alt.education

Patterson: Rule of law must apply to all religions, clergy
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/112618

Tom Patterson, Commentary

Denis Riccitelli, a Mesa Catholic priest, was accused in 2004 of using real
estate and check-writing schemes to defraud his parish of $160,000.

Church leaders called in the Mesa police. Evidence was presented to the
grand jury, which agreed probable cause existed to bring the case to trial.

The priest argued he was not guilty because under church law, he has the
right to spend parish funds as he sees fit, including on himself.

Nothing unusual so far. Priests behaving badly, sadly, are a disappointment
but no longer a surprise. Accused criminals devising preposterous,
self-serving defenses are common.

But here’s where it gets weird. District Court Judge Sylvia Arellano bought
the argument. In fact, she threw out the case because prosecutors “didn’t
tell the grand jury about the laws of the Roman Catholic Church, known as
canon law.”

The state appeals court and Supreme Court have both declined to overturn
the judge’s ruling. They apparently are in agreement with Arellano that
“church law and policies are directly relevant in determining whether (the)
defendant committed the crimes he is charged with.”

Even though church authorities were the ones who reported his fraudulent
activity, canon law may supersede criminal statutes, according to the
solons.

This ruling is a broadside against foundational notions of our legal
system.

Equality before the law, the rule of law and separation of church and state
are all threatened.

It was historically a great achievement for our forefathers to create a
system of laws that applied equally to all. It was unheard of until then
for persons from all ranks and stations in life to be treated equally.

In fact, unequal treatment for those with privilege and power was
considered to be necessary for social stability. Furthermore, official
state religions typically shared the duties of governing with civil
authorities.

That was presumably all behind us. So it’s chilling to hear a prevailing
notion in our courts assert that the Catholic church considers itself a
“complete society” with the right to “govern itself according to its own
laws.”

Ironically, prosecutors will be required to “educate” grand juries in canon
law when they aren’t trained in it themselves. There had been no need until
now.

But if church members and officials are allowed to live by a different code
than the law of the land, questions that were once considered settled have
to be reopened. Law professor Stephen Saltzburg of George Washington
University blithely asserts, “If it’s a case where the priest shot
somebody, it would be simple.” But would it?

Religious history is replete with church-dictated violent crimes. Abortion
foes feel compelled by their religious convictions to kill abortion
providers.

The Fundamentalist LDS Church maintains its own laws, including those which
permit polygamy. How can we allow Catholics to obey only their own laws
while denying the same privilege to fundamentalist Christians and Mormons?
No matter what the crime, the rule of law must apply consistently to all
religions or to none.

This might be a bad time to go wobbly on our core principles. Social
democracies across Europe, with legal traditions similar to ours, are faced
with demands from the leaders of their growing Muslim communities that they
be governed by their own law, Sharia law. Sharia law comes from Allah, who
uses government to execute his desires for mankind. It denies free speech
and other basic liberties. Compromise and accommodation with infidels are
not possible for its adherents.

Sharia law is particularly hard on women. They are forced into genital
mutilation, forced into burkas, forced into marriage, not allowed to drive
or appear alone in public. It is believed that at least seven Muslim women
have been killed by their families recently in Sweden alone for “honor
violations.”

Yet many Westerners, either through misplaced religious tolerance or
cowardice, lack the moral compass to resist these outrages. The Archbishop
of Canterbury famously said he believed it was “unavoidable” that Sharia
law would become part of British law.

Our law and customs allow for the free exercise of religion. But neither
Catholics, Mormons, Muslims nor any other group may write their own
superseding rules. In America, even priests must obey the law.


Lopez: What might the Founders say about Wright? Who would be right?

Waldman: The concept of a Jeremiah Wright would be so mind boggling on so
many levels, I think their brains might just explode. They’d probably be
repulsed by his comments but excited that not a single reputable pundit has
suggested arresting Wright or shutting his church. In that sense, the
Founders would say, Amen.

Also — and this part’s going to definitely get me in trouble — his “God
damn America” line might not offend them as much as it does us. They each
thought that God was supporting us in our revolution but that our wicked
behavior could easily cause Him to abandon us. Adams even speculated that
God might intend for America to be defeated so that its "vicious and
luxurious and effeminate appetites, passion and habits" would be cleansed,
laying the foundation for a more-deserved victory in the future.

opez: Would they be surprised that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama talk
more on the campaign trail about religion than McCain, the Republican?

Waldman: Since they wouldn’t know much about Republicans and Democrats I’m
not sure they’d be surprised. They certainly wouldn’t be surprised that the
candidates are using religious language in their speeches. George
Washington’s use of religious rhetoric was so intense that George W. Bush
seems like an ACLU board member by comparison.

Lopez: Do you have a favorite Founder on religion?

Waldman: Madison. He came up with the most holistic and sophisticated
vision of religious freedom. He incorporated the Enlightenment arguments
warning that church-state mingling would hurt government but, more
importantly, he also learned from the 18th-century evangelicals who
believed that keeping government away from religion was crucial for
promoting religion.

That may seem obvious now but back then the conventional wisdom was that if
you wanted to help religion, you should have the government support it.
Madison and the Baptists believed that government help would hurt. What’s
rarely acknowledged is that Madison went to an evangelical college
(Princeton), defended imprisoned Baptists, and got elected to the House
thanks to the votes of evangelicals. We wouldn’t have religious freedom if
not for the 18th-century evangelicals.


Lopez: You write that Madison would be happy to see rabbis and imams as
congressional chaplains but would want more religions represented. Would he
stop before there was a Scientologist chaplain on the Hill?

Waldman: Keep in mind that Madison was the most extreme of the Founders on
these issues. The others were fine with taxpayer-funded chaplains. Madison
argued against taxpayer supported chaplains entirely, as a violation of the
First Amendment. So he would probably say — “see this is exactly the
problem. If we have taxpayer supported chaplains for Protestants,
Catholics, Muslims etc, where do we draw the line?” I think Franklin would
have taken a more-the-merrier approach. Would he have included
Scientologists? Well, at one point he believed that the uber-God had
appointed a set of deputy gods to run each planet, so he mightn’t have felt
he was in a position to judge.


Lopez: Do the Founding Fathers provide a blueprint for religious freedom
that could be exported to, say, Iraq?

Waldman: I think so. Madison’s key point: getting rid of state-run religion
doesn’t mean you’re getting rid of religion. In fact, it’s because we
haven’t had state-run religion that America is the most religiously vibrant
country in the West. At the end of his life, Madison surveyed the landscape
and made the case for why eliminating the state-church connection was a
good idea to a friend. His evidence? Not that the political system was more
pure, or religious minorities were safer. His evidence was that separation
had produced more religion, better clergy, and more piety. The “Founding
faith” in a nutshell, was not secularism or Christianity, it was the
commitment to promoting religion . . . by leaving it alone.


Lopez: The Founders worshipped at the Church of Adam Smith?

Waldman: It’s striking how much they applied a free-market sensibility to
matters of religion. They believed that if you just got government out of
the way, the truth would rise to the top. “When a religion is good, I
conceive it will support itself,” said Franklin. Madison even accused those
who wanted government support of religion of having “unchristian timidity”
— i.e. a lack of confidence in their own faith’s ability to win in a
marketplace of opportunities. Once you accept the premise that in a free
market of religious ideas “the truth” will rise to the top, pluralism
becomes religion’s friend, rather than a threat.


Lopez: Mike Huckabee isn’t a 20th-century phenom, is he — inasmuch as he is
a prominent evangelical?

Waldman: Modern evangelicals often argue for more religion in the public
square and often argue that separation of church and state is a myth
concocted by liberal 20th-century judges. Actually, it was the 18th century
evangelicals, mostly Baptists, who led the charge for religious freedom and
separation of church and state. They believed it was a more biblically
sound approach. They rallied against Patrick Henry’s proposal to have tax
dollars help religion in general, arguing that the idea was “founded
neither in Scripture, on Reason, on Sound Policy; but is repugnant to each
of them,” as one petition declared.

I would love to see a debate between 21st century evangelicals and
18th-century evangelicals. The 18th-century evangelicals might be puzzled
how their theological descendents ended up wanting more government
entanglement with religion. I’m hoping Founding Faith triggers a new
discussion among evangelicals and conservatives about what really ought to
be the conservative/evangelical position. It seems to me those who believe
that government messes up everything it touches should be more skeptical
about having government involved in religion.


Lopez: As the founding father of BeliefNet.com, what were your motivations
and quo vadis?

Waldman: I wrote Founding Faith because, as editor of Beliefnet, I was
inundated with people on various sides of the church-state debate quoting
the Founding Fathers to prove one thing or another. I wanted to find out
what actually happened. It turns out the culture wars have pretty
thoroughly distorted how we actually ended up with religious freedom.

Secondly, Beliefnet is a site that thrives on religious freedom — it’s free
marketplace of religious ideas. John Adams wrote: “I am, therefore, of
opinion that men ought (after they have examined with unbiased judgments
every system of religion, and chosen one system, on their own authority,
for themselves), to avow their opinions and defend them with boldness.”
Couldn’t this quote be the official Beliefnet motto?