Ashcroft Is Just Too Religious For Justice

John Ashcroft's deep religious convictions are getting him in hot water again.

This time it's a morning prayer meeting that has raised the ire of some U.S. Justice Department employees.

Seems Ashcroft holds devotional with employees each morning before work.

At the meetings - called RAMP for Read, Argue, Memorize, Pray - Ashcroft presides over a reading, sometimes from the Bible. After that there's a discussion and a prayer.

All justice employees are welcome, but nobody is required to attend.

Ashcroft used to do the same thing when he was in the U.S. Senate.

Ashcroft's father was a minister. If you remember, that was a really big problem for lots of people when W appointed Ashcroft to the Attorney General's post.

I remember thinking then how asinine it was to hear people saying that religious conviction should disqualify you from Justice Department service.

According to Associated Press, "the meetings were first reported by The Washington Post."

Sounds like the Post has uncovered some massive conspiracy in the Justice Department.

Another Washington Post expos. Shining the light of the printed page upon the Bible readings of John Ashcroft.

Justice Department employees, who of course are speaking only on the condition of anonymity, are saying things like this:

"The purpose of the Department of Justice is to do the business of the government, not to establish a religion." ... "It strikes me and others as offensive, disrespectful and unconstitutional." ... "It's alienating."

One staffer did speak on the record. That was deputy chief of staff David Israelite, who happens to be Jewish.

Here's what he has to say:

"He (Ashcroft) has never in any way insinuated that I should be going to these meetings and I never felt I've been hindered by not attending. ... He's a religious man and he's been attacked by folks because of that. I've known John Ashcroft for 15 years and there is no more tolerant person that I've been around in my life."

But nonetheless, now that this scurrilous activity has been exposed, it didn't take long for Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, to jump in.

He said it's inappropriate for the nation's chief law enforcement officer to "inject religion so blatantly into the agency."

He notes that some justice employees may - gasp - feel pressured to embrace Ashcroft's religious beliefs.

"Justice Department employees who do not participate may feel their job advancement is hindered. ... Whenever a superior orchestrates a religious event, the people who work for him feel pressure to participate in order to advance their careers."

Oh really?

What if Ashcroft was throwing a kegger every night after work at his house? All employees were invited to come swill beer until they spit up on their shoes.

Would the teetotallers on his staff feel the need to go get slop-faced to advance their careers?

What if Ashcroft showed porn movies during lunch hour? Not the really hardcore, backroom stuff, but some really racy flicks.

Would skipping the skin screenings qualify as a missed career-enhancing opportunity?

What if Ashcroft were openly gay?

Would the heterosexual members of his staff feel pressured to change sexual orientation to get a promotion?

What if Ashcroft doesn't like the color of your hair? What if he doesn't like the clothes you wear?

I guess the point is, whether or not you get a promotion is always up to your boss.

You could speculate endlessly about what will or will not trip his trigger. What will or will not make him mad. What will or will not impress him.

The problem is, Ashcroft isn't a partyer, a pervert or a gay guy. If he was, we probably wouldn't be hearing about it unless he somehow managed to get arrested for something.

No, what Ashcroft is, is devoutly religious. And that is a problem, you see.

Must we assume that Ashcroft would allow his religious convictions to cloud his judgment when promoting his employees?

Why?

I will be the first to admit that I am just a dumb Hoosier, born and bred. I lack the enlightenment of many of my friends on the left.

But no matter how long I live and no matter how many of my liberal friends try to educate me, I will never understand how we have come to interpret the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

In my typical, dumb Hoosier, simpleton fashion I read it.

It says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

It seems so clear to me.

The founders didn't want Congress to endorse a particular religion. Specifically, they didn't want another Church of England.

But how the interpretation has evolved to somehow mean there can't be a nativity scene on the courthouse lawn or the Ten Commandments in the courtroom or John Ashcroft praying in the Justice Department before work completely eludes me.

Certainly there is freedom of religion in this country. And there is freedom from religion as well. No one should be forced to be religious.

It all seems so simple.

But our modern interpretation says that even if people aren't forced to take part in it, just the sight of it on public property could be offensive.

I just don't get that.

I think as long as there is no coercion, as long as Ashcroft isn't twisting arms, his morning RAMP sessions are fine.

Isn't that the definition of freedom of religion? It would be just as wrong for the government to force Ashcroft to stop his prayer sessions as it would be for Ashcroft to force his staff to pray with him.

There was a time in this country when people would have been glad that Ashcroft is seeking guidance from and the blessing of a higher power in his life and work.

I guess that time has passed.