Christian Advocacy Groups Blame Activist Judges
AP - Tuesday, June 9, 2009
The Alabama Supreme Court voted unanimously Tuesday to overturn an Alabama law defining the "Christian religion" in terms of historic Nicene orthodoxy.
Signed into law last June, the legislation was billed as a protection of Christianity against left-wing revisionism. According to Alabama Republican legislator Dean Grey, "This is what Christianity has always meant, traditionally and historically. This bill didn't redefine Christianity. It protected Christianity against revisionist definitions."
Some of those excluded by the legal definition disagreed. "People should be allowed to define Christianity for themselves," said Mormon housewife Christine MacKenzie. "This law was an establishment of religion and violated my religious freedom. I'm glad the court struck it down."
The Supreme Court heard arguments from both sides for a week and a half before announcing its decision Tuesday morning. Proponents of the law argued that it does not constitute discrimination, because all the same legal benefits and protections are extended to both Christian and non-Christian religions. "Both groups are afforded the same treatment under the law," said an advocacy group's website. Opponents pointed out that the law makes a separation between Christians and non-Christians, and insisted that "separate is never equal." They argued that withholding the Christian label from certain groups constitutes a form of cultural discrimination and thus violates the state Constitution's "equal protection" clause.
The court sided unanimously with opponents, pointing out in its deliberations that the term carries a certain cultural and religious prestige in the state, and that to withhold it would constitute discrimination. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses hailed the decision, but opponents denounced it as "judicial activism". A spokesperson for the Protect Christianity Coalition pointed out that Christianity benefits the state by providing a stable home environment and strong moral values. She quoted statements from several Mormon officials as evidence of a "Mormon agenda" to "infiltrate and destroy" Christianity. She also warned that the court's decision will cause social and moral decay, and may result in Christian ministers being forced to baptize and administer Communion to heretics.
Christian advocacy groups said the fight is not over. "We intend to introduce a Constitutional amendment in the next legislative session," says Assemblyman Gray. "We will not allow the left's anti-Christian agenda to win the day."
5 comments:
That is absolutely insane that someone would even try to make such a law. What business is it of the state to define who is a Christian or who is not? If I were to teach history in the state of Alabama would I get arrested for talking about Arian Christianity or Nestorian Christianity? The very idea that Christianity has traditionally meant the Nicene Creed is offensive to me as a historian. What about all the “heretical” groups that have existed throughout the centuries? I have an idea. Considering that the dominant form of Christianity in the western tradition has been Catholicism, let us make a law that Christianity must mean accepting the authority of the Pope and the veneration of Saints and the Virgin Mary.
It's really sad to see common sense and maturity going out the window more and more every day. This whole bill looks like someone attempted to take what was being used in the name of "defending marriage"--a set, social institution--and using it to protect their own definitions of subjective, individual dogmas.
There's a pretty whopping--and I used to think obvious--difference between a type of relationship and personal beliefs.
I'm curious what the "left" is doing that makes these people feel that their Christianity is somehow under attack, and about to be "redefined" in a vein similar to how people are trying to change the meaning of marriage.
How on *Earth* did someone get the idea they could legislate personal beliefs in the first place, let alone determine who is and who is not Christian?
I understand that Mormons and JWs aren't seen as "Christian" by the mainstream sects--particularly in a very culturally indoctrinated South--but to try to legislate those opinions into effect and pretend it's somehow protecting *anyone*? That's utterly absurd in my opinion.
In any case, given that the Nicene Creed post-dates Christ by several centuries, how can they really make a case for it being *the* historic basis of Christianity, when evidence exists that the Creed was merely a compromise at best, and political power-playing at worst?
I agree that the proposed bill would, in effect, be establishing what religion was, even though it wouldn't establish a specific, state religion.
Can't we just stop and think like adults, and solve our own problems maturely instead of flooding the courts with all sorts of problems every time we think we're under attack? Prop 8 I can see--judges overruled a popular vote. But this? Talk about coming out of left field.
Wow. I don't even know what to say about that "legislation."
Wow.
Stan, Ben, and Eric:
Please see my most recent post titled "My 'Alabama Law' Post Was Parody".
Stan,
Note that the very arguments you used against my imaginary bill also apply to Prop 8.
>>I'm curious what the "left" is doing that makes these people feel that their Christianity is somehow under attack.
One might as easily ask how a gay couple calling their union a marriage amounts to an attack on the marriages of straight people.
>>How on *Earth* did someone get the idea they could legislate personal beliefs in the first place.
Good question.
>>to try to legislate those opinions into effect and pretend it's somehow protecting *anyone*? That's utterly absurd in my opinion.
Agreed.
>>how can they really make a case for it being *the* historic basis of Christianity, when evidence exists that the Creed was merely a compromise at best, and political power-playing at worst?
Similar arguments can be made about "one man, one woman" having "always" been the definition of marriage. Marriage has meant vastly different things over the centuries, and in fact monogamy is a relatively recent ideal. Some ancient Romans practiced gay marriage, including the Roman emperor Nero. The ascendancy of "traditional" marriage in the West rode the same institutional wave that the Nicene Creed did: it was (and remains) a Catholic sacrament.
>>I agree that the proposed bill would, in effect, be establishing what religion was, even though it wouldn't establish a specific, state religion.
Certainly it would legally endorse the idea that Mormons aren't Christians, an endosement that directly contradicts Mormon belief. In the same way, Prop 8 endorsed a conservative Christian definition of marriage, in direct contradiction to Episcopal and Unitarian beliefs that those groups have a moral obligation to recognize, perform, and respect gay marriages.
>>Prop 8 I can see--judges overruled a popular vote.
Wouldn't it be just as problematic if the "will of the people" were that the government should define Christianity a particular way and the courts overruled that? Arguably the whole point of judicial review is to ensure that majorities don't trample the rights of minorities. That means gays as much as it means Mormons.
Best,
-Chris
It is funny because I actually thought something was funny when after I posted my comment I tried to find the article myself and could not. I was going to ask you about it.
Post a Comment