Other articles by Howard Fischer:

Failed legislative bill leaves public-financed campaigns in doubtBurns: Brewer bungling her job House approves boost in funding for those seeking office next year 3 recommended to Brewer to fill seat on high court AZ can enact own greenhouse gas regsRecession reins in sprawl Pet bills aplenty pouring forth from Legislature Brewer wants budget right away, but not those other, lesser bills Flat-tax plan could hit walletsRepeal of ban on sparklers nears final OK

Health Care
CENTRAL ARIZONA COLLEGE
DIRECTOR OF HEALTH INFORMATION MANAGEMENT Administrative & Professional
Jorgensen Brooks Group
Counselor Health Care
Dependable Health Services
Physical Therapists Finance and Accounting
Charles E. Gillman Company
Accounting Specialist Mechanical
Komatsu Equipment Co
Resident Field Mechanic Health Care
Sierra Tucson
Eating Disorders Program Coordinator Sales and Marketing
Everready Glass
Sales Reps

PHOENIX — A Mesa Republican wants to strip Arizona courts of the ability to decide any questions related to religion.

Sen. Karen Johnson wants the state constitution altered to say Arizona judges have no jurisdiction to hear complaints brought by people who want to block government activities they believe are an improper religious action.

Her proposal, SCR 1026, would specifically bar courts from being able to grant any injunctions or other legal relief if the question involves "the acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty or government." And that bar would remain in place whether the action were brought against the government as a whole or any state or local official.

"It takes away the jurisdiction of the courts here in Arizona … in anything related to issues of God, like the Pledge, like the Ten Commandments," Johnson said. She specifically does not want courts ruling on whether those activities or monuments are permitted in public situations or public places.

Alessandra Meetze, director of the state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, called the measure "extremely dangerous," saying it would strip the courts of the ability to determine whether certain acts are unconstitutional, which is one of the core functions of courts.

Johnson said she is unhappy that judges in other states have ruled that the words "under God" have to come out of the Pledge of Allegiance, and that a monument of the Ten Commandments had to be removed from an Alabama courthouse.

"We don't want that," she said.

Johnson said she believes her measure would also bar challenges to prayer in school.

Meetze, however, said the implications are even deeper.

"This could involve issues of religious coercion," she said, such as a teacher in a public school trying to indoctrinate students to one particular set of beliefs, or discriminating against other students who do not believe the same way.

Johnson said it is not the function of the courts to decide when government officials have crossed the line between church and state. In fact, she said, there is no law separating the two.

"In the (federal) Constitution, what it means is that there is to be no state religion," she said.

"But we're supposed to have religion in everything — the opportunity to have religion in everything," Johnson continued. "I want religion in government, I want my government to have a faith-based perspective."

"The courts do their own thing," Johnson said. "They're making up law out of how they feel about things. They're not following the Constitution."

Johnson's proposal probably would not leave those who question the actions of government officials without a remedy: They could still file their claims in federal court.