Jimmy Zuma

Jimmy Zuma
Washington, District of Columbia,
August 01
After ten years haunting online political forums and much longer as a disability rights advocate, Jimmy Zuma started the online political journal, Smart v. Stupid. Since then, he has emerged as one of the left’s most direct new voices. Almost immediately, Jimmy was offered the opportunity to join the political team at Technorati where he writes DC Water Cooler, a weekly feature on what the politicians and pundits are talking about. Most recently, his columns began appearing in the Tucson Sentinel in Tucson Arizona. He is also an occasional contributor to OpEd News. Jimmy's goal is to return vetting to the marketplace of ideas, by elevating the status of smart ideas and debunking dumb ones.

Jimmy Zuma's Links

FEBRUARY 10, 2012 12:39AM

US Constitution: the Bishops don’t get a veto

Rate: 7 Flag

A civics lesson for John Boehner and the Bishops

The first thing you need to know is that bishops don’t get a veto. Given the hyperbolic rhetoric now spewing from the likes of Boehner, Gingrich and Wikimedia-NB Flickr-cerwidren remix Santorum, you could be forgiven for believing that churches have constitutional protections. They don’t. If anything they are disfavored in constitutional law.

Cornell University Law School, in its well-regarded annotation of the US Constitution tells us that the Supreme Court unanimously found in Everson v. Board of Education, “that the Establishment Clause forbids not only practices that ‘aid one religion’ or ‘prefer one religion over another,’ but as well those that ‘aid all religions.’”

What about the First Amendment you say? The Bill of Rights (and its ten amendments) applies only to individuals, not denominations. Again, this is not an opinion, it is settled constitutional law. According to The Freedom Forum (which underwrites Vanderbilt’s First Amendment Center), “The First Amendment affirms the freedom of the individual.” Further, the Supreme Court itself recently reaffirmed in the Heller decision that the Second Amendment was an “individual right.” The Bill of Rights protects only to the rights of individuals (as was the expressed intent of its writers back in 1791.) They have not, so far, conveyed Citizens United style rights to churches.

So how does this translate regarding today’s issue du jour? When John Boehner says Congress will pass a law to confer veto power to religion, he is showing how little he cares about our founding documents. “Congress shall make no law” is pretty darn clear. The Federal government may rightfully consider the view of Catholic Bishops when crafting law but only insofar as they are equal in stature to the 98% of Catholic women who use birth control. Bishops, in their professional capacity, have no special legal standing specifically because they represent a church.

Our Constitution guarantees that individuals be free from religious coercion. A church may cajole, threaten, beg, bother or excommunicate a member regarding these choices, but it can’t – in the USA – interfere if the individual chooses to ignore his, hers, or someone else’s religious dogma. The government is simply not allowed to bend to the will of any religious hierarchy for any reason. To do violates the oath to protect and defend the Constitution.

Further, while an individual conscience exception is allowed, no such right exists for a church. If it ever did, churches would be above the law – including churches run by the likes of David Koresh, Terry Jones, Jim Jones and Omar Abdel-Rahman. Imagine if some nutty, snake-dancing pastor decided that death by fire was part of God’s plan, and so refused to install sprinklers in his mega-church. It’s not so farfetched.

But in fighting this fight, the bishops seek to have the government legislate what they have failed to inculcate. Almost all Catholic women have used birth control for family planning. Arguably most of their partners – good Catholic men among them -- are complicit. So what the bishops hope to do is to rectify a pastoral failure – the near one hundred percent rejection by their own flock. Having failed in the use the tools of religious teaching – faith, fear and persistence – they want to fall back on the Feds to do it.

Yet there is a compelling public health interest in birth control. Ninety-nine percent of women want it. Of men, one in three is using condoms. And according to the National Institutes of Health, 700,000 women choose sterilization each year, most after a successful delivery. Yet all would be banned in a world where religious leaders have a veto. In some religions, women even lose the choice about whether to have intercourse or with whom.

There are more than six million pregnancies in the US each year, about half of which are unplanned. Planned pregnancy improves a woman’s earning power, general heath, and family well-being. Smaller families are more able to help children go to college. And smaller families are less costly to our safety net when things go wrong.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, one in five pregnancies is entirely unwanted. That’s as many as 1.3 million children highly likely to end up as wards of the state. We’d all agree that every child should have loving parents who want him or her, right?

So in the end, there are two important lessons to be taken from the Bishop’s attempt to veto. One, laws enforcing religious dogma are unconstitutional. And two, if you’re for Planned Parenthood, you need to get up off the couch about birth control. The decoupling of politics from women’s health is ongoing.

Your tags:


Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:


Type your comment below:
Welcome to a more dangerous Iran than Iran itself. As our government is not able to infringe on religious expression, it fails in its obligation to refrain from religious influence.
I only wish America would grow up enough to realize that some of us reasonably want to be protected FROM religion—that some of us do not want to have the laws that govern us pass muster with the gods that some others suppose exist.

We are still a long way from that…but I actually welcome the controversy now sweeping the country, because the issue is at least being discussed. I can only hope that the hullabaloo works out the way Vatican condemnation of a movie or book often works out. And from what I am reading in the opinion columns--that seems to be the direction this thing is going.

Good essay, Jimmy.
An intelligent, well constructed post, including the bit about the snake-dancing pastor. No need crossing the pond to find the looneys.
The Constitution was intended not only to free government from religion, but more importantly to free religion from government.

Also, some of it is a sense of betrayal from the Bishops. They supported Obamacare, with the understanding that the religious exemption to paying for contraception, abortion and sterilization. Now that it has passed, the administration conveniently forgets the arrangement it made.
Actually, that's not a wholly accurate read of our founding documents. The Constitution was specifically written to protect individual worship from interference, either from government or from a state endorsed religious entity like the Catholic Church or the Church of England.

Nothing in the Constitution protects churches from anything except as they benefit peripherally benefit from the religous freedom of the individuals who congregate within them.

Yours is a common misconception.
Apparently, the bishops didn't get the message; that was expected. Obama's caving, well I'm sorry to say, that was expected, too.
One more thing -- as you point out, the Church has the authority to punish those who violate it's precepts, including the "right" to condemn violators to burn eternally in a lake of fire. Or so they'd like us to believe.

You'd think a threat of that magnitude would be sufficient to get Catholics obey edicts about birth control from old men who supposedly have nothing to worry about in that regard. But it's all too apparent that the vast majority of Catholics would rather risk eternal damnation than part with birth control pills or condemns.

It would seem the big problem is the Catholic Church ain't go no rhythm.
condemns = condoms -- my Freudian slip is showing
You are the first to say what I've been thinking: "the bishops seek to have the government legislate what they have failed to inculcate." It is amazing that those who cry the loudest about "original intent" are precisely the ones who willfully distort, misinterpret, and falsify what the UC Constitution actually says. James Madison must be spinning in his grave. [r]