This article discusses a controversy caused by a comment made by Lancaster, California Mayor R. Rex Parris during a state of the city address. Parris commented that he was "growing a Christian community,” and planned to "endorse prayer at city meetings, [...], as a way to validate a Christian stance." The Council on American-Islamic Relations wrote to the U.S Justice Department arguing that Parris' remark violated the Constitution. Parris did apologize and defended that he made the comment in a speech to Christian ministers at an event he paid for. He argued that "all of us get to express our opinion wherever, [...], including opinions of faith..." The article concludes by noting another California politician, Lancaster Councilwoman Sherry Marquez, criticized for posting anti-Muslim remarks on her Facebook.
Does Mayor Parris have a point in saying he has the right to make his opinions known? Does it matter that the event was personally sponsored? Does such a comment count as violating the Establishment clause of the first amendment?
I strongly believe Mayor Parris' comments were completely inappropriate and that he should be help accountable for them. Politicians are merely people, and I understand that they are likely to base their platforms on their religious beliefs; it's only natural. But, as an American politician you are agreeing to put the Constitution above your religious beliefs, as we are expected to do as American citizens. Mayor Pariss clearly stated his efforts to bring the church into the politics of the state of California. It is irrelevant whom he is addressing or why he is addressing them, he is meant to represent America and its government; which do not support the establishment of one religion over another. I also believe Councilwoman Marquez should suffer consequences for her discriminatory comment. I think politicians should be held to a higher standard when it comes to upholding the Constitution. How are members of a state expected to abide by laws of equality, toleration, and acceptance if those governing it cannot? I am especially surprised to hear such comments come from politicians of California, considering its generally liberal and accepting nature. I would believe such religious politicians could work their beliefs into their campaigns without blatantly offending or favoring a specific religion. Even if Mayor Parris stood for everything I wanted in a leader, I do not think I would be able to vote for him knowing all of his decisions would be based on trying to “Christianify” the state.
If we allow politicians to get away with running their campaigns in a bias way and making comments that violate the Constitution, we are not defending our position to separate church and state. There is a reason we accept this way of government and we cannot allow those within it to break it down.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
While the constitution calls for the separation of church and state, it does also protect the freedom of speech. While these two politicians may have showed poor judgement in in these comments, I do not believe that they are unconstitutional. American citizens can say whatever they like, even if they are public figures, and even if they are talking about religion. In this case, however, the decision to judge this as unconstitutional may fall to the voters in these politicians' districts. They have the power to vote these politicians out of office during the next elections.
I agree with Jessica in the sense that the Mayor should not have been so blatant about his religious intentions. As an elected official, he needs to remember that he is representing a whole range of diversity, not one sector. However, I believe David raises a really good point about how they are American citizens and have the right to say whatever they like. Even though I think this is a good point to mention, I would also like to disagree because they are no longer just "American citizens". They are officials of the state and are representatives of the people. I believe it is necessary for them to leave out their personal beliefs for the betterment of the country, even if it is at their own sponsored event. I do agree with David that if the people are unhappy, they have the opportunity to vote them out of office.
This post brings up another question that may be helpful to consider. Does the right to free speech change based on the position a person holds? Does having a public position, especially one in government, altar the typical application of the first amendment. Free Speech is not absolute. The classic "you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded room" while cliche, is part of what's at stake. Do the words of a public figure have an additional power to influence? Legally there are issues of incitement that could come into play, especially if the person is powerful figure. On the other end of this, Parris is the mayor, a governmental figure. Since Parris does not stop being Mayor at different points in the day, his words and actions are "as Mayor" for the duration of his term, thus he is continually acting as a part of the government. Therefore, any promotion of religion by Parris is through his position as Mayor is subject to the establishment clause as well as free speech. Similar to Rachel's article about Judge Roy Moore of Alabama, there are limits to free speech for public officials. If Parris wants to resign as Mayor he could promote or say whatever he likes, except possibly yelling "fire".
As has been noted, this story raises interesting questions revolving around the 1st Amendment with regard not only to the religion clauses, but also to the freedom of speech. With regard to the free exercise clause, Mayor Parris is certainly entitled to his religious beliefs. The question that must be addressed is whether the statements of his goals are to be considered in violation of the establishment clause or if they are representative of protected speech. It is true that not all speech is protected by the constitution, particularly if poses a threat to the well-being of society, but I am not sure that Parris’ statement that he is “growing a Christian community” should be considered a threat to society. His statement appears to be, as he says, a proclamation of faith, and despite the fact that many groups and individuals in the community might not agree with his faith, his proclamation cannot be considered unconstitutional. Actions taken to promote his Christian community, on the other hand, do have the potential to be considered unconstitutional if they work to establish a Christian policy.
I think that a number of great points have been raised so far in this thread, ranging from the Religious clauses to the protection of free speech. Upon first reading the initial post, I found myself thinking back to President Obama's inauguration at the beginning of last year. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the President bring along the Evangelical Pastor Rick Warren to say a prayer during the ceremony? If we are talking about holding public officials, specifically politicians, to a higher standard - shouldn't the President receive the same scrutiny? While it clearly was not the President saying the prayer, to me this seems like a pretty blatant endorsement of Christian religious faith, whether or not it was his exact church or sect. I guess if it is acceptable for the President to endorse such religious affiliations, I find no real problem with Mayor Parris saying what he said. As David said, it is up to the voters to take action.
I agree with many of the previous commenters that though Mayor Parris's remarks were not illegal in any way, they were certainly going against the proper spirit of church-state interaction and his constituents should take the matter seriously in his election. However, I am more interested in if he actually followed through with his plans. Federal officials have long had many Christian traditions, such as Red Mass, that are a part of the American political process even if they are not officially sanctioned by the state. Following in this example, and that of presidents such as Obama as Rob pointed out, would Parris have had any trouble endorsing prayer at city meetings? If it ever came to a legal battle, would the courts consider his assertion that the prayer was intended as a way to “validate a Christian stance” in the government?
As has been stated, I feel that the two political officials who stated their remarks - not as public policy - but as personal beliefs are guilty of a lack of tact, but not much else. Many officials are in fact religious, and make no secret of that. However, the mayor did err from a political stance when he stated his intentions to "grow a Christian community", as his (selfish?) intentions are now out in the open for the voters to scrutinize, and hopefully reject when reelection time comes around.
Rob makes a great side point with his comment about President Obama's endorsement of Pastor Rick Warren at his inauguration. While this caused some political backlash at the time, it was mainly because of Warren's stance on gay rights - NOT because of the representation of the Christian faith at a secular political event. I feel that we should take all politicians to task (from mayor to president) when it comes to their attempting to involving their personal religious beliefs at public, political events.
Post a Comment