The Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party

The ultimate legal goal of the Religious Right is to make the U.S. Constitution conform to Biblical Law. A Presbyterian Minister by the name of Rousas Rushdooney spearheaded this movement when his book, The Institutes of Biblical Law, was published in 1972.

A Constitution that conforms to Biblical Law will rely on the Ten commandments of the Old Testament as its guiding source. Therefore, the Ten Commandments hold a special meaning. Religious Right lawmakers are trying to pass legislation in various state legislatures that would allow government posting of the Ten Commandments in public buildings.

One such bill, The Ten Commandments Defense Act is gaining sponsors in the U.S. House of Representatives. Rep. Robert B. Aderholt (R-Ala.) author of the bill said, during an interview with TV preacher Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network, "The Supreme Court does not always have the final authority over the interpretation of the Constitution."

From Church and State: "Aderholt’s bill, H.R. 2045, also includes language that orders federal court to leave decisions about display of the Ten Commandments to the states. The bill was introduced in May, has 70 cosponsors and is pending in the House’s Subcommittee on the Constitution. "Aderholt’s actions show contempt for the American constitutional principles," said AU’s Lynn. "The Constitution’s separation of powers requires that Congress refrain from instructing the courts on how to rule on cases involving constitutional rights." Click Here

Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore gained noteriety by placing a granite monument of the Ten Commandments, weighing more than 5,000 pounds, in the rotunda of the Alabama Supreme Court building. The higher courts ruled that the monument violated the U.S. Constitution, and it has been removed from the rotunda. Judge Moore said, "This is not about a monument. It's not about religion, or politics. It's about the acknowledgment of God. " The higher courts responded to the size and location of "Roy's Rock" which didn't allow room for any other religious monuments.

This monument highlights a movement that seeks to impose its belief system on the rest of society. Americans United for Separation of Church and State on Justice Moore: Click Here

Commentary on the Ten Commandments as a legal document comes from Katha Pollitt, columnist for the The Naiton. Click Here.

Enforcing Biblical Law

Frederick Clarkson reports on the views of Rev. Joseph Morecraft on life and government. Rev. Morecraft is pastor of the Reconstructionist Chalcedon Presbyterian Church in Marietta, Georgia. "In his book, and especially when speaking at the 1993 Biblical World View and Christian Education Conference, Morecraft discussed with relish the police power of the state. His belief in the persecution of nonbelievers and those who are insufficiently orthodox is crystal clear. Morecraft described democracy as "mob rule," and stated that the purpose of "civil government" is to "terrorize evil doers. . . to be an avenger!" he shouted, "To bring down the wrath of God to bear on all those who practice evil!"

"And how do you terrorize an evil doer?" he asked. "You enforce Biblical law!" The purpose of government, he said, is "to protect the church of Jesus Christ," and, "Nobody has the right to worship on this planet any other God than Jehovah. And therefore the state does not have the responsibility to defend anybody's pseudo-right to worship an idol!" "There ain't no such thing" as religious pluralism, he declared. Further, "There has never been such a condition in the history of mankind. There is no such place now. There never will be." What is Christian Reconstructionism? by Frederick Clarkson, The Public Eye, Click Here.

Impeachment of Bill Clinton

Many people were stunned in 1998 when the U.S. House of Representatives succeeded in making the U.S. Constitution conform to Biblical Law. President Bill Clinton committed no constitutional crime, yet he was impeached. The President sinned against the Ten Commandments, but not against the United States Constitution.

The most shocking part of the impeachment proceedings was that all but five Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives voted for the impeachment. President Clinton’s impeachment demonstrated the ability of the Religious Right to superimpose the Ten Commandments on constitutional law, and to win the support of moderates in the process.

Senator Rick Santorum

United States Senator Rick Santorum, the number 3 ranking Republican in the U.S. Senate, thinks in terms of Biblical Law. Santorum had an interview with the Associated Press in April discussing a case before the Supreme Court which challenged Texas anti-sodomy laws. On June 26 the Supreme Court declared anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional, but back in April, Santorum said, "If the Supreme Court says you have the right to consensual sex in your own home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery."

First of all, he’s confused legally since bigamy and polygamy are contractual relationships, so they don’t fit with the other three. When he lumped homosexuality with incest and adultery, Santorum was saying that consenting adult homosexuals, acting in the privacy of their own homes, should be put in prison. And Santorum doesn’t stop with homosexuality. Adulterers should go to prison as well. Who in the United States wants to put homosexuals and adulterers in prison? The same people who would impeach a President for sinning against the Ten Commandments -- those who advocate Biblical law. The Seventh Commandment says "Thou Shalt not Commit Adultery."

Biblical Law and President Bush's Judicial Nominees

Some of President Bush's judicial nominees think in terms of Biblical Law. Michael McConnell, appointed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, Click Here, said, "Freedom flourishes when man is subordinate to God."

A recent Bush nomination, William Pryor, Attorney General of Alabama, said at a Save the Commandments Rally, 1977, "God has chosen, through his son Jesus Christ, this time and this place for all Christians… to save our country and save our courts." Click Here,

A Constitutional Amendment?

At a press conference on July 31, President Bush said he believed that marriage should be between a man and a woman only, hinting at the possibility of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Bill Frist, Senate Majority Leader, speaking on ABC "This Week" said he would support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Since the Bill of Rights, constitutional amendments have moved this country toward ever greater inclusiveness. Amendment 13 (1865) ended Slavery; Amendment 15 (1870) gave voting rights to black men; Amendment 19 (1920) gave women the right to vote; and Amendment 26 (1971) lowered the voting age to 18. Now the two highest ranking leaders in government, the President and Senate Majority Leader, are suggesting we amend the U.S. Constitution to exclude a group of people from full citizenship. Whether or not one supports gay marriage, codifying those feelings in the U.S. Constitution is a different matter.

Religious Liberty

The concept of religious liberty has become the legal tool used to make the U.S. Constitution conform to Biblical Law. The arguments are borrowed from the ACLU. Does the name in the picture remind you of a familiar organization? The ACLJ, which sounds a lot like the ACLU, is fashioned after the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLJ was founded by Pat Robertson to fight for "Religious Liberty." Like the ACLU, the ACLJ basis its arguments on the first amendment. The Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act, which the ACLJ helped draft, is about "freedom of speech."

The Rutherford Institute is one of a number of organizations specializing in religious liberty legal cases. In 1982 John Whitehead, its founder and President said, "the challenge of the Christian attorney is to be a vocal, dynamic spokesman for the true legal profession - the one with Christ at its center, and stop at nothing less than reclaiming the whole system." If you read the web site of the Rutherford Institute, its mission sounds similar to the ACLU. It's not easy to know that the Rutherford Institute was tied to the Christian Reconstruction movement in it's early years, and that Rushdooney was a favorite speaker and sat on their board.

This report on the Rutherford Institute comes from Political Research Associates. It is a chapter from the book Right Wing Populism in America by Chip Berlet and Matthew Lyons. Their conclusion: "The politics of the Rutherford Institute, at least until recently, represented a form of theocratic Christianity that characterizes the hard right of the evangelical world. There is little reason to believe that a change in tone means a change in the underlying philosophy." Click Here,

The Istook Amendment

U.S. Representative Ernest Istook (R-OK) has authored legislation -- beginning in 1995 -- calling for a constitutional amendment to protect "Religious Liberty." His bill has evolved over the years. The most recent version titled "Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States restoring religious freedom." was introduced 12/20/2001, has 88 sponsors, and was referred to the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, 1/14/2002. The Constitutional Amendment would permit prayer and recognition of religious beliefs on public property, including schools. The web site ReligiousTolerance.org discusses the evolution of the Istook Amendment. Click Here,

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act

The Christian Law Association "is committed to aggressively defending the rights of Bible-believing churches to use the land God has given them." It relies on the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) to "assist us in the protection of ... religious liberties."

"Religious liberties" in this instance amounts to hundreds of new megachurches that are springing up in suburbs across the country in conflict with local zoning laws. They sprawl across vast amounts of land, and compete with local businesses by building hotels, gyms, day care, bookstores and amphitheaters in addition to churches and classrooms. They create constant traffic on quiet country roads, add fumes and noise in sleepy neighborhoods.

Yet, these megachurches rely on federal law to avoid zoning ordinances, so local citizens are helpless to question their impact. To make matters worse, local residents have to bear an increase in taxes to pay for the megachurches' impact on infrastructure since the new complexes are tax-exempt.

Gary North on Religious Liberty

Gary North is a prolific Christian Reconstruction writer, and founder of the Institute for Christian Economics. He wrote in Christianity and Civilization, Spring, 1982, on the subject of religious liberty. "So let us be blunt about it: we must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God."

Separation of Church and State: True Religious Liberty

Rob Boston, Assistant Communications Director at Americans United for Separation of Church and State, views the ‘wall of separation between church and state’ as "America’s bulwark of true religious liberty."

Links on Religion, Law, and Government

People For the American Way provides an analysis of cases scheduled for review by the Supreme Court beginning in October which raise fundamental civil rights and constitutional liberties concerns. Published in TomPaine, Sept. 26, 2003. Click Here.

"Advice and Dissent" by Jeffrey Toobin, appeared in the New Yorker Annals of Law, May 26, 2003. The article gives a thorough history of the process of selecting federal judges. It also quotes senators of the current Senate Judiciary Committee, and explains the dynamics of judicial review. The article is long, but well worth reading. Click Here,

Reflections on the U.S. Constitution by Adam Cohen, New York Times Editorial, August 18, 2003. Click Here,

This New York Times Editorial, August 4, 2003, "Playing the Religion Card," exposes the depths to which Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee are stooping. Click Here

This New York Times editorial, August 10, 2003, admonishes John Ashcroft's latest tactic of "blacklisting" judges. Click Here,

Links on Judicial Nominations

The first link points to the pro-choice, moderate Republicans who are supporting the Bush nominees. Click Here. The next link talks about the importance of appellate court judges.The Supreme Court hears only about eighty cases a year, while appellate courts hear tens of thousands of cases. According to Chris Mooney, author of this article "Appellate judges interpret a huge chunk of the law that we live by." Click Here.

To quote from TomPaine.com, "The TomPaine.com staff have prepared a compedium of articles, reports and statements relevant to the court-stacking agenda pursued by the Bush administration, and what can be done to stop it. Each article or statement below links to its original publication, where you will find the full text." Click Here.

More links on Bush's nominations

From People for the American Way on Bush's latest judicial nomination:"'Far Right Dream Judge' Janice Rogers Brown Joins Lineup of Extremist Appeals Court Nominees" Click Here.

The Independent Judiciary web site provides current information and the latest news on nominations to the federal bench. Click Here.

This New York Times Editorial Observer, February 24, 2003, provides information about Bush's judicial nominations, focusing on Deborah Cook. Click Here

Miguel Estrada was Bush's nominee to the United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit, considered a stepping stone to the U.S. Supreme Court. Senate Democrats filibustered Estrada's nomination, and he finally withdrew his nomination. Here's a New York Times article about Estrada. Click Here.

Senate Democrats are also filibustering the nominations of William Pryor and Prascilla Owen, whose judicial activism against abortion concerned even Bush's own legal counsel. Republicans have been unable to raise the sixty votes necessary to end the filibusters. Now, Republicans are trying to change the rules so that a simple majority rather than the required sixty votes can end a filibuster. This effort raises some constitutional questions.

About Filibusters

The following two columns originally appeared on Findlaw.com on June 13, 2003, and were linked to the Yurica Report. They discuss the constitutional questions for changing the rules on filibusters.

This is Part One of a two-part series by Professor Amar on the Constitution and the filibuster. Click Here.

This is Part Two on the Constitution and the filibuster. Click Here.

"Breaking with a bipartisan agreement dating to the 1980s, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch has scheduled a single hearing to examine three controversial nominees to lifetime seats on the federal appeals courts, virtually guaranteeing that senators will not be able to conduct a thoughtful and thorough review of their records," said People For the American Way President Ralph G. Neas. Click Here.

"Senate Republicans adopted a procedure today to hasten the confirmation of President Bush's judicial candidates. Instead of separate hearings, the senators lumped several nominees together to make it more difficult for opponents to take aim at them." New York Times, 1/29/03. Click Here,

"The new Senate Republican majority is ushering in an era of conveyor-belt confirmations of Bush administration judicial nominations." NY Times editorial, February 6, 2003. Click Here