A state judge just called out the U.S. Supreme Court for its attack on church-state separation

The attack on separation of church and state and secular government is led by Christian Nationalist organizations, but they have friends in high places – the White House, Congress, state legislatures and, sadly, the U.S. Supreme Court.

Under Chief Justice John G. Roberts, the court has steadily eroded the Establishment Clause, that part of the First Amendment that forbids laws “respecting an establishment of religion,” and warped the principle of religious free exercise beyond all recognition.

Law professors, scholars and legal writers have criticized this assault on what Thomas Jefferson called the “wall of separation between church and state,” but now a new critical voice has emerged – and it comes from a fellow jurist.

A state judge speaks up

In a recent decision, Justice Todd Eddins of the Hawaii Supreme Court took the Roberts court to task for eroding separation of church and state. Eddins was writing in a complicated case dealing with a parcel of land that had restrictions on it limiting it to religious uses.

Eddins agreed with the majority that the restriction violated Hawaii’s constitution. But he wrote separately to offer some important reminders about the need for government to remain secular.

Blogger Hemant Mehta highlighted some of Eddins’ best language:

• “[T]he promise of religious pluralism and secular government depends on a durable wall separating church and state. Without it, religion, government, and civil society suffer.”

• “The Roberts Court casually dismisses the lessons of American and world history, the warnings of prominent early Americans, and the judiciary’s storied legal minds. Bad things happen unless government and religion are completely separated.”

• “Taxpayer funds now flow to religious institutions. So, the government collects money from nonbelievers (under the threat of jail), and uses some of it to support religion. And since not all religions will receive public funds, the government forces minority faiths to support other faiths, or else.”

• “Today’s Court often rules not because the Constitution says so. But because partisan preferences and personal values say so.”

Wow. Eddins offers a powerful defense of a basic principle that the current U.S. Supreme Court has turned its back on, and he doesn’t hesitate to call out the source of the problem – right at the top of our judicial system.

His opinion is a bracing, if somewhat depressing, reminder of all that we’ve lost.