[Following is the ‘dear colleague’ letter delivered last night (Thursday) to each member of the U.S. Senate by Sens. Leahy and Durbin on the dangers of injecting religion into the judicial nominations process.  Below that are remarks of participants at this week’s forum on this issue, featuring religious leaders from the Interfaith Alliance, an umbrella organization of 65 religious faiths.  And below that is the proposed Senate rules change, introduced Thursday by Leahy and Durbin, to bar inquiries to nominees, at confirmation hearings, about their religious affiliations.] 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

July 31, 2003

Dear Colleague:

As we all know, a line was crossed recently when the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee asked a judicial nominee his religious affiliation – over the bipartisan objections of other Senators present – at an official confirmation hearing.  This injection of religion into the judicial confirmation process – unprecedented, at least in modern times -- was then used to set the stage for religious attacks against Members of the Senate in paid ads produced by an outside advocacy group.

Senators differ on the merits of the nomination of William Pryor to be a judge on the 11^th Circuit Court of Appeals, but we hope there can be universal agreement that the introduction of religion into such debates is not only wrong but also harmful to the Senate, to the independence of the federal judiciary, and to the people we represent.

The Interfaith Alliance this week on Capitol Hill convened a forum of religious leaders to offer their guidance to the Senate as we negotiate these contentious and dangerous shoals.  The Interfaith Alliance is a nonpartisan umbrella organization representing 65 religious faiths.  It is a clergy-led, grassroots organization dedicated to promoting the positive, healing role of faith in civic life, and to challenging intolerance and extremism.

Attached is a compilation of the cogent and timely guidance offered by forum participants, who included representatives from a variety of faiths, from Catholic to Protestant to Jewish.  We commend their observations and counsel on this important topic to the attention of each of our colleagues.

Sincerely,

PATRICK LEAHY
United States Senator

RICHARD DURBIN
United States Senator

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Remarks Of Forum Participants

_________

The Forum To Discuss The Recent Injection Of Religion

Into The Judicial Nominations Process

Tuesday, July 29, 2003
Dirksen Senate Office Building

Capitol Hill

Washington, D.C.

____________

Participants:  Leaders Of The Interfaith Alliance –

The Rev. C. Welton Gaddy

                                                Rabbi Jack Moline

                                                Father Robert Drinan

                                                The Rev. Carlton Veazey

                                                The Right Rev. Jane Holmes Dixon

Senator Patrick Leahy

Senator Richard Durbin

____________

SENATOR LEAHY:  First I want to thank everybody who has come here today, and I certainly appreciate so much the religious leaders who have really come together and united on one thing, to condemn the injection of religious smears into the judicial nomination process. 

Partisan political groups have used religious intolerance and bigotry to raise money and to publish and broadcast dishonest ads that falsely accuse Democratic senators of being anti-Catholic.  I cannot think of anything in my 29 years in the Senate that has angered me or upset me so much as this.  One recent Sunday I emerged from Mass to learn later that one of these advocates had been on C-SPAN at the same time that morning to brand me an anti-Christian bigot. 

Now, as an American of Irish and Italian heritage, I remember my parents talking about days I thought were long past, when Irish Catholics were greeted with signs that told them they did not need apply for jobs.  Italians were told that Americans did not want them or their religious ways.  This is what my parents saw, and a time that they lived to see be long passed.  And my parents, rest their souls, thought this time was long past, because it was a horrible part of U.S. history, and it mocks the pain -- the smears we see today mock the pain and injustice of what so many American Catholics went through at that time.  These partisan hate groups rekindle that divisiveness by digging up past intolerances and breathing life into that shameful history, and they do it for short-term political gains.  They want to subvert the very constitutional process designed to protect all Americans from prejudice and injustice. 

It is saddening, and it’s an affront to the Senate as well as to so many, when we see senators sit silent when they are invited to disavow these abuses.  These smears are lies, and like all lies they depend on the silence of others to live, and to gain root.  It is time for the silence to end.  The Administration has to accept responsibility for the smear campaign; the process starts with the President.  We would not see this stark divisiveness if the President would seek to unite, instead of to divide, the American people and the Senate with his choices for the federal courts.  And those senators who join in this kind of a religion smear: they may do it to chill debate on whether Mr. Pryor can be a fair and impartial judge, but they do far more.  They hurt the whole country.  They hurt Christians and non-Christians.  They hurt believers and non-believers.  They hurt all of us, because the Constitution requires judges to apply the law, not their political views, and instead they try to subvert the Constitution.  And remember, all of us, no matter what our faith -- and I’m proud of mine — no matter what our faith, we are able to practice it, or none if we want, because of the Constitution.  All of us ought to understand that the Constitution is there to protect us, and it is the protection of the Constitution that has seen this country evolve into a tolerant country.  And those who would try to put it back, for short-term political gains, subvert the Constitution, and they damage the country.

Now this nominee, Mr. Pryor, is an active politician.  He has been particularly active on several political issues that divide Americans.  And this administration has acknowledged that it selects nominees on the basis of their ideologies.  So when this or other nominees are asked about their views and statements, whether it’s about Roe v. Wade or the flawed administration of the death penalty, they are being asked legitimate questions that the White House itself has already considered in their selection.  Senators of course have an equal right to inform themselves about their ideologies.  And those senators do us all a disservice, they do a disservice to this great and wonderful institution, when they charge that there is a religious test for nominees.  The record itself refutes that.  Democratic senators have joined in confirming 140 of President Bush’s judicial nominees.  Now you’d have to guess that most of these nominees, chosen by President Bush and confirmed by Democratic senators, have been Republicans.  Most, presumably, share the Administration’s right-to-life philosophy.  No doubt, a large number of the 140 are Christians, and of course, we would have to assume some are Catholics. 

I appreciated Senator Durbin’s courage when he spoke the truth about these falsehoods, and I appreciate the courage of the religious leaders we will hear from today, and I welcome Reverend Dr. Welton Gaddy, the president of The Interfaith Alliance.  The Alliance has stood up on important legal issues on behalf of Americans of many different faiths.  Remember, as Americans, this is one of the things that makes us free and the nation that we are—the diversity that comes from our various religious beliefs.  The First Amendment encompasses so many different things: the freedom of speech, the freedom to practice any religion you want, or none if you want.  We are not a theocracy, we are a democracy.  And because we are a democracy, all of us, especially those who may practice a minority religion, get a chance to practice it.  I’m glad to see Father Drinan here.  Father Drinan is a professor of law at Georgetown and has been a member of Congress, but more importantly than that he has been a friend of mine since I was a teenager.  We first met when I was a college student, and we talked about the fact that I wanted to go to law school.  And we’re fortunate to have with us today the Reverend Carlton Veazey, and the Right Reverend Jane Holmes Dixon, retired Episcopal Bishop from Washington National Cathedral.  And the Bishop has told me she now has a son in Vermont.  I admired her before, and I admire her even more now, for that.  And Rabbi Jack Moline of Northern Virginia has joined us.  So Reverend, why don’t I turn it over to you now.

THE REV. C. WELTON GADDY:  Welcome to this Press and Hill Staff Briefing.  My name is Welton Gaddy.  I serve as President of The Interfaith Alliance, a national, grassroots, non-partisan, faith-based organization of 150,000 members who come from over 65 different religious traditions.  The Interfaith Alliance promotes the positive and healing role of religion in public life and challenges all who seek to manipulate or otherwise abuse religion for sectarian or partisan political purposes.

Last Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee’s discussion on William Pryor’s nomination to the 11^th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta deteriorated into a dramatic demonstration of the inappropriate intermingling of religion and politics that raised serious concerns about the constitutionally guaranteed separation of the institutions of religion and government.  Such a meshing of religion and politics in the rhetoric of the Senate Judiciary Committee cheapens religion and diminishes the recognized authority of the Committee to speak on matters of constitutionality.  The debate of that day, though alarming and disturbing, has created a teachable moment in which we will do well to look again at the appropriate role of religion in such a debate.  That is why we are here this morning.

Religion plays a vital role in the life of our nation.  Many people enter politics motivated by religious convictions regarding the importance of public service.  Religious values inform an appropriate patriotism and inspire political action.  But a person’s religious identity should stand outside the purview of inquiry related to a judicial nominee’s suitability for confirmation.  The Constitution is clear:  There shall be no religious test for public service. 

Within a partisan political debate, it is out of bounds for anyone to pursue a strategy of establishing the religious identity of a judicial nominee to create divisive partisanship.  That, too, is an egregious misuse of religion and a violation of the spirit of the Constitution.  Even to hint that a judiciary committee member’s opposition to a judicial nomination is based on the nominee’s religion is cause for alarm.  How did we get here?

In recent years, some religious as well as political leaders have advanced the theory that the authenticity of a person’s religion can be determined by that person’s support for a specific social-political agenda.  So severe has been the application of this approach to defining religious integrity that divergence from an endorsement of any one issue or set of issues can lead to charges of one not being a “good” person of faith. 

The relevance of religion to deliberations of the Judiciary Committee should be twofold: One, a concern that every judicial nominee embraces by word and example the religious liberty clause in the constitution that protects the rich religious pluralism that characterizes this nation and, two, a concern that no candidate for the judiciary embraces an intention of using that position to establish a particular religion or religious doctrine.  In other words the issue is not religion but the Constitution.  Religion is a matter of concern only as it relates to support for the Constitution.

Make no mistake about it, there are people in this nation who would use the structures of government to establish their particular religion as the official religion of the nation.  There are those who would use the legislative and judicial processes to turn the social-moral agenda of their personal sectarian commitment into the general law of the land.  The Senate Judiciary Committee has an obligation to serve as a watchdog that sounds no uncertain warning when such a philosophy seeks endorsement within the judiciary.

It is wrong to establish the identity of a person’s religion as a strategy for advancing or defeating that person’s nomination for a judgeship.  However, it is permissible, even obligatory, to inquire about how a person’s religion impacts that person’s decisions about upholding the Constitution and evaluating legislation.  When a candidate for a federal bench has said, as did the candidate under consideration last Wednesday, in an address in the town in which I pastor, “our political system seems to have lost God” and declares that the “political system must remain rooted in a Judeo-Christian perspective of the nature of government and the nature of man,” there is plenty for this Committee to question.

Every candidate coming before this Committee should be guaranteed confirmation or disqualification apart from the candidate’s religious identity as a Baptist, a Catholic, a Buddhist or a person without religious identification.  What is important here is a candidate’s pledge to defend the Constitution.  And, that pledge should be buttressed by a record of words and actions aimed not at attacking the very religious pluralism that the candidate is being asked to defend but rather to continuing a commitment to the highest law of the land.

I felt grimy after listening to distinctions between a “good Catholic” and a “bad Catholic.”  I know that language; I heard it in the church of my childhood where we defined a “good Baptist” as one who tithed to the church, didn’t smoke, didn’t dance and attended church meetings on Sunday evening and a “bad Baptist” as one who didn’t fit that profile.  The distinctions had nothing to do with the essence of the Christian tradition and the content of Baptist principles.  It is not a debate that is appropriate or necessary in the Chamber of the United States Senate.

The United States is the most religiously pluralistic nation on earth.  The Interfaith Alliance speaks regularly in commendation of “One Nation—Many Faiths.”  For the sake of the stability of this nation, the vitality of religion in this nation, and the integrity of the Constitution, we have to get this matter right.  Yes, religion is important.  Discussions of religion are not out of place in the judiciary committee or any public office.  But evaluations of candidates for public office on the basis of religion are wrong and there should be no question that considerations of candidates who would alter the political landscape of America by using the judiciary to turn sectarian values into public laws should end in rejection.

The crucial line of questioning should revolve not around the issue of the candidate’s personal religion but of the candidate’s support for this nation’s vision of the role of religion.  If the door to the judiciary must have a sign posted on it, let the sign read that those who would pursue the development of a nation opposed to religion or committed to a theocracy rather than a democracy need not apply.

In 1960, then presidential candidate John F. Kennedy addressed the specific matter of Catholicism with surgical precision and political wisdom, stating that the issue was not what kind of church he believed in but what kind of America he believed in.  John F. Kennedy left no doubt about that belief: “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute.”  Kennedy pledged to address issues of conscience out of a focus on the national interest not out of adherence to the dictates of one religion.  He confessed that if at any point a conflict arose between his responsibility to defend the Constitution and the dictates of his religion, he would resign from public office.  No less a commitment to religious liberty should be acceptable by any judicial nominee or by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee who recommend for confirmation to the bench persons charged with defending the Constitution.   

We have an impressive group of religious leaders here to address various issues relating to this topic.  Also, another member of the Senate Judiciary Committee has joined us, Senator Durbin, and I wanted to say, as I recognize him for some comments, Senator how grateful we are, not only for your words in session on this committee, but for the tireless work you’ve done on charitable choice legislation.

SENATOR DURBIN:  Thank you very much, and I appreciate those who have gathered this morning to address this very timely and very important issue.

It has been written that patriotism is the refuge of scoundrels.  As of last week, we learned that religion is now the refuge of extremists.  Those who are bringing us candidates who cannot stand on their own feet when it comes to their political positions, are now saying that hard questions about their politics are actually some sort of criticism about their religious belief.  I have said publicly and privately to Senator Hatch, this has to end immediately.

Americans should understand that a person’s religion, as the Constitution requires, should never be a qualification for public office.  I am going to join Senator Leahy in offering an amendment to the Senate Judiciary Committee which states categorically that no witness or nominee can ever be asked their religion during the course of a committee hearing.  I think we have crossed a line which is extremely sad, and watching last week as several of my colleagues came forward to explain Catholic doctrine was quite a treat, Father Drinan, to have my colleagues who are proud members of the Church of Christ, the Methodist Church, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, to explain to me what a “good Catholic” believes, was troubling.  I think that that kind of conversation has no place in the public marketplace, and that Senator Leahy has led us in this committee, from the beginning objecting to this line of questioning, and we should put down the rule, hard and fast, once and for all, that whether the person who is inspiring this, Mr. Boyden Gray, in his scurrilous advertising campaign, or members of the United States Senate, who would seek to exploit the issue of religion to somehow justify the extremist views of their nominees: whoever the person is, they have no place in this important public debate. 

I am a person of the Catholic faith.  I was raised in that religion.  I continue to go to Mass, to sometimes debate my church over issues.  I believe that’s my responsibility and my personal situation.  I don’t believe that should be part of the public debate, but my position on the issues might be, and for some of the senators to come forward and say, anytime a religious belief somehow reaches over into a political area it’s out of bounds, you can’t ask questions, well that’s just plain wrong.  If you happen to be a person who is of the Jewish religion, who keeps kosher in observance of religious belief, that is certainly your right to do and has little relevance to the political debate.  But the position of a person on the death penalty, whether they’re Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, nonbeliever, whatever their denomination, that certainly does have relevance to the national debate, and to say that we’re not going to ask those questions because they somehow cross the line into religious belief, is to disqualify this committee from even considering the most important political issues.  We can’t let that happen.

I’m proud of the fact that I have nominated many judges of my own state, and that I have never used a litmus test on any of those judicial nominees.  Though I am pro-choice in my belief when it comes to votes on the issues before us, I have successfully nominated, and seen appointed, pro-life judges in my state, and I believe then as I do now that the fact that that’s part of their religious belief is irrelevant.  I hope that what we are saying and what we are talking about today is heard by members of the entire Senate, and I hope that we will adopt this rules change to say once and for all that we will not return to the shabby episode that we saw played out in the Senate Judiciary Committee last week.

REV. GADDY:  Senator Leahy has already introduced the members of the panel who will come and speak now; I will simply recognize them.  Rabbi Jack Moline.

RABBI JACK MOLINE:  I am Rabbi Jack Moline, vice-chair at-large of the Interfaith Alliance.  I am also on the back end of a summer cold, so I apologize for the huskiness of my voice.

The “Father of our Country,” George Washington, was a surveyor by trade.  Part of his duties included the determination of exactly where the property of one owner left off and the other owner began.  You might wonder what possible difference a few inches, even a few feet in either direction would make to a farmer with acres of land.  But Washington knew as we all know that crops do not grow only in the center of a field, and that cattle do not graze only a distance from the fence, and that injuries do not always occur close to the barn.  Good surveying produces good boundaries.  And good boundaries keep good neighbors from unnecessary conflict.

As a rabbi, I have studied similar boundary issues in the Talmud.  Entire sections are taken up discussing the boundaries between properties, between businesses, between Sabbath and weekdays, between the holy and the profane.  Violating those boundaries throws a system into turmoil.  Preserving them avoids unnecessary conflict.

We Americans have become experts in testing boundaries.  You can make your own list of the boundaries we have tried to survey, and where we have been successful and where we have not.  In culture, in business, in public policy and in politics, the lines that separate one domain from another have been confronted by those who wish to preserve them and by those who wish to redraw them.

When the Bill of Rights of our Constitution established what Thomas Jefferson wisely called the wall of separation between church and state, it created a two-hundred-year-old tradition of surveying that boundary, trying to find the exact place to keep good neighbors from unnecessary conflict.

The Senate Judiciary Committee failed in their latest attempt last week when Alabama Attorney General William Pryor, nominee for a federal judgeship, was asked by a supporting Senator about his religious affiliation.  The result, as you have seen, was an unnecessary conflict between good neighbors.  In fact, we are counting our blessings that the Capitol Police were not called to intervene in the ensuing arguments.

The religious beliefs of a nominee are relevant only to the extent that they interfere with his or her ability to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.  Frankly, I would be alarmed to see the influences of religious conviction expunged from any aspect of American government.  And I think it is entirely relevant to ask any candidate for the executive, legislative or judiciary if personal convictions would interfere with the ability to support and defend the Constitution and its resultant laws as they exist today.

Frankly, that is the relevant question – not a question of affiliation.  Do the values, beliefs or proclivities that Mr. Pryor or anybody else holds prevent him from meeting the responsibilities of the office.?  The question is about his beliefs and no one else’s.  By affixing a label to the question and generalizing the issue, the legitimate business of the Senate Judiciary Committee was catapulted onto the other side of that carefully surveyed boundary.  And lest you think the fault lies only on one side, the subsequent responses of opposing senators are a good indication of the reason we rely on articulated rules in our society and not good will.

It is time to return to the tradition of Washington and Jefferson and survey again that necessary boundary.  And once it has been reestablished, then it behooves both the Senators and the nominees they examine to respect the values on which this country was founded.

REV. GADDY:  Now I’ll recognize Father Robert Drinan.

FATHER ROBERT DRINAN:  In the Constitution of Massachusetts there’s a beautiful sentence about how judges are supposed to be picked.  Judges shall be selected from those “who are as impartial as the lot of humanity will allow.”  Isn’t that a nice theological thing; we’re all corrupted, “as the lot of humanity will allow.”  And in the Constitution of the United States, there’s only one reference to religion, and it’s very pertinent this morning, Article Six says “No religious test shall ever be applied for public office.” 

Consequently, when we’re thinking about what we are trying to decide or think about in the Senate, we must remember the shades of Justice Brandeis.  You recall that his confirmation was delayed, they never said openly that he would be the first Jew but it was always there, and I said with shame as a leader of the American Bar Association that the ABA opposed Justice Brandeis, and underneath, it was his religion.

I have here the full hearing on this man who desires to be a judge, and if you read it in full you’d say that the Senate is fully entitled to exercise its constitutional privilege.  They have to give advice and consent.  Advice and consent.  They have broad discretion.  And if they think he wouldn’t be impartial, that he wouldn’t be a good judge, they are fully entitled to say no.  And during the centuries the Senate has said no to too many of the president’s nominees. 

What shall we say about this individual?  You can read it for yourself.  He lacks judicial temperament, in my view.  He’s so scalding and so one-sided.  He believes in school prayer.  He called the Supreme Court “nine octogenarian lawyers,” and at 41 he’s a hard-charging conservative activist, and the senators are quite able, under their powers, to say “we don’t think that he is appropriate.”  Mr. Pryor is negative on Section Five of the Voting Rights Act, and has clashed with the Justice Department, so let’s take a hypo.  Law professors love hypos.  Suppose there was a group of Catholics and non-Catholics in this country, who would say that Mr. Pryor is very much in favor of the death penalty and that comes from his religion.  Well, it wouldn’t be on solid ground, because the Pope has opposed the death penalty, the Catholic catechism and the Catholic bishops with unusual activity and vigor have opposed the death penalty in any form.

Mr. Pryor defies all of that.  Should we say he’s a bad Catholic?  And I would say that if people use that and his faith saying that he’s defying the Church, that would not be an appropriate reason to vote no.  They have to vote yes or no according to what the Constitution says, and it seems to me that the Senate has many, many reasons to say that this individual is not ready or he’s not appropriate.  They could easily find, they could easily say, in the words of the Massachusetts Constitution, that he is not ‘as impartial as the lot of humanity will allow.’

REV. GADDY:  Now Reverend Carton Veazey.

THE REV. CARLTON VEAZEY:  Thank you, Dr. Gaddy.  Thank you also, Senator Durbin and Senator Leahy, for sharing this time.  I’m Reverend Carlton Veazey, President of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, founded in 1973 as a result of the Roe v. Wade decision.  We have over forty religious organizations and denominations in our coalition.  We represent over 20 million people.  But I’m not here to talk about choice.  I’m here to talk about religious freedom.  Because that is the issue, and that is what we in the coalition strongly believe.  Because we are diverse, and all of our denominations, we all agree on a woman’s right to choose, but we also understand that we have different theological positions as relates to that issue, and that is the strength of our coalition. 

The Religious Coalition was founded 30 years ago.  Men of faith, and who are pro-faith, we work together in harmony because we respect each other’s beliefs.  We don’t hold the same view about abortion rights, but we all agree that this is a matter of conscience and belief.  In this pluralistic nation, we agree to respect different views and decisions.  The nominee’s pronouncements on reproductive choice show no understanding of the pluralism that makes this nation great.  He’s not unqualified for the bench because of his religion, but because of some views that he lacks judicial temperament, and it’s shown he would impose his personal views regardless of the law, and does not respect the basic principle of religious freedom on which this nation was founded. 

Conservatives are arguing that there is a religious litmus test about abortion rights and that determines who gets appointed and who does not.  That’s nonsense.  There is no correct position.  Catholics and people of all religions have different views on abortion, as the organization Catholics for Free Choice, which is a part of our coalition.  Many Catholics disagree with the church’s stance, and many Catholics practice birth control and have abortions.  But the main thing is to understand that religion has no place in making this decision.  These senators, who have tried so courageously to protect that, to protect us from becoming a theocratic government, to protect us from just one view.

Catholics today have the freedom to exercise prudential judgment, and to decide how best to interpret the range of teachings and principles contained in the Catholic canon, as Father Drinan pointed out.  Thus some Catholics believe that abortion, while a serious moral issue, should not be illegal, while others believe that the taking of human life in war or capital punishment is morally evincible, in spite of Papal pronouncements against both. 

I was interested in Dr. Gaddy when he talked about Baptists.  I’m a Baptist; I was trying to measure myself up and see what kind of Baptist.  I have become a better Baptist since the time that you were talking about them.  But the thing is, that there is no “good Baptist” or “bad Baptist.”  There is no “Baptist position.”  There’s no “Baptist position.”  That’s why you have, and I respect them for what they believe, but on the other hand that’s not my position.  I am not a Southern Baptist.  Sometimes I don’t know if I’m a Northern Baptist.  Because the basic principle and tenet of the Baptist faith is that we have autonomy to believe in the way we understand God and understand our religious principles.  So what I’m saying today is that simply, as it’s been stated before, that no- one should have a litmus test on their religion.  I think he should be judged on his qualifications or her qualifications, and that alone.  So the Religious Coalition wanted to come and to stand with you, to say that we also believe that you are doing the courageous thing and protecting religious freedom in our country.  Thank you very much.

REV. GADDY:  The retired Bishop Pro Tempore of the Episcopal Diocese in Washington is also one who has served as chair of the board of The Interfaith Alliance, Bishop Jane Holmes Dixon, we are eager to hear you.

THE RIGHT REV. JANE HOLMES DIXON:  Good morning. It is a pleasure to be here with all of you this morning. I am the Right Reverend Jane Holmes Dixon, Immediate Past President of The Interfaith Alliance and the recently retired Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, Pro tempore.

Before I begin my remarks, I would like to thank Senator Leahy for understanding the grave importance of why this discussion today is not only crucial for the future of the judicial nominations process, but in fact, a necessary reflection on the state of our democracy for all of us gathered here: (pause briefly, then list) religious leaders, elected officials, those who seek to serve the nation by entering into civil service, and finally, the countless people of this nation who are brought up to believe that any citizen, no matter what your gender, race or religion, will have an equal opportunity to serve this country, and will have the right to be treated equally under the law.  The First Amendment of our Constitution – through its wise and steadfast guarantee that the government of the United States shall make no law to establish a religion and guarantees that it will not interfere with the free exercise of religion– expects nothing less than the religious freedom and liberty that this provides.

I believe that I speak for many when I say that last week’s hearing of Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor did not reflect well on the religious health of our nation and the guarantees of our Constitution.

Last week’s hearing, a hearing that put on the record certain Senators defining what is true Catholicism -- including even references to Rome --  and other Senators having to defend their opposition to a nominee against charges of being anti-Catholic --was nothing short of a travesty and a major step back for interfaith relations in this nation. This becomes more troubling given the fact that there are indeed Roman Catholics on this committee who, according to their own remarks before the committee, consider themselves to be devout.

Not only must those who are nominated to become judges respect religious pluralism, equally important, those who are charged with confirming judges must respect the fact that within denominations there remains a wide spectrum of people who all hold varied beliefs. And they are all equally worthy of respect.

Senators do have an obligation to determine whether a judicial nominee will in fact respect those of all religious beliefs and those citizens amongst us who practice no religion at all. It is fair to ascertain whether a nominee will deliver justice based upon the Constitution of the United States – a document that unites us all and binds us together under a common law – or religious doctrine and sacred texts that were written for those who specifically subscribe to one religious tenet over another. This becomes more necessary when a nominee or his or her supporters take the unfortunate and even dangerous step of couching the nominee’s positions on law and justice in terms of abiding by one faith tradition over another. 

(By Sens. Leahy and Durbin) –

 

RESOLUTION              

            Amending the Standing Rules of the Senate to provide that it is not in order in a committee to ask questions regarding a presidential nominee’s religious affiliation.

            Resolved,  That rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate is amended by adding at the end of the following:

            “14. In any proceeding of a committee considering a nomination made by the President of the United States to the Senate, it shall not be in order to ask any question of the nominee relating to the religious affiliation of the nominee.”