*Sigh*
Rebecca Walsh has a new column in the Salt Lake Tribune, and shockingly it is critical of the LDS Church & Republican legislators:
Mormon church elders met with state legislative leaders at 50 E. North Temple last week.
It happens every year — like General Conference or political neutrality statements. Republican lawmakers hashed over their legislative agenda with a church apostle, the presiding bishop, a church lobbyist and PR staffers. Two weeks ago, it was Democrats’ turn.
After consulting the oracles, the Senate president and House speaker reported back: LDS Church leaders might be willing to do away with private club memberships if lawmakers come up with a system for scanning driver licenses.
Utahns are so used to it, we don’t even blink anymore. It was a routine news story, rather than an unconstitutional outrage.
“Unconstitutional outrage”?
Everyone knows that I am a strict separationist and that I am no apologist for Republican legislators, but I have to say that Ms. Walsh’s most recent pronouncement is, well, ignorant. Stupid. Uninformed. Lacking a rudimentary understanding of the Constitution that I would expect from 6th graders.
Walsh is alleging that the meeting between legislators and Church leaders wasn’t just a bad idea, but that it was illegal- and not just illegal, but in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and not just unconstitutional, but an “unconstitutional outrage“.
If Walsh’s understanding of the Constitution was correct, our elected officials could not meet with, consult with or be lobbied by faith leaders. More damaging, faith leaders would have their First Amendment rights cut short and would be unable to lobby and petition government.
Now, there is a question about whether it’s good public policy- but that is entirely different than whether it is Constitutional.
I’m calling you out Rebecca Walsh.
Find me one court case from a Circuit Court or the Supreme Court that has ruled that elected officials meeting with faith leaders is “unconstitutional”. Rebecca Walsh, you’re the one that called the meeting an “unconstitutional outrage”. Now let’s see you be a good little reporter and verify it.
If you find it, I will publicy acknowledge you were right and that I was completely wrong.
Just one case. One.
Rebecca?
-Tom
The Constitution states “prohibits the United States Congress from making laws “respecting an establishment of religion” or that prohibit the free exercise of religion”
While I think some people have gone a little too extreme with what this means. It was all about a state (by state I don’t mean a single state, I mean the federal gov) sponsored religion. Think about what was happening at the time this was wirtten. Who were we breaking away from? England. What did England have? The church of England – a state sponsored religion, this is what they didn’t want.
People seem to think there should be no religion anywhere in politics, I don’t know how that would work. How do you separate the religion from a man (well those who are religious)? You can’t…
It was all about religious/political clout and the power of a single church under the direction of the government.
I’m confused as to whether the statement “LDS Church leaders might be willing to do away with private club memberships if lawmakers come up with a system for scanning driver licenses.” is a direct quote from the House Speaker or just Rebecca Walsh’s impression. It would be troubling if it were the actual words of the House Speaker since it implies that the LDS Church is setting policy.
Scott,
I am confused as well regarding that quote.
I am a little reluctant to say that a meeting between Church leaders and elected officials is absolutely wrong as that seems to violate the principle of pluralism which I believe in, however, like you I would be against elected officials meeting with and giving complete deference to leaders of any religious organization (mine included).
But that’s not really the point of my post. I am really irritated that Rebecca Walsh so carelessly throws around the phrase “unconstitutional” as if it were some kind of magical liberal talisman. Clearly, it is not a Constitutional matter.
Tom,
Apparently law school is going well;)
The meeting itself isn’t a big deal to me. Definitely not “unconstitutional”. While we’re at it, she also throws around “separation of church and state” quite a bit. I think that’s also overused by those on my side of the religion argument. And I don’t care how many signs Dan Barker puts next to state capital nativity scenes, I’ll never wish anyone a “happy winter solstice”.
Regarding that quote, later in the article she says that the LDS spokesmen says “the elders didn’t take a stance on any particular pieces of legislation”. Both statements can’t be true. Either way I still don’t see anything unconstitutional.
Rebecca Walsh is just used to singing to the choir of church-haters from her bully pulpit. The Trib won’t hold her accountable for saying outrageous things because, honestly, that’s her job. As long as it gets a bunch of her choir voting up the column and generating tons of controversy, she’ll keep on doing it. Tabloid “journalism” at its finest.
I cringed when I read the Walsh article.
Normally I enjoy columnists/pundits who push buttons (secretly I enjoy watching Bill O’Reilly) even if they aren’t always logical.
There’s is just something more deeply flawed than poor logic in throwing out the words “unconstitutional” every time we don’t like something. It just makes it harder to defend the times you use it when it’s actually the right word to use.
Pretty irresponsible of Walsh.
I agree with you Tom that Church leaders of any faith do have a right to express their opinion to politicians and even lobby them. I have even written essays urging people to not feel that they should leave their religion at the door when voting. However, there is at least one case that I know of where a federal Judge ruled that it is unconstitutional for a religion to bring about legislation whose primary purpose is to promote specific aspects of that faith.
A successful suit was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State against the Dover PA School Board for their selection of a text book title, “Of Pandas and People,” that taught the theory of Intelligent Design.
The ACLU was able to show that the proposed text actually had religious beginnings. In a similar fashion, someone might be able to claim that Utah’s private club or “Zion Curtain” laws which exist nowhere else are a similar attempt by the church to establish a religious bias in Utah. While this certainly would be a difficult case to prove, it does open the door to questions about the constitutionality of some of the more bizarre liquor laws in the state.
Such a suit would only be fueled by public statements similar to the one made by UDABC Director, Kellen,
Essentially, it seems that there is a constitutional line that a Church can cross in dealing with legislation. I cannot say whether that line is crossed in the case of Utah Liquor laws, personally. Of course nothing in this ruling prohibits members of any religion meeting with public officials as you have said.
[...] 30 January 2009 @ 10:00 pm | No comments Hello there! If you are new here, you might want to subscribe to the RSS feed for updates on this topic.Powered by WP Greet BoxIf you’re new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Especially if you came from Mormon Archipelago as it only includes my major article posts. Thanks for visiting!» Michael Steele becomes first black RNC chairman» Obama panders to unions by cutting off information to workers» Your Grandfather’s Melchizedek Priesthood Manual» Video: The pro-life Super Bowl ad NBC rejected» Stimulus and STDs: Pelosi explains it all to you» Wyoming’s New Assisted Suicide Bill–To Outlaw It!» Rebecca Walsh doesn’t know what “unconstitutional” is [...]