The marriage of church and state
With the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett as Supreme concept of Separation of Church and State proves to have COMMENTARY BY CRISTEL CANTARERO, STAFF WRITER
F
OLLOWING the passing of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s in September 2020, President Donald Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett for the newly open Supreme Court Justice position. As with most nominations, a great part of the country celebrated this decision while another strongly opposed it. Concerns over the newly nominated justice’s abilities to separate her religious beliefs from her rulings arose — and with good reason. The Separation of Church and State was established to prevent the government from ruling and passing laws in favor of any religion. Unfortunately, it is no secret that Christian teachings are advertised by influential politicians. Although there is no problem with exercising one’s freedom of religion, the power held by these high-status government officials obstructs the representation of those with differing religious and cultural beliefs. Christianity, time after time, continues to be a part of policymaking, its values being forced upon U.S. citizens despite changing beliefs. The recent political atmosphere in the United States, including Barrett’s nomination, has clearly demonstrated how this “separation” has been ignored in selecting her as justice primarily for her religious beliefs. Barrett is an established conservative w h o s e selection has everything to do with how she implements Alexandra Torres/ highlights her religion in her political decisions. During nomination, President Trump chose to overlook an important aspect: her judicial history and political position on the rights of marginalized people. Barrett has ties to the religious organization People of Praise. According to the Associated Press, Barrett’s father was the principal leader of People of Praise and her mother was an
16 opinion
active member. This organization is known to have expelled members for identifying with the LGBTQ+ community. Craig Lent, the head of People of Praise, told the South Bend Tribune that members who did not acknowledge the LGBTQ+ community as “ongoing, deliberate, unrepentant wrongdoing” would be removed from the group. Although Barrett claimed during her second confirmation hearing that she never has or would discriminate against anyone because of their sexual preference, People of Praise i s the religious environment she was brought up in and whose beliefs she has not publicly denied following. The New York Times acquired a membership directory of People of Praise in which she was listed as “handmaid,” or community advisor, for the group’s geographical divisions. Unsurprisingly in 2015, Barrett signed the “Letter to Synod Fathers from Catholic Women,” which states that “marriage and family founded on the indissoluble commitment of a man
on Roe vs. Wade and whether she agreed with late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion that legalizing gay marriage was wrong. Barrett fails to be transparent about where she stands about controversial issues, therefore it is no surprise that members of the LGBTQ+ community are afraid of what her confirmation as Supreme Court justice means when their rights are in question. During her confirmation, Barrett used the term “sexual preference” to describe sexual orientation. Senator Maize Hirono contended that this phrase is used against the LGBTQ+ community to infer that sexual orientation is a choice. It is understandable how Barrett’s lack of knowledge about communities outside of her own beliefs raises concerns about how qualified she is to serve as a justice that represents an entire nation. “I think she is ill-informed and needs a very patient person from the LGBTQ+ community to educate her so she does not continue to make ignorant comments,” senior and member of the LGBTQ+ community Julia Illanes said. In 2006, Judge Barret told the graduates of the University of Notre Dame that they should view their legal careers “as but a means to an end ... and that end is building the Kingdom of God.” Barret’s advice is not only a clear indicator that she rules with her faith, but also demonstrates her desire for others pursuing legal careers to do the same. This is dangerous for the American people because not every American shares the same beliefs, and if all Christian
Sharon Florez/ highlights
and a woman provide sure guide to the Christian life.” This, along with her hesitance to answer questions regarding her stance on LGBTQ+ rights during her confirmation hearings, raises the concern of where she stands on the matter. During her second confirmation hearing, she refused to answer if she had any agenda
practitioners began ruling with their faith, then the American people would have to conform to teachings they do not necessarily follow. As the U.S.’s highest judicial entity, being appointed as a Supreme Court justice is a great honor, therefore candidates must prepare thoroughly for questions regarding the U.S. Constitution. However, during her
