In Wausau, Wisconsin, a woman was just convicted of negligent homicide. She and her husband and her prayer group did not seek medical help while her ll-year-old daughter lay dying . . . until it was too late. The woman's husband, who is scheduled in July to face trial on the same charges, decried the verdict and claimed this meant the end of freedom of religion in America. He says he'll appeal the case all the way to the US Supreme Court if necessary.
Here's a small news flash: the man is wrong. Freedom of religion has not died in America. In America, anyone is free to believe--or not--as s/he wishes. What anyone is NOT free to do is to endanger someone else's life while acting out those beliefs. There exist an uncounted number of Supreme Court decisions over the decades which establish that. The most famous case, the first one taught to law school freshmen, is the infamous "snake-handling" case. A particular stripe of fundamentalist Christians believed that handling poisonous snakes was a necessary part of their religious service, a demonstration of their faith that God would not let them suffer harm. The Supremes said the believers were perfectly free to believe that handling poisonous snakes was a necessary demonstration of their faith, but they were not free to do it. For one thing, children were present. For another, the snakes could escape and put non-believers at risk. Not to mention the risks to any medical personnel who would be called to the scene if a church member were, in fact, bitten.
In short, the Court determined that there was a larger, overriding public good in preventing the church members from putting their beliefs into action. They were still free to hold their beliefs; they just were not free to endanger themselves or others to act them out.
What appals me most about this Wisconsin case is that any attorney would raise the smokescreen of "freedom of religion" as a defense. It has been thoroughly repudiated by an unbroken string of Supreme Court precedents. Yes, every defendant is entitled to make the state prove its case. Yes, every defendant is entitled to the most zealous representation possible. But to take money for using such a thoroughly rejected argument borders on the unethical. Once again, the attorneys are unclear on the concept. "Zealous representation" is NOT the same as "going along with whatever your client says s/he wants." Sometimes, "zealous representation" means making the realities of the situation plain to the client, and working out the best possible plea bargain.
Still, I shouldn't be surprised that so much fuzzy thinking is still going on in the world of the law. After all, the governors of several states are suddenly talking about secession again. Excuse me for throwing water on you, governors, but the Civil War established once and for all time that secession is not an option in the American system of government. You lost. One-hundred-and-fifty years ago. Get over it, already!
But why do I waste my electronic ink pointing out such obvious truths? I keep hoping that reason and rationality will win the day. However, there are too many people out there who do not want to be confused with the facts, as they have already made up their minds. I understand from the published quotes of several Republican politicians and fund-raisers that they've already put together a package condemning whomever President Obama nominates to replace retiring Supreme Court Associate Justice David Souter. They're just waiting to fill in the name.
If that's a joke, it's not funny--for any number of reasons. Despite the oblique reference to Groucho Marx in Horse Feathers ("Whatever it is, I'm against it!"), it's not funny. Despite the ludicrous implication that everyone Obama nominates will have the identical and specific set of negatives to expose, it's not funny. Despite that fact that it makes a mockery of the US Senate's duty to investigate and confirm (or reject) presidential nominees, it's not funny. Despite the fact that the GOP claim to be ready to do battle was said with a perfectly straight face, it's not funny.
Then again, these are the same people who think they lost last November because the GOP was not far enough to the right. They've completely lost sight of reality. Reality is that no one who cannot attract moderate and independent voters can win a national election in this day and age.
So the GOP is flushing itself down the proverbial toilet. But that's not funny, either. That the party of Lincoln has sunk to this is just plain sad.
No comments:
Post a Comment