To follow is an excerpt from the January 15, 2010 CQ Researcher report on "Government and Religion" by Thomas J. Billitteri
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Despite the Constitution's prohibition against government “establishment of religion,” most Americans don't seem bothered when crèches, menorahs and other such religious symbols appear on public property. A 2008 Rasmussen poll found that 74 percent of adults thought such displays should be allowed. [Footnote 19] The Pew Research Center has found similar popular support. [Footnote 20]
Yet, the presence of religious symbols on government property has a long and sometimes conflicted history in the courts.
In 1980 the Supreme Court ruled that a Kentucky law requiring public schools to post a copy of the Ten Commandments in all classrooms was a violation of the Establishment Clause. [Footnote 21] But in 1984, the court said it was constitutional for a Nativity scene to be displayed in a Rhode Island town square. [Footnote 22]
“Since these two decisions in the 1980s, the Supreme Court and lower federal courts have issued somewhat unpredictable rulings, approving some religious displays while ordering others to be removed,” the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life noted in a 2007 review of religious display cases.
Added Pew, “[t]he lack of clear guidelines reflects deep divisions within the Supreme Court itself. Some justices are committed to strict church-state separation and tend to rule that any government-sponsored religious display violates the Establishment Clause. These same justices also believe that, in some circumstances, the Establishment Clause may forbid private citizens from placing religious displays on public property.” But “[o]ther members of the court read the Establishment Clause far more narrowly, arguing that it leaves ample room for religion in the public square.” Meanwhile, other justices have taken a middle path, arguing that “a religious display placed in a public space violates the Establishment Clause only when it conveys the message that the government is endorsing a religious truth.” [Footnote 23]
Some activists firmly oppose religious displays. Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, for example, argues that “a bright-line rule would make sense: If it's a government-sponsored event, icon or symbol, it should not be religious. When you put up a manger scene at Christmas and it's the government that owns it, it looks like the government is endorsing that religion,” he argues.
Hooper, the Council on American-Islamic Relations spokesman, takes a broader view, arguing that “as long as everyone has equal access” to a site, “we're not opposed to it.”
“It's really up to each religious community to make sure it has equal access,” he adds. “We've dealt with this in the past as an organization. If a local library has a Christmas display, we don't ask people to go and tell them to take down the Christmas display. We say, ‘Look, reserve it for the next time Ramadan comes along.’ It's in our court, really.”
Carey of the National Association of Evangelicals says that while the group is “not overly concerned about most of these issues,” many cases concerning religious displays “do raise constitutional issues and need to be carefully studied on their merits.
“So much depends on context,” says Carey, “There's a difference between ‘In God We Trust’ on our money or having a Nativity scene at city hall. You look at the context in the community.”
What's needed is a “common sense” approach to the issue of religious displays, Carey argues. “We don't want the government to be in the position of establishing or favoring a particular religion.” Many displays don't do much to do that, Carey says, “but if something were endorsing and furthering a particular religion, we would not be in favor of that.”
In the crèche conflict in Chambersburg, Pa., the Nativity scene had been displayed for years in the town's Memorial Square, and some residents believe that's where it should have remained. “Jesus is the reason for the season,” resident Kelly Spinner told a local media outlet. “They're taking that reminder away from us. I don't think it's fair. What's next? Santa Claus? A Christmas tree?” [Footnote 24]
The council president, Bill McLaughlin, argued that Chambersburg was “a victim of the tyranny of the minority,” adding that “the Constitution guarantees ‘freedom of religion’” but says nothing about “freedom from religion.” [Footnote 25]
But a local Jewish resident noted that council members let him put a “Seasons Greetings” sign incorporating religious symbols from a variety of backgrounds on the town square in 1996. “You really can't pick and choose what goes up there,” he said. “Once you let one group in, whether it's Christians, Jews, Muslims, then you have to let other groups in also.” [Footnote 26]
Lynn, commenting broadly on the issue of religious displays and not the Chambersburg flap, says that “if you truly say ‘this courthouse lawn is open to everybody’ — if you're really willing to do that — that I think the Constitution does permit, but I think that's a dopey idea.” In places that have opened public spaces to displays of all persuasion, he says, “you get a cluttered lawn. People trip over stuff on their way to pay their parking tickets.”
Among the most contentious religious-display issues in recent years has been the placement of religious mottoes on automobile license plates. [Footnote 27] The Indiana legislature approved state-issued plates bearing the motto “In God We Trust” in 2006, and Florida followed suit in 2008.
In November, a federal judge ruled that South Carolina couldn't issue plates showing the image of a cross in front of a stained-glass window and bearing the words “I believe.” U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie said a law approving the plates amounted to a “state endorsement not only of religion in general, but of a specific sect in particular.”
Lt. Gov. André Bauer, who had advocated the bill approving the plates, called the ruling “another attack on Christianity” and said Currie was a “liberal judge appointed by [President] Bill Clinton.” [Footnote 28]
But Currie ruled correctly in an “absolutely clear-cut” case,” said Thomas Crocker, an assistant professor at the University of South Carolina Law School. Her decision was “not out to denigrate religion, but it's out of a historical understanding that problems for both politics and religion can flow from the state's entanglement with religious practices.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For more information see the CQResearcher report on "Government and Religion" [subscription required] or purchase the CQ Researcher PDF.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Footnotes:
[19] “74% Support Religious Displays on Public Property,” Rasmussen Reports, Dec. 24, 2008, www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/holidays/december_2008/74_support_religious_displays_on_public_property.
[20] Ira C. Lupu, David Masci and Robert W. Tuttle, “Religious Displays and the Courts,” Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, June 2007, http://pewforum.org/assets/files/religious-displays.pdf. According to the report, a 2005 survey by the Pew Research Center found that 83 percent of Americans said displays of Christmas symbols should be allowed on government property, and another 2005 Pew poll found that 74 percent said they believed it was proper to display the Ten Commandments in government buildings.
[21] Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39.
[22] Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668.
[23] Lupu, et al., op. cit., pp. 2–3.
[24] “Chambersburg Council Votes to Remove Nativity Scene,” WHAG-TV, MSNBC.com, Nov. 24, 2009, http://your4state.com/content/fulltext/?cid=89441.
[25] Quoted in ibid.
[26] Ibid.
[27] In South Carolina, state law allows private groups to have license tags bearing their own message, and the CEO of a group called the Palmetto Family Council filed a request with the state motor vehicles department to have an “I Believe” plate issued. See John Monk, “‘I Believe’ tag might be resurrected,” The State, Nov. 27, 2009, www.thestate.com/154/v-mobile/story/1045682.html.
[28] John Monk, “Judge strikes down plate,” The State, Nov. 11, 2009, www.thestate.com/513/story/1022683.html.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Should religious displays be allowed on public land?
Posted by CQ Press on 1/19/2010 08:36:00 AM 1 comments
Labels: first amendment
Hate Groups
Is extremism on the rise in the United States?
By Peter Katel, May 8, 2009
National crises create opportunities for extremists. Today the global economic crisis now wreaking havoc on millions of American households is hitting while the first black president is in the White House and the national debate over illegal immigration remains unresolved. Already, some far-right extremists are proclaiming that their moment is arriving. Indeed, an annual tally by the Southern Poverty Law Center shows 926 hate groups operating in 2008, a 50 percent increase over the number in 2000. And the Department of Homeland Security concludes that conditions may favor far-right recruitment. But a mix of conservatives and liberal free-speech activists warn that despite concerns about extremism, the administration of Barack Obama should not be intruding on constitutionally protected political debate. Some extremism-monitoring groups say Obama’s election showed far-right power is waning, not strengthening. But that equation may change if the economic crisis deepens, the experts caution.
The Issues:
• Could the election of a black president and the nation’s economic crisis spark a resurgence of far-right political activity or violence?
• Are immigrants in danger from extremist violence?
• Is right-wing and extremist speech encouraging hate crimes?
Posted by CQ Press on 5/09/2009 07:07:00 AM 0 comments
Labels: first amendment, hate crimes, race
Hate Groups: Overview of the report on May 8, 2009
By Peter Katel
She also said that he had weapons, but the operator failed to share that crucial information with the police, who apparently took no special precautions in responding. Seconds after officers Stephen J. Mayhle and Paul J. Sciullo walked into the house, Richard Poplawski opened fire, killing both men. He then shot and killed Eric Kelly, a policeman outside the house. After a four-hour standoff, Poplawski surrendered. Hours after that, the Anti-Defamation League and a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reporter traced a March 13 Web post by Poplawski to the neo-Nazi Web site Stormfront.
“The federal government, mainstream media and banking system in these United States are strongly under the influence of – if not completely controlled by – Zionist interest,” the post said. “An economic collapse of the financial system is inevitable, bringing with it some degree of civil unrest if not outright balkanization of the continental U.S., civil/revolutionary/racial war. . . . This collapse is likely engineered by the elite Jewish powers that be in order to make for a power and asset grab.”
Obsessions with Jewish conspiracy, racial conflict and looming collapse of the political and social order have long festered in the extreme outposts of U.S. political culture. While extremists typically become active in times of social and economic stress, Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, struck in 1995 during a relatively tranquil, prosperous time.
Now, law enforcement officials warn, dire conditions throughout the country have created a perfect storm of provocations for right-wing extremists. In the midst of fighting two wars, the country is suffering an economic crisis in which more than 5 million people have lost their jobs, while the hypercharged debate over immigration – and the presence of about 12 million illegal immigrants – continues unresolved.
“This is the formula – the formula for hate,” says James Cavanaugh, special agent in charge of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Nashville, Tenn., division and a veteran investigator of far-right extremists. “Everything’s aligning for them for hate.”
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) drew a similar conclusion in early April, adding a concern over the apparent rekindling of extremist interest in recruiting disaffected military veterans.
“The consequences of a prolonged economic downturn . . . could create a fertile recruiting environment for right-wing extremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and government authorities,” the DHS said.
The election of Barack Obama as the nation’s first African-American president also could prompt an extremist backlash. “Obama is going to be the spark that arouses the white movement,” the Detroit-based National Socialist Movement – considered a leading neo-Nazi organization – announced on its Web site.
But the Obama effect will be negligible among hardcore, violent extremists, says an ex-FBI agent who worked undercover in right-wing terrorist cells in the early 1990s. “They’re in an alternative universe,” says Mike German, author of the 2007 book Thinking Like a Terrorist, and now a policy counselor to the American Civil Liberties Union on national-security issues. “When you believe the American government is the puppet of Israel, whether Obama is the face of the government instead of George W. Bush makes little difference.”
Indeed, says Columbia University historian Robert O. Paxton, the Obama victory demonstrated that the country’s worrisome conditions haven’t sparked widespread rejection of the political system – the classic catalyst for major upsurges of extremism. “Sure, we have a black president, but if the Right were really at the door, we wouldn’t have elected him,” says Paxton, a leading scholar of European fascism.
Still, Paxton and others caution that the sociopolitical effects of the economic crisis may take a while to hit. The Montgomery, Ala.-based Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which tracks the Ku Klux Klan and other “hate groups,” reports activity by 926 such groups in 2008, a 50 percent increase over the number in 2000. “That is a real and a significant rise,” says Mark Potok, director of the center’s Intelligence Project. Despite the increased activity, the center says there’s nothing approaching a mass movement. Moreover, drawing connections between extremist organizations and hate crimes can be complicated.
“Most hate crimes are not committed by members of organized hate groups,” says Chip Berlet, senior analyst for Political Research Associates of Somerville, Mass., who has been writing about the far right for a quarter-century. “These groups help promote violence through their aggressive rhetoric. But you’re more likely to be victim of hate crime from a neighbor.”
For example, three young men from Staten Island, N.Y., charged with beating a 17-year-old Liberian immigrant into a coma on presidential election night last year were not accused of membership in anything more than a neighborhood gang. Their victim, who also lives on Staten Island, said his attackers, one of them Hispanic, yelled “Obama” as they set on him.
Mental health problems also may play a role in such violence, not all of which is inspired by hate rhetoric. In the single deadliest attack on immigrants in memory, Jiverly Wong is charged with killing 13 people (and then himself) at an immigrants’ service center in Binghamton, N.Y., one day before Poplawski’s alleged killings in Pittsburgh. Eleven of Wong’s victims were immigrants, like Wong, a native of Vietnam. Wong left a note in which he complained of his limited English-speaking ability and depicted himself as a victim of police persecution.
But in other recent cases in which immigrants were targeted, the alleged shooters did invoke far-right views. Keith Luke, 22, who lived with his mother in the Boston suburb of Brockton, was charged in January with killing a young woman, shooting and raping her sister and killing a 72-year-old man – all immigrants from Cape Verde. His planned next stop, police said, was a synagogue. Luke, whom one law enforcement source described as a “recluse,” allegedly told police he was “fighting extinction” of white people.
A similar motive was expressed by a 60-year-old Destin, Fla., man charged with killing two Chilean students and wounding three others, all visiting Florida as part of a cultural-exchange program. Shortly before the killings, Dannie Roy Baker had asked a neighbor, “Are you ready for the revolution?” And last summer, he had sent e-mails to Walton County Republican Party officials – who forwarded them to the sheriff’s office. One said, in part, “The Washington D.C. Dictators have already confessed to rigging elections in our States for their recruiting dictators to overthrow us with foreign illegals here.”
Some immigrant advocates say such comments indicate that extremists are exploiting resentment of immigrants in the hope of stirring up more attacks.
“It is the perfect vehicle, particularly with the decline of the economy,” says Eric Ward, national field director of the Chicago-based Center for New Community, which works with immigrants. “With American anxiety building, they hope that they can use immigrants as scapegoats to build their movement.”
“Illegals are turning America into a third-world slum,” says one of a series of leaflets distributed in the New Haven, Conn., area in early March by North-East White Pride (NEWP). “They come for welfare, or to take our jobs and bring with them drugs, crime and disease.”
The NEWP Web site carries the cryptic slogan, “Support your local 1488.” In neo-Nazi code, “88” represents “Heil Hitler,” words that begin with the eighth letter in the alphabet. And “14” stands for an infamous, 14-word racist dictum: “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.” Its author was the late David Lane, a member of the violent neo-Nazi organization, The Order, who died in prison in 2007.
The Order, whose crimes included the murder of a Jewish radio talk-show host in Denver in 1984, sprang from the far-right milieu, as did Oklahoma City bomber McVeigh. And a source of inspiration in both cases was a novel glorifying genocide of Jews and blacks, The Turner Diaries, authored by the late William Pierce, founder of the neo-Nazi National Alliance, based in West Virginia.
Pierce’s death from cancer in 2002 was one of a series of developments that left a high-level leadership vacuum in the extremist movement. One of those trying to fill it is Billy Roper, 37, chairman of White Revolution, a group based in Russellville, Ark. Roper predicts that racial-ethnic tensions will explode when nonstop immigration from Latin America forces the violent breakup of the United States.
“We’re at a pre-revolutionary stage, where it’s too late to seek recompense through the political process, and too early to start shooting,” Roper says.
The Issues:
• Could the election of a black president and the nation’s economic crisis spark a resurgence of far-right political activity or violence?
• Are immigrants in danger from extremist violence?
• Is right-wing and extremist speech encouraging hate crimes?
To view the entire report, login to CQ Researcher Online [subscription required], or purchase the CQ Researcher PDF
Posted by CQ Press on 5/09/2009 04:33:00 AM 0 comments
Labels: first amendment, hate crimes, race