Latest news with #AmericanFamilyAssociationAction
Yahoo
30-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Opinion - Religious tests for federal judges are unconstitutional and un-American
The American Family Association Action's Center for Judicial Renewal doesn't particularly like it when you say that it wants to impose an unconstitutional religious test on appointees to the Supreme Court and other federal courts. But that's what it is. And this aggressive and exclusionary Christian nationalism, embraced by much of the religious right and the MAGA movement, is wrong, unconstitutional and un-American religious discrimination. The argument is that there's a big difference between a 'preference' for specific religions among judges and an actual 'religious test' for holding office. But that distinction means little when a political group uses its influence to pressure presidents and U.S. senators to treat their preference as a de facto religious test. The bottom line is that conservative organizations are delving into the religious beliefs and practices of conservative judges to decide whether they would be acceptable to serve on the Supreme Court. The Center for Judicial Renewal's site lists 'worldview' as the first of '10 Principles of a Constitutionalist Judge,' explaining that 'the greatest predictor of their faithful and constitutional performance on the bench is their 'worldview' or 'Christian faith.'' The organization has put several conservative judges considered potential Supreme Court nominees on its unacceptable 'red list.' The public version of its 'serious concerns' dossier on Judge Neomi Rao includes under a 'Faith and Worldview' heading the fact that Rao 'was raised in an immigrant family of Zoroastrian tradition and converted to Judaism when she got married.' So it appears that only Christians are acceptable to them, and then only Christians who meet the religious right's 'biblical worldview' standard. The change in the language on their website from 'biblical worldview' to 'worldview' after public criticism does not change the substance of the effort. The American Family Association tells prospective students of its biblical worldview training course, 'In order to make an impact in culture, we must first submit ourselves to the clear teaching of Scripture and acknowledge its authority to dictate every area of our lives.' As the association and its allies apply this definition to legal and public policy questions, their standard requires opposition to legal abortion and equality for gay and transgender people and same-sex couples. It means accepting an interpretation of the Bible that dictates right-wing social and economic policies. It means undermining the separation of church and state and enforcing a right-wing view of religious liberty as a sword to justify discrimination rather than a shield to protect freedom. This religious worldview test betrays the letter and spirit of the Constitution, whose authors put in writing that 'no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.' In other words, no public official can be required to hold particular religious beliefs. Along with the First Amendment, it's a core of our constitutional guarantee of religious liberty. To demand judges 'have a relationship with Jesus' on the grounds that they will be fairer seems like not only a religious test, but also a smear against fair-minded people who don't share this religious worldview. I'm a Christian, and it offends me. It certainly does not show respect for the peaceful pluralism that is a defining characteristic of our nation, where one's rights as a citizen, including the right to serve in public office, are not dependent on having particular religious beliefs. Indeed, some of the nation's founders had unorthodox Christian views that some might view as falling short. One key characteristic of Christian nationalism is the belief that certain kinds of Christians should hold a privileged and dominant place in society. Right-wing groups are attempting to impose just that with their effort to hang a sign on our courthouses that says 'no Jews, Muslims, liberal Christians or secularists need apply.' Other Trump-aligned Christian nationalists want to impose explicit tests for anyone holding public office. These calls raise the question of which religious or government figures would be responsible for evaluating whether someone's Christianity passes muster. When it comes to judges, the opinion piece argues that the White House and Senate should outsource that evaluation to those who adhere to its beliefs. President Trump has recently created a Religious Liberty Commission whose ostensible mission is to protect every American's religious liberty. One test of its sincerity would be whether it would publicly reject and disavow this attempt to impose religious discrimination on our courts. Trump and every U.S. senator should do the same. Svante Myrick is president of People For the American Way. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
30-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Religious tests for federal judges are unconstitutional and un-American
The American Family Association Action's Center for Judicial Renewal doesn't particularly like it when you say that it wants to impose an unconstitutional religious test on appointees to the Supreme Court and other federal courts. But that's what it is. And this aggressive and exclusionary Christian nationalism, embraced by much of the religious right and the MAGA movement, is wrong, unconstitutional and un-American religious discrimination. The argument is that there's a big difference between a 'preference' for specific religions among judges and an actual 'religious test' for holding office. But that distinction means little when a political group uses its influence to pressure presidents and U.S. senators to treat their preference as a de facto religious test. The bottom line is that conservative organizations are delving into the religious beliefs and practices of conservative judges to decide whether they would be acceptable to serve on the Supreme Court. The Center for Judicial Renewal's site lists 'worldview' as the first of '10 Principles of a Constitutionalist Judge,' explaining that 'the greatest predictor of their faithful and constitutional performance on the bench is their 'worldview' or 'Christian faith.'' The organization has put several conservative judges considered potential Supreme Court nominees on its unacceptable 'red list.' The public version of its 'serious concerns' dossier on Judge Neomi Rao includes under a 'Faith and Worldview' heading the fact that Rao 'was raised in an immigrant family of Zoroastrian tradition and converted to Judaism when she got married.' So it appears that only Christians are acceptable to them, and then only Christians who meet the religious right's 'biblical worldview' standard. The change in the language on their website from 'biblical worldview' to 'worldview' after public criticism does not change the substance of the effort. The American Family Association tells prospective students of its biblical worldview training course, 'In order to make an impact in culture, we must first submit ourselves to the clear teaching of Scripture and acknowledge its authority to dictate every area of our lives.' As the association and its allies apply this definition to legal and public policy questions, their standard requires opposition to legal abortion and equality for gay and transgender people and same-sex couples. It means accepting an interpretation of the Bible that dictates right-wing social and economic policies. It means undermining the separation of church and state and enforcing a right-wing view of religious liberty as a sword to justify discrimination rather than a shield to protect freedom. This religious worldview test betrays the letter and spirit of the Constitution, whose authors put in writing that 'no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.' In other words, no public official can be required to hold particular religious beliefs. Along with the First Amendment, it's a core of our constitutional guarantee of religious liberty. To demand judges 'have a relationship with Jesus' on the grounds that they will be fairer seems like not only a religious test, but also a smear against fair-minded people who don't share this religious worldview. I'm a Christian, and it offends me. It certainly does not show respect for the peaceful pluralism that is a defining characteristic of our nation, where one's rights as a citizen, including the right to serve in public office, are not dependent on having particular religious beliefs. Indeed, some of the nation's founders had unorthodox Christian views that some might view as falling short. One key characteristic of Christian nationalism is the belief that certain kinds of Christians should hold a privileged and dominant place in society. Right-wing groups are attempting to impose just that with their effort to hang a sign on our courthouses that says 'no Jews, Muslims, liberal Christians or secularists need apply.' Other Trump-aligned Christian nationalists want to impose explicit tests for anyone holding public office. These calls raise the question of which religious or government figures would be responsible for evaluating whether someone's Christianity passes muster. When it comes to judges, the opinion piece argues that the White House and Senate should outsource that evaluation to those who adhere to its beliefs. President Trump has recently created a Religious Liberty Commission whose ostensible mission is to protect every American's religious liberty. One test of its sincerity would be whether it would publicly reject and disavow this attempt to impose religious discrimination on our courts. Trump and every U.S. senator should do the same. Svante Myrick is president of People For the American Way.
Yahoo
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - We need constitutional judges, not political activists
Svante Myrick recently attacked President Trump's work for religious freedom, as well as our organization's work on judicial nominations at the American Family Association Action's Center for Judicial Renewal. Our standard for evaluating future federal judges is simple: we seek judges 'with the best long-term, demonstrable record of commitment to the constitutional role of judges, which is to decide cases according to the original meaning of the Constitution and legislative texts, and to never legislate from the bench.' When evaluating judges under this standard, we research prospects' records in a number of key areas, including their worldview. It is this 'worldview' research that seems to draw the most opposition from the anti-religious Left. Some seem bothered that we prefer judges who respect the Constitution and the God of our Declaration of Independence. Moreover, we prefer judges who have a relationship with Jesus because the teachings of Christ, among other things, lead judges to be fair to all persons, religious and non-religious. Some on the Left seem to believe that our 'preference' violates the Constitution. It does not, and it must be noted that there is a major distinction between a 'religious preference' and a 'religious test.' The Constitution expressly prohibits religious tests but allows religious preferences. The prohibition of a religious test still allows every citizen, whether Christian, non-Christian, or otherwise, to prefer a president, political leaders, and federal judges who share his or her worldview. In fact, the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Jay, was himself a Christian and believed that Americans should 'prefer Christians for their rulers.' Our Constitution allows citizens of every religious conviction to vote and participate. However, that does not mean that all religious convictions equally contributed to our American form of government. Justice Joseph Story, who served on the U.S. Supreme Court for 34 years, was a Harvard law professor, and authored the authoritative 'Commentaries on the Constitution,' explained the historical fact that '[t]here never has been a period of history, in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying at its foundation.' Story also explained the importance of religion in our public life: '[I]t yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs, whether any free government can be permanent, where the public worship of God, and the support of religion, constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in any assignable shape.' Finally, he made it clear that Christianity played a formative role in our government. 'Probably, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the Amendment to it now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the State so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship,' he wrote. 'Any attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.' The United States Supreme Court has gone even further in explaining the unique role Christianity has played in our founding. In the 1892 Church of the Holy Trinity case, the high court documented America's religious history and concluded that 'this is a religious nation,' '[w]e are a Christian people,' and 'this is a Christian nation.' However, the Court explained that our nation's relationship with Christianity still allows liberty of conscience for all citizens: 'Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law. … Not Christianity with an established church … but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men.' In conclusion, it must be said that the Constitution protects persons of all religious views and allows their participation in public life. But not all religions equally influenced our Constitution and our governmental structure. Christianity holds a unique position in our nation, and for that, we should be thankful, because it is those distinctly Christian principles that provide us with a government and judges who protect those with whom we disagree. Phillip Jauregui is senior counsel at AFA Action's Center for Judicial Renewal. He is an expert in constitutional law, judicial policy, and non-profit coalition building. He worked in the judicial branch as a law clerk and also served in the executive branch as an assistant legal advisor. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
22-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
We need constitutional judges, not political activists
Svante Myrick recently attacked President Trump's work for religious freedom, as well as our organization's work on judicial nominations at the American Family Association Action's Center for Judicial Renewal. Our standard for evaluating future federal judges is simple: we seek judges 'with the best long-term, demonstrable record of commitment to the constitutional role of judges, which is to decide cases according to the original meaning of the Constitution and legislative texts, and to never legislate from the bench.' When evaluating judges under this standard, we research prospects' records in a number of key areas, including their worldview. It is this 'worldview' research that seems to draw the most opposition from the anti-religious Left. Some seem bothered that we prefer judges who respect the Constitution and the God of our Declaration of Independence. Moreover, we prefer judges who have a relationship with Jesus because the teachings of Christ, among other things, lead judges to be fair to all persons, religious and non-religious. Some on the Left seem to believe that our 'preference' violates the Constitution. It does not, and it must be noted that there is a major distinction between a 'religious preference' and a 'religious test.' The Constitution expressly prohibits religious tests but allows religious preferences. The prohibition of a religious test still allows every citizen, whether Christian, non-Christian, or otherwise, to prefer a president, political leaders, and federal judges who share his or her worldview. In fact, the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Jay, was himself a Christian and believed that Americans should 'prefer Christians for their rulers.' Our Constitution allows citizens of every religious conviction to vote and participate. However, that does not mean that all religious convictions equally contributed to our American form of government. Justice Joseph Story, who served on the U.S. Supreme Court for 34 years, was a Harvard law professor, and authored the authoritative 'Commentaries on the Constitution,' explained the historical fact that '[t]here never has been a period of history, in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying at its foundation.' Story also explained the importance of religion in our public life: '[I]t yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs, whether any free government can be permanent, where the public worship of God, and the support of religion, constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in any assignable shape.' Finally, he made it clear that Christianity played a formative role in our government. 'Probably, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the Amendment to it now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the State so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship,' he wrote. 'Any attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.' The United States Supreme Court has gone even further in explaining the unique role Christianity has played in our founding. In the 1892 Church of the Holy Trinity case, the high court documented America's religious history and concluded that 'this is a religious nation,' '[w]e are a Christian people,' and 'this is a Christian nation.' However, the Court explained that our nation's relationship with Christianity still allows liberty of conscience for all citizens: 'Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law. … Not Christianity with an established church … but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men.' In conclusion, it must be said that the Constitution protects persons of all religious views and allows their participation in public life. But not all religions equally influenced our Constitution and our governmental structure. Christianity holds a unique position in our nation, and for that, we should be thankful, because it is those distinctly Christian principles that provide us with a government and judges who protect those with whom we disagree. Phillip Jauregui is senior counsel at AFA Action's Center for Judicial Renewal. He is an expert in constitutional law, judicial policy, and non-profit coalition building. He worked in the judicial branch as a law clerk and also served in the executive branch as an assistant legal advisor.
