The marriage of church and state

With the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett as Supreme Court justice, the once respected concept of Separation of Church and State proves to have always been an unattainable illusion

COMMENTARY BY CRISTEL CANTARERO, STAFF WRITER

Following 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 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 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

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 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 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.

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 third confirmation hearing, Barrett struggled to remember the first five freedoms granted by the First Amendment: basic civics knowledge that is required to pass the American citizenship test. This quickly raised concerns that she may be unqualified for the Supreme Court seat — one that requires her to protect citizen’s civil rights and liberties.

Barrett, a relatively new and inexperienced judge, was clearly not chosen for being remarkably knowledgeable on the Constitution. There is no denying that her religious stance played a significant role in her selection, as it would help accomplish a long-term goal of President Trump. During his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump vowed to appoint justices that would overturn Roe v. Wade, a Supreme Court decision that ruled that it was a woman’s right to have an abortion. So far, it can be said that that President Trump has nominated Barrett to meet his promise to the nation.

It seems the only qualifications Barrett has to be qualified as President Trump’s Supreme Court nomination is her alignment with Trump’s religious and political ideologies. Otherwise, Barrett would be considered unqualified and uneducated — not at all fit to be Supreme Court justice. She has served as a judge since only 2017, and until she was nominated by President Trump, she had never worked as a defense lawyer, solicitor general or a prosecutor, according to newsmagazine Mother Jones, all jobs that would prepare Barrett to defend civil rights, liberties and those seeking justice.

In 2018, The Atlantic wrote that “evangelical leaders across the country point to [Vice President Mike Pence’s] record on abortion and liken him to a prophet restoring conservative Christianity to its rightful place at the center of American life.” Christians are continuing to push to pass more Christian legislation, completely disregarding the aim of the separation of church and state.

“I feel like politicians just pull on the most attentive subject and sensitive topic, which is religion, just to get their identity as a candidate to matter and hopefully in this case be given the opportunity to be elected,” junior Saryá Erlyne Dany said.

Faith cannot continue being a consistent part of legislation because it promotes the discrimination of marginalized people, whether intentional or not. Already, LGBTQ+ members and women face enough discrimination. Whether or not the respective candidates are religious, citizens should not have their rights threatened by Christian beliefs.

Barrett’s nomination disrespects the honor held by the Supreme Court Justice title. The separation of church and state has been set aside to appeal to the majority Christian population in the United States, setting Christianity as superior to other religions, In matters of law, religion should stay a personal matter, not a public one, for the well-being and progression of this great nation.