Freedom of Religion Is Not Absolute

               Robert A. Levine   4-12--12

 Rick Santorum made separation of church and state an issue in his campaign for the presidency, denouncing John F. Kennedy’s commitment to that principle and using freedom of religion as a rallying cry. The uproar regarding coverage for contraception further highlighted the continuing schism in America over those wanting absolute freedom to follow their religious beliefs and those accepting that when a conflict exists, civil law must override religious precepts.

Previous court battles have affirmed that freedom of religion in America is not an absolute right. Though the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits Congress from any actions favoring the establishment of a religion or “prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” there have been a number of instances where the general welfare has taken precedence over religious practices, forcing a religion to change its edicts. Since the state is responsible for regulating harmful conduct, if there is disagreement between a religion and the state over some element of religious practices, civil law must be observed. Of course, the difficulty arises in determining which religious practices may be detrimental to society.

One prominent example of a conflict between church and state, where the Supreme Court ruled that civil law must be followed, involved the Mormon practice of polygamy. In 1862, the Morrill Act was passed by Congress prohibiting plural marriages. The Court upheld the conviction of a Mormon in 1878 for violating the law which he said had interfered with his religious duty. However, polygamy continued to be openly practiced by Mormons with the argument that it was protected by the First Amendment. Finally, in 1890, the president of the Mormon Church acknowledged that civil law had primacy over church law and the practice of polygamy was ended by the church, aside from some fundamentalist splinter groups. Similarly, the Muslim practice of allowing up to four wives under Islamic law is illegal in the U.S.

Another area where civil law was in dispute with religious officials was over the handling of pedophilia by the Catholic Church. For most of the 20^th century (and past centuries) the church dealt with child molestation by priests as a sin, rather than as a criminal offense. When a case of pedophilia was discovered, the name of the perpetrator was generally not reported to the civil authorities, with disciplinary measures meted out by the church. Often, this consisted of transfer to another position where the perpetrator might still have contact with children. Or a life of prayer and penance might be ordered. It was only after a series of scandals, numerous suits and some criminal trials in recent decades that the church agreed to treat pedophilia as a criminal offense, allowing an arm of the state to decide on punishment.

It is clear that religious freedom is not absolute in America. However, two questions must be answered by the courts in dealing with conflicts between church and state. One is how egregious the issue in contention is to the beliefs of a particular religion and the second is whether favoring the religion would contravene the general good to a sufficient degree to harm society. On the issue of contraception, it is clear that women’s health will be impacted if coverage is not available for low-income recipients. It also seems that when the Obama administration allowed church-affiliated organizations to opt out if they so desired and have the insurance companies pay for contraception, the church’s objections had been met.

We live in a pluralistic society where conflicts between what are considered civil rights or social needs and religious beliefs are constantly playing out. Finding a middle ground when dealing with galvanizing issues, such as abortion or same-sex marriage appears to be nearly impossible. On the other hand, the availability of contraception for all women seemed to have been settled decades ago and yet has come back to haunt us again. It is unfortunate that when the nation faces so many serious economic problems, the two political parties must devote so much time and energy to an issue like contraception coverage which should have been a minor administrative decision.

To truly insure freedom of religion for everyone, the wall separating church and state must remain in place as a bedrock principle of American democracy.

Resurrecting Democracy
www.robertlevinebooks.com

Romney's Southern Exposure- Did He Get Burned?

                        Robert A. Levine    3-13-12

Though the big loser in today’s primaries in Alabama and Mississippi was Newt Gingrich, Tuesday the 13^th wasn’t particularly lucky for Mitt Romney. Santorum was projected as the winner in both Alabama and Mississippi, though both races were fairly close between all three contestants.

The two Republican primaries in the Deep South today had provided Mitt Romney a possibility of winning with little downside in return. The expectations for Romney had been so low at one point, that a decent showing, or a victory in either state, was seen as a possible move forward on the road to the nomination.

 Given the large proportion of conservative evangelicals as primary voters, it was believed that Romney’s Mormonism would weigh heavily against him. In addition, his portrayal as the moderate from Massachusetts by his opponents was certainly not going to help him attract voters. However, Romney did have a few advantages in the two contests. The first was that his media machine outspent Rick Santorum by four to one and Newt Gingrich by three to one, constantly filling the airways with advertisements. The second was that Gingrich and Santorum were attacking each other and splitting the most conservative vote. It was supposedly do or die for Gingrich, as he had to salvage at least one, but hopefully two victories.

The way delegates were allocated, gave Romney the opportunity to pick up support even without a win. Mississippi had 40 delegates, of which 25 were to be distributed proportionally to the voting and 12 by victories in the 4 Congressional districts. Alabama had 50 delegates, with 26 at large distributed proportionately and 21 allotted by the 7 Congressional districts. Since every delegate is important on compiling the total needed for the nomination, Romney was not willing to write off the South.

 With the realization that he might have an opening in these bastions of conservatism, Romney visited Alabama and Mississippi last week, promoting his bona fides with hearty y’alls and professing his love of grits. Perhaps having friends who are NASCAR owners may have also gained him a few votes. However, the results showed that Romney was still unable to close the deal with conservative voters. But as expected, when all the votes came in, in spite of Santorum’s victories, Romney will have accumulated a considerable number of new delegates as will Gingrich. Will the failure to achieve victory in either state sound the death knell for Gingrich? Stay tuned. There certainly will be pressure from Republican conservatives to have him drop out. Romney, of course, would love to see Gingrich remain in the race as long as possible.

 Resurrecting Democracy
www.robertlevinebooks.com

Super PAC Tuesday

            Robert A. Levine

It’s called Super Tuesday because of the large number of delegates for the presidential nominating convention up for grabs in the Republican primaries.  437 delegates were at stake today in ten states scattered among every region and time zone.

Because of the number of states involved, retail politics was not at a premium in these primaries, as it’s impossible to schedule enough personal appearances and shake enough hands to connect with the electorate. That’s why a more appropriate label would be Super PAC Tuesday, since the primary in  Ohio, the most important state, was probably decided by media buys and repetitive advertising, which played a major role everywhere. And the candidates’ Super PACs are the organizations with the financial heft and advertising savvy that can sway voters to support their candidates through TV and radio ads. The campaigns, of course, also contributed money to the political dialogue, but the Super PACs dominated the discourse.

The Super PACs tend to favor negative advertising and attack ads against the opposing candidates, which seem to influence voters more than those that build up their own nominees. The pro-Romney Super PAC, Restore Our Future, had the most cash to spend, and dispensed it liberally (if a forbidden word can be used). This Super PAC has a list of donors that sounds like a who’s who of billionaires and made media buys all around the country.

Gingrich’s Super PAC, Winning Our Future, only appears to have one billionaire on board, Sheldon Adelson, who has contributed tens of millions of dollars. Gingrich concentrated his efforts on his home state of Georgia and will continue what might be considered a southern strategy in the future, trying to keep neighboring states in his camp.

Santorum competed all over, but particularly focused on Ohio, which was really Super Tuesday biggest prize. Santorum’s Red, White and Blue Super PAC, was largely funded by Foster Freiss, an affluent conservative who likes Santorum’s stands on the social issues.

Ron Paul saw his best chance for a victory in Alaska, where his libertarian views have gotten some traction.
One large state, Virginia was really not in play, with the Santorum and Gingrich campaigns failing to get their candidates on the ballot. Georgia appeared to be in Gingrich’s pocket from the outset, with Massachusetts in Romney’s. Whoever won the popular vote in each state, the formula for allocating delegates varied, with some states having winner take all while others doing it proportionately.

Early returns showed Romney with victories in Vermont, Massachusetts, and Virginia, with Gingrich on top in Georgia. No surprises there. Santorum won Tennessee and Oklahoma where 70% of the primary voters described themselves as evangelicals, along with North Dakota. No real surprises there. With a neck and neck battle throughout the evening, Romney finally pulled ahead in Ohio by a thin margin, but by 11:30 EST his victory was notconfirmed. His strength in Ohio was in the urban and suburban areas, while Santorum won the rural parts of the state. However, if Gingrich had been out of the mix, Santorum would have been easily victorious in Ohio. Romney also won in Idaho by what appears to be a significant margin.

No matter how Alaska plays out, at the end of the night, Romney will be far ahead in the total delegate count. His Super PAC and organizational prowess have been delivering for him. Money has long been known as the mother’s milk of politics with Super PACs now functioning as the cash cows for candidates. It can be anticipated that obtaining the nomination and winning the general election itself will depend to a major degree on how much milk the Super PACs will be able to provide for their candidates.

Resurrecting Democracy
www.robertlevinebooks.com