NYT: Alito Often Ruled for Religious Expression

[DeepModem Mom]

Alito Often Ruled for Religious Expression
By NEIL A. LEWIS
Published: November 21, 2005


WASHINGTON, Nov. 20 - Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. has compiled a brief but unmistakable record, lawyers and analysts say, that makes him a leader in the camp of conservative theorists and judges who believe federal courts have been too quick to limit religious activities in public life.

During his 15 years sitting in Newark as a member of a federal appeals court, Judge Alito has sided almost uniformly with those who have complained vigorously in recent years that zealousness in enforcing the Constitution's separation of church and state has unfairly inhibited religious practices.

Judge Alito, President Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court, has ruled in favor of allowing local governments to set up Nativity scenes alongside nonreligious symbols and ruled against a school district that wanted to prevent an evangelical group from sending home fliers to elementary school children. He has also ruled in favor of Muslim police officers in Newark who said the department's policy against wearing beards violated their religious rights. Both supporters and opponents say he has the potential to become the most aggressive supporter of religious liberty on the court, moving it toward greater deference to religious practices.

"He is inclined to the view of the First Amendment that the government is not intended to be hostile to religion," said Douglas W. Kmiec, a law professor at Pepperdine University in California. "It is intended to be accommodating when it can."

Professor Kmiec, a former Justice Department colleague of Judge Alito's, is a leading proponent of the "religious liberty" argument pressed by social conservatives, which advances the view that the Constitution allows for a greater presence of religion in the public sphere than courts have previously allowed. This stream of argument has largely involved issues like prayer at school functions, the display of religious symbols at Christmastime and public financing of programs run by religious groups....


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/21/politics/politicsspecial1/21religion.html

[LiberalFighter]

1. It is intended to be accommodating when it can?

And who decides which religions will be accommodated and which will not be?

[Skinner]

2. I find this paragraph to be very annoying.

Judge Alito, President Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court, has ruled in favor of allowing local governments to set up Nativity scenes alongside nonreligious symbols and ruled against a school district that wanted to prevent an evangelical group from sending home fliers to elementary school children. He has also ruled in favor of Muslim police officers in Newark who said the department's policy against wearing beards violated their religious rights. Both supporters and opponents say he has the potential to become the most aggressive supporter of religious liberty on the court, moving it toward greater deference to religious practices.

The conclusion of the writer is that Alito is an "aggressive supporter of religious liberty" -- but that seems to me to be an incorrect and inconsistent reading of his record. The list of examples provided are as follows:

1. Supported allowing local governments to set up Nativity scenes alongside non-religious symbols.

2. Supported allowing evangelical group to send fliers to public school children.

3. Ruled in favor of Muslim police officers who believed they had a religious right to wear a beard.

But IMHO, examples 1 and 2 are very different from example 3. In fact, I would consider them to be the exact opposite of each other. In examples one and two, Alito supported using government resources/power for religious purposes. In that sense, examples one and two are counter to the principle of religious liberty. Only example three -- where he supported the right of Muslims police officers to wear beards -- did Alito take the side of the *individual* over the coercive power of government.

So, I think it is incorrect to characterize Alito's record as being an "aggressive supporter of religious liberty." The truth is that he supports using the power and resources of government for religious purposes when it suits him.

In short, Alito is not an aggressive supporter of religious liberty. He is an aggressive supporter of *religion*. Big difference. And I would expect a reporter for the New York Times to understand that difference.

[DeepModem Mom]

4. Right -- wearing a beard is hardly proselytizing! nt

[Toots]

7. Ever tried to wear protective clothing (gas mask) with a beard?

There is a reason for the police and firefighters to disallow the wearing of beards. It has nothing to do with looks or religion. It is completely for the safety and well being of both officers and public need. A firefighter must be able to do their job and so does the cop or the soldier. Beards are not acceptable for the completion of the mission.

[DeepModem Mom]

8. Never thought about that! nt

[Democat]

3. This article is propaganda - he wants government to force religion!

The right wing's perfect idea of "religious freedom" means that the government will give you the freedom to practice their religion or the freedom to go to go to a reeducation camp.

The article should have been titled "Activist Judge Alito Abuses Power To Unconstitutionally Mix Religion, Government".

If it was a Clinton judge, that's what we'd be reading.

[Fovea]

5. Well, as a Wiccan,

you don't know how relieved this makes me...
Not.

[PurityOfEssence]

6. sending home fliers with elementary children

That truly is despicable.

Is that the case in Maryland?

Still, as religion crazed and held hostage as this country is, that's really not the issue upon which to fight him. We should probably back away from this and the abortion issue and go straight for the class warfare issues of him constantly ruling for the big guy against the little guy. That tactic also dovetails nicely with his conflict of interest issues.

The very idea of putting supernatural propaganda in the backpacks of impressionable little kids is not only disgusting but a vicious attack against the parents. How would religious people like it if I put fliers into their kids' backpacks saying that there's no such thing as a supreme being or an afterlife or destiny? The uproar would have people running in the streets frothing at the mouth.