Justice Sunday II

That poor, picked-upon, smallish segment of the populace called Christians are having a rally on Sunday called Justice Sunday II, which I hope will bring some much-needed attention to the plight these folks face if their cries for help are not answered by a higher power (the Supreme Court)--namely people practicing their beliefs privately without consequence of government interference. That must be extinquished. With extreme prejudice.

Dr. C. Welton Gaddy,president of the The Interfaith Alliance, has some thoughts on all this in an article posted on the Tom Paine site:

Justice Sunday II is set for this weekend, and the imagery and implications of the message advanced by the religious right's leaders are more offensive, sacrilegious and undemocratic than those so integral to the original Justice Sunday. Right now, the most serious threats to the fundamental rights and liberties in our nation are not coming from a lack of God’s interest, but from a small group of religious right leaders who have assumed the mantle of national religious authorities and seek to impose on the whole nation and its constitution their particular views on religion, the courts, politics and justice. One can only wonder about the sincerity of the prayerful plea, “God save the United States and this Honorable Court,” when members of the religious right have disparaged certain members of the Supreme Court and some even have prayed for the demise of these members. There is no confusion, only manipulation—a manipulation of the holy name of God and a manipulation of the United States Constitution—in the implicit suggestion that only a Supreme Court nominee who wins the approval of the religious right is a suitable, God-endorsed candidate for the highest court in our nation. Let us get the language straight. Those of us who are concerned about the status of religious liberty in this nation do not want "activist judges" ruling on the constitutionality of various issues. We want conservative judges who will not waver in providing for the citizens of this nation religious liberty which means, one, the guarantee of no establishment of religion and, thus, no entanglement between the institutions of religion and government, and, two, the free exercise of religion for people of all faiths and people of no faith and providing for the citizens of this nation the basic civil rights for which the Constitution was written apart from whether or not any person meets the litmus tests of acceptability established by the religious right. [...] Those constitutional provisions are in the best interest of both religion and government.The spirit of these provisions should shape the substance of the manner in which religion and government, as well as religion and politics, interact in the public square. Not only must there be no religious test for public office, those in public office must never make religion the lens through which to look at or interpret the Constitution. It would be detrimental to our democracy and to religion if judges or senators seek to establish a particular religion or view of religion as a litmus test for interpreting and enforcing the Constitution.  For a group of religious leaders even to suggest such a development, much less to praise it, suggests to me a serious loss of historical recall and a shortsighted view of the relationship between justice and religion given the abuses and atrocities that often have characterized efforts to merge church and state.