Somebody’s always accusing the U.S. Supreme Court of being politically incorrect. Now the court is being accused of being religiously incorrect.
So, far the court doesn’t much care. A coalition of 16 Muslim organizations asked back in February that Muhammad’s face be sandblasted off the north wall of the high court’s chamber, where it is etched in marble, in deference to Islamic beliefs.
More Top Picks Ecobee Smart Thermostat Enhanced
It turns out that Islamic tradition forbids artistic depictions of Muhammad because it might encourage some believers to pray to someone other than Allah, the Islamic name for God.
The Muslims offered to pay for the work, but, Supreme Court Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist has responded by telling them, in so many words, to forget it.
The wall art is not a form of idol worship, he wrote to the offended Muslim groups. The ivory-colored friezes, carved in Spanish marble, have been in place since the building opened in 1935. They are intended only to honor Muhammad in a procession of 18 of history’s great lawgivers, including Confucius, Moses, Napoleon and Charlemagne.
Besides, Rehnquist wrote, it would be against the law to change it now. He cited a 1949 statute that outlaws the removal or injury of any statue in or around the Supreme Court building.
In other words, the chief justice appears to be saying, you will be offended when I say you should be offended.
The thought of changing the law might occur to the chief justice and to Congress if their real concern was honoring religious leaders like Muhammad and avoiding offense to believers. After all, Congress responds with remarkable speed and efficiency when it thinks Judeo-Christian traditions are being offended.
For example, less than a week before Rehnquist released his letter the House voted more than 2-to-1 to support an Alabama judge who is defying orders to stop displaying the 10 Commandments in his courtroom.
For the past two years, Judge Roy Moore, a Baptist, of Alabama’s Etowah County has been fighting to keep a wood carving of the 10 Commandments in his courtroom. The 1st Amendment specifically protects individuals from the establishment of religion by the state. Yet, Alabama Gov. Fob James Jr., has vowed to call in the National Guard on behalf of the judge.
If that brings to mind images of former Arkansas Gov. Orval Faubus calling in the National Guard to prevent black students from entering Little Rock High School in 1957, that’s probably precisely what James has in mind. President Dwight Eisenhower, in a historic show of force on behalf of civil rights, federalized the National Guard and ordered it to escort the teens to school. The Republican James probably would just love to put President Clinton in the awkward position of removing the 10 Commandments from a courtroom.
Back in Congress, Rep. Ernest Istook (R-Okla.) has propose a “Religious Freedom Amendment” to the Constitution that would allow voluntary prayer in schools and other public property. The conservative Christian Coalition has pledged $1 million to get the amendment passed.
It is not enough for these folks that kids pray at home, in church or in other private places. They insist that prayer also be allowed in school, where it can infringe on the rights of others. To those who are offended, the message is clear: You’ll be offended, when we say you are offended.
Considering the opportunities for mischief and outright abuse that state-connected religious activity allows, the Framers knew what they were doing when they wrote the 1st Amendment. Istook boasts that his proposed amendment has only 52 words. The Rev. Barry Lynn, head of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State has the right reponse to that. “Currently the Constitution has only 16 words about religion,” he said, “and they got it right to first time.”
Religion is an easy refuge for ambitious politicians. The fight for Istook’s amendment, like the fight over Judge Moore’s plaque, is enflamed by the ludicrous notion that Christians are somehow under siege in America. Far more common are cases of Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist or some other religious minority finding their beliefs under siege, often from otherwise fair-minded Christians. Government does religion its best favor when it allows free expression in private, not when it forces expression on others in public.
Since Islam is America’s fastest growing religion, the day may come when Muslims may gain enough political clout to change the artwork in the Supreme Court building. But it should not have to come to that. Government honors religion best when it respects all equally and avoids playing favorites.