Andrew Pauley
10-14-09
11:30pm
In 1963, the Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle was the site of John F. Kennedy's funeral. After the service, on the steps outside, the slain president's young son famously saluted his father's memory. But the church is also the site of an annual Mass that has drawn criticism for what many see as an unhealthy mix of politics, the law and religion. Washington's annual Red Mass, which celebrates the legal profession, will be held this year on Sunday, October 4, the day before the Supreme Court begins its new term. Several justices traditionally attend, along with congressional leaders, diplomats, cabinet secretaries and other dignitaries. Critics of the service, however, find the attendance of leading decision-makers, including members of the highest court in the land, to be inappropriate. "The truth is, this was set up as a way to basically lecture and give information to the justices," said the Rev. Barry Lynn, president of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. "There is no other institution that has this special way to talk to the justices on the Supreme Court." Lynn, an ordained minister with the United Church of Christ, noted the Mass was begun after several high court decisions that were disapproved of by the archdiocese. "They figured if they got all the justices together and chatted them up in a worship service, they might be able to convince them to see the law their way," he said. One member of the court who no longer attends is Ruth Bader Ginsburg who, like Breyer, is Jewish. Ginsberg said she grew tired of being lectured to by Catholic officials. "I went one year, and I will never go again, because this sermon was outrageously anti-abortion," Ginsburg said in the book "Stars of David: Prominent Jews talk About Being Jewish" by author Abigail Pogrebin. Six Catholics now sit on the high court: Roberts, Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Sonia Sotomayor. Sharply differing perspectives show that, more than two centuries after the Constitution's ratification, the interpretation of the First Amendment and the role of religion in American society remain hotly contested questions.
What does everyone in America have to say about this? I would like to think it would not be hard to get an opinion out of most people on this subject. I am at the point of view to look at our history. As Americans our founders left their home country based on one of the wants being freedom of worship. They were frustrated with government intervention into their personal religious endeavors. If these people believed that church and state should be separated in regards to the state ordering and having say over the church, why should the church feel it can have a say over the state? There are some things in this country that are hard to do, one of which is being open minded and checking your beliefs about some things at the door. I think a politician or justice in the courts needed to realize if they get this job they will have to uphold government law not their personal beliefs. As a justice you have to make interpretations based on the constitution not your religious beliefs, and I am sorry to say that is just the nature of the job. I do not think it is fair, if this meeting is in fact a way to persuade those in power, for church officials to preach home what they belief and lobby for it to be put in use in the government.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/01/dc.red.mass/index.html
No comments:
Post a Comment