Does Congress really apply the Establishment Clause to itself?

As I mentioned in my last post, I was recently on a tour of the Congress with a group Europeans and Americans during my LSE class reunion. We had a fun time listening to the House Republicans talk about energy policy, and I'm sure the Europeans enjoyed listening to the complex and well-informed rhetoric coming from the House floor that day. (Yes, I am being sarcastic.) However, the thing that really mystified some of them was the opening prayer.

Sure, what we saw was not an official session of Congress. However, it is true that every regular business day in the Congress is opened with a prayer from the House and Senate chaplains. This has been the case since 1789. After leaving the chambers, my European friends were wondering how a prayer is permissible given that separation of church and state is part of the US Constitution. Doesn't this act violate the first amendment?

The easy answer is that while the US purports to uphold the principle of separation of church and state, our government violates it frequently. Let's not forget that public officials are sworn in on a bible or other type of religious book, our money has "in god we trust" written on it, and the public school children recite the line "one nation under god" during the pledge of allegiance each morning. (Interesting to note - that line was not in the original pledge of allegiance adopted in 1892 but was added by Congress during the Eisenhower administration in 1954. "In god we trust" was also not put on U.S. currency until around the same time). And being a non-theist means 50% of Americans would not even consider voting for you, no matter how qualified you are. So much for the "no religious test" clause of the Constitution.

(Some of my friends claimed that being too openly religious would not get you elected in their home countries. How ironic that while many European countries still have official state religions, they are in practice some of the most secular, non-religious countries in the world?)

After our tour, I did a little research on the topic of the Congressional prayer. In 1983, the Supreme Court took up this question of opening prayers during legislative sessions in March v. Chambers. The Court ruled to permit this practice under the Constitution, However, the majority decision was based mostly on the history and tradition of allowing opening prayers in Congress. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Burger wrote:

In light of the unambiguous and unbroken history of more then 200 years, there can be no doubt that the practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer has become part of the fabric of our society. To invoke Divine guidance on a public body entrusted with making laws is not, in these circumstances, an "establishment" or a step toward establishment; it is simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country.

This seems like a pretty weak argument to me, especially considering we're talking about a Constitutional issue and not a question of what is a desirable policy. As Brennen's minority opinion points out, the majority did not apply the commonly used "Lemon test" on issues dealing with religion. (If they did it surely would have failed.) The phrase "tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country" smacks of majority rule trumping minority rights, the very thing the Bill of Rights was supposed to ensure against. One could easily argue that many traditional were once a part of the "fabric of our society" and "widely held" beliefs, such as slavery, racial inequality, women not voting, etc. An institution of the federal government officially invoking "divine guidance" every day is state endorsement of religion, IMHO.

So what about the argument that participating in the Congressional opening prayer is voluntary? This was indeed the point that our more conservative tour guide made. No one is forced to participate in the prayer. I personally had my head up and eyes open during the recitation at our tour. I did a little more research and found out that in 2000, the US Supreme Court ruled in Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe that even voluntary prayers led by an elected student chaplain at high school football games were unconstitutional. Justice Stevens made these remarks in his majority opinion for this case:

School sponsorship of a religious message is impermissible because it sends the ancillary message to members of the audience who are nonadherants "that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherants that they are insiders, favored members of the political community."

As an atheist and an American, I fully relate to these words. Take out the word "school" and insert "congressional" and think of the statement in relation to the voluntary prayer lead each session by the Congressional chaplains. (Chaplains who are employed by and paid by the federal government.) To me, interpretation implies that non-religious persons are outsiders, not "real" Americans and not full-fledged members of the American political systems. This is about as clear a case of discrimination and not upholding separation of church and state as I can think of.

Oh, wait. I forgot. Congress sometimes does not apply the very legislation it passes to itself. I guess the same must be true about the Constitution now. Silly me.

A fun time at the House of Representatives

This last Friday, as part of the organized activities for my LSE class reunion in DC, we had a tour of the U.S. Capitol. One of our DC classmates was able to get a staffer from the Republican House minority leader's office to be our guide. While I'd been in the Capitol a few times for work when I was with UNHCR, I had never visited as a tourist. The tour itself would have been a fun experience in and of itself. However, a couple of other aspects of the tour made it even more interesting.

Little did we know when we arranged the tour, but the House Republican energy bill protest was going on. Basically, a handful of the more conservative Republicans had decided to keep giving speeches about energy policy on the house floor during the August recess. The mikes were off, the C-SPAN cameras were dead, and the Democrats (and most of the other Republicans) were back in the their home districts campainging. But these Republicans wanted to put pressure on the Democrats to consider expanding U.S. off-shore drilling. Regardless of my problems with both the politics and ethics of this move, watching this "shadow session" for a few minutes was entertaining. And because Congress was not in session, all the tourists got to sit on the House floor, in the seats where Representatives usually sit. (Typically tourists must stay in an upper level gallery.)

Our LSE group was a mix of Americans and Europeans. The Europeans were pretty amused with the energy policy arguments, especially one individual who is a policy expert on energy and environmental issues. I would have liked to see him ask the Republicans a few questions. The level of discourse was very dumbed down (they were addressing tourists and not other Representatives) and it was actually a bit embarrassing for the Americans IMHO.

The best part of the energy speeches was Rep. Thelma Drake's (from the Norfolk area) justification for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). She claimed that she always envisioned ANWR as a "pristine" and "beautiful" place. However, after going there and seeing that it wasn't as pristine and beautiful as she imagined, she now thinks it's okay to drill there. So I guess that means our standards of environmental preservation should be based on what we think is "pretty." Who cares about fragile ecosystems, the food web, special preservation, etc.?The only thing that matters is whether people think it would look good on a postcard. I guess that means we should only worry about cute endangered species and not the ugly ones. This woman would have gotten reamed if she would have made this argument to anyone else but tired, sweaty tourists.

One aspect of the Republican speeches we witnessed that really confused the Europeans was the opening prayer. More on that in my next blog entry. I have to do a little more research before discussing that issue.

I love my LSE friends but being around them can sometimes depress me

Every once in a while you have one of those experiences that causes you to assess your life and re-examine where you've been and where you're going. This past week has been one of those times for me.

We had the 9th reunion here in DC for my Master's program at the London School of Economics. In the fall of 1998, myself and about 60 other people from around the world began a year-long program in Politics of the World Economy. I learned a lot that year, not just about world politics and economics, but about myself personally and what I wanted out of life. I also made a bunch of wonderful lifelong friends. Every year since we graduated in the summer of 1999, we've organized reunions in different cities internationally. I stayed away the first few years for a variety of reasons. This year in DC was only the second reunion I've attended. However, after so many years and so much distance, I still feel like I know these people as well as I did back in London.

However, for as much as everyone is the same in terms of their personalities, professionally everyone has naturally advanced quite far. I'm always so amazed by the accomplishments of my LSE cohort. Our group has some series intellectual capital. At the DC reunion alone, we had successful attorneys (both in government and the private sector), national government diplomats, International Organization bureaucrats and negotiators, policy and think tank experts, private finance big wigs, and business consultants coming from Brussels, London, DC, Rome, Oslo, and Amsterdam. It's not uncommon for people from our class to encouter each other in professional situations.

And then there's me. Still working on my Ph.D. dissertation. A dissertation I should have finished years ago. I think of my "career trajectory" post-LSE. I first moved back to Kansas for a few months while I applied to Ph.D. programs. Then I moved to Ohio to start the Ph.D. program at Ohio State. After two years I left the program and moved to DC. Worked in an entry-level position at a United Nations agency. Then I left the UN to re-start my Ph.D. at George Washington. Five years later I'm struggling to finish the dissertation. If I work hard and am real lucky, I will complete the Ph.D. a few months after I turn 34. If I don't go into academia, then I will be back on the job market, probably working for a think tank, non-profit or the federal government in a position at a level that most of my LSE collegeaues were at a decade ago. I will most likely have superiors 5 years younger than me. If I encouter any of my LSE classmates in professional settings, I might be the person assigned to get them coffee. (Okay, that may be a little extreme, but you get the picture.)

When I started the LSE almost 10 years ago, where did I think I would be a decade later? I can tell you it was no where near the position I am in now. I thought I would be a published university professor, a policy expert at a think tank, or an upward bound State Department official. Certainly not still a grad student sitting in front of her computer day after day trying to overcome a series case of writers block.

I guess the whole "who did you think you were going to be when you grew up" game is a bit unfair to play. Our lives never turn out the way we think they will. And I am very happy personally. But I still can't shake this feeling of professional failure every time I get together with my LSE friends. There's a constant cloud of "if I had only" that hangs over my mind. I think of all the different paths my life could have gone down and wonder if the one I have chosen professionally is really the one that will allow me to live up to my potential.

And then I get even more depressed when I realize we can't drink near as much as we used to back in London without serious hangovers! I really need a couple days of rest just to recover. Maybe then I won't be so melancholy.

Cosmopolitan' Institute Completes Decades-Long Study On How To Please Your Man

Just frakking awesome.


'Cosmopolitan' Institute Completes Decades-Long Study On How To Please Your Man

The best part is at the end when the male reporter asks "What is next? Maybe the sensual pleasures of women?" and both the female reporter and the female researcher just laugh. Awesome.

What do McMansions say about American culture?

This article in the Sunday Washington Post caught my eye - "The Dreams that Drive Us." It's a brief yet interesting overview of the interaction of the architecture of the American home and American culture over the past 100+ years. The author is a professor of architecture at Columbia who has a book about the history of American modern architecture.

My favorite part of the article is her comments about McMansions.

A McMansion is rife with contradictions. It's an exhibitionistic house, yet it's set far back from the street, with tall gates and security systems. These Hummer houses appeal to people who want a truly conspicuous display of wealth. They've given freedom of expression a new and rather disturbing meaning: the right to do whatever you want, to be totally self-absorbed. Which is where we are, for the most part, today.

I couldn't have said it better myself. What will people in 40-50 years think when they look at current residential architecture? I think of now how so many people are into mid-century architecture and covet designs from the 50s and 60s. I can't even imagine a similar movement in the future. I doubt there will ever be nostalgia for shoddy construction, garish ornamentation, and tasteless mixing of architectural styles. But who knows? Maybe McMansions will be "retro" gems in the future. Of course, to be nostalgic about McMansions, that would mean that residential architecture in the U.S. would have to come up with something worse than McMansions. I shudder at the thought.

Moonwalker reopens UFO files

I consider myself an open-minded skeptic when it comes to things like UFOs. I don't believe in them based on the evidence I've seen. However, I'm not completely closed off to the possibility that I will see evidence in the future that will convince me of their existence. That is why this tidbit about the believe in UFOs and alien visitations to earth by a respected Apollo astronaut intrigued me. Or maybe the X-Files marathon David and I are doing this summer has gotten to my head!

Moonwalker reopens UFO files - Cosmic Log - msnbc.com

Buffy Animated Series Pilot

I remember a couple of years back when Joss & Co. were developing an animated Buffy series. It never really got off the ground unfortunately. However, this short pilot recently surfaced on the internet. Just a tease of what might have been. I still miss Buffy so much!