rest of us face now.

Be very afraid where the extremist majority on the Court want to take the nation.  Do NOT expect similar deference to other religious tradions.  Only far right "Christians" enjoy "religious freedom" with this group of zealots. 

1 comment:

Eric Linder said...

"Alito's mindset is akin to that who over the centuries caused Christianity to inflict all kinds of evils ranging from genocide against Native Americans to imposing Christianity across vast portions of the world. Those who opposed this militant Christianity were marginalized or, more often killed and eliminated."

Pause for breath, Mr. Hamar. You are sounding like a Trumper, but for the other side. I am not going to contest the misery you endured as a young man and Roman Catholic about your deep and undeniable gay longings. As an Episcopalian, I can to an extent identify. AND I agree that later missionary tactics were often something Jesus would have held his nose over. BUT you are making egregious generalizations here. Is Desmond Tutu, a hero of anti-apartheidt resistance AND a defender of LGBT people, an demonstration of an African terrorized or abused into groveling Christian belief? Did Martin LUther King, Jr., grow up brow-beaten into the faith that led him to change a nation? You know as well as I do that there were heroic and unselfish men and women in the churches as well as bigots and bullies. You don't do our cause any good by adopting the scorched-earth tactics of Trump & Co.
Alito, I admit, is a nauseating pill to swallow.

And thank you for the enormous effort it must cost you to put together these postings day in and day out, month after month and year after year. Amazing.

Eric Linder