I’ve come across a Politico article by Victoria McGrane about the so-called “Bible bill” offered by Georgia Republican Paul Broun, a resolution that would make 2009 the “Year of the Bible.” Whatever that means.
New York Representative Jerrold Nadler is one of the people leading the charge against the resolution. The article notes:
And even as Nadler criticized Broun, he has done his own share of mixing religion and legislation.
Last year, he introduced a bill that would overturn a federal appeals court ruling — an “idiot” decision, he says — that a condominium board in Chicago had the right to ban Jews from installing mezuzahs, which consist of a piece of parchment inscribed with a specific religious text put inside a case and hung on a door frame.
Condo boards shouldn’t be able to interfere in an individual’s right to practice his or her religion, Nadler said.
McGrane seems to imply that Nadler is being hypocritical with regard to the role of religion in politics, as she says that Nadler has “done his own share of mixing religion and politics.” But she conflates two different issues here. Allow me to reproduce the first sentence of the first amendment, highlighting where relevant: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
The two phrases I’ve highlighted are what are known in constitutional law as, respectively, the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. They are designed to do two totally different things: the first keeps the government from endorsing one particular religion, and the second protects the rights of individuals to practice religion freely.
Nadler’s objection to the “Bible bill” rests on the establishment clause, the belief that government should not favor one religion over another in any way. His objection to the ruling on hanging mezuzot on people’s houses is based on the free exercise clause. Therefore, it’s inappropriate to compare the “Bible bill” to Nadler’s bill using the same standards. It’s not at all hypocritical to reject making a “year” out of one religion’s book and to also support using the power of the Congress to protect free practice.
