The state of (in)Justice

When he ran in 2000, then-Governor George W. Bush aggressively positioned himself as an ally of several religious right groups. It wasn’t a new strategy in the Republican party’s playbook. Taking the same tack throughout the 1980 presidential primary, Reagan received the endorsement of Jerry Falwell, effectively edging out W's dad — who was then attempting to run as a social moderate!

What was new was the zeal with which faith-based initiatives were being promoted as an important component to effective public service and policy.

Claiming that religion was too removed from public life, George W. Bush promised to create an ‘Office of Faith-Based Initiatives’ located inside the White House. Religious organizations would then be able to receive government monies to better perform their charity work throughout communities.

Threatening to merge church and state sets off huge alarms for me, as it must for many other people with knowledge of American history and non-profit law. Because presidents and other Americans were already free to practice their chosen faith and nonprofit organizations were able to receive funds for community improvement projects, the move was little more than none-too-transparent pork for his base supporters. Wanting to reassure them that he was a solid ally, Bush would not hesitate to trample the Constitution in the process.

That great 'counter-culture' figure Thomas Jefferson had the wisdom to insist upon the separation of church and state for America. He did this upon personally seeing what the havoc of a state-established church did in England. People who didn't practice religion the ‘correct’ way were subjected to state sanction.

Bush has indeed proven himself incompetent in many respects, but at least the White House appeared to drop their ‘faith-based' issue from public radar during his first term. It seemed that they were moving on.

Or so I had thought. Just because we were not publicly hearing about it anymore did not mean a bad idea was now a dead idea. It has since resurfaced via other avenues.

The New York Times reports that this administration’s Justice Department’s civil rights division purses religious discrimination cases more aggressively than other kinds. Unless you’re alleging religious discrimination — for the kind of religion which this government personally is comfortable with — they’re not necessarily going to take you seriously. That’s because of the type of lawyers who are being brought into the division.

With all of the public attention currently being given to attempts at replacing Gonzales, the ignored racial and sex discrimination cases in the Justice Department only further undermine the administration’s credibility. Dedicated and experienced career lawyers were dismissed because the Bush administration wanted to ensure the ‘correct’ legal ruling. Though lacking experience and extensive academic trainings from top law schools, their new lawyers did have the right religious and political affiliations.

Would the ever-growing number of hires who are entering the Justice Department directly from Regents or Ave Maria law schools honestly defend the rights of a Wiccan or Buddhist to practice their religion if they were to represent them in a case of religious discrimination? After all, the Hatch Act prohibits civil servants from taking political sides during execution of their professional duties.

Make no mistake: the Justice Department remains laden with politics. A desperate president must demonstrate that his party is interested in protecting ‘civil rights’ and will continue to exploit religion for gain.

Agreeing that religion is one of the many grounds which can and should be covered under civil rights statutes, I’m arguing that this enforcement, then, should not come at the expense of other obligations (including the equally important right to be free of religion). Any administration unable to understand and follow one part of the Constitution is probably unable to understand and follow other parts of the Constitution.

Such a selective interpretation of civil rights statutes (not coincidentally) reflects the policy priorities of national conservative groups, his remaining backers amidst ever-dropping national poll numbers. According to Newsweek and Raw Story, Bush’s national approval rate recently fell to 26 percent, definitely beyond lame duck! Discriminating against prosecuting certain forms of discrimination even when covered under statute is, in my opinion, an unholy act.