Last week, conservatives gathered in Washington for a conference called “Confronting the Judicial War on Faith.” The conference was prompted by the refusal of federal courts to intervene in the Terri Schiavo case. According to the group’s Web site, “Activist judges are undermining democracy, devastating families and assaulting Judeo-Christian morality.”

The conference represents the culmination of the recent conservative rally against so-called “judicial activism.” House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said the nation’s courts have “run amok,” making their own law without regard to the “will of the people.” Examples of rulings made by these “renegade” judges include: legalizing same-sex marriage, prohibition of school prayer and abortion rights.

DeLay and his conference colleagues — a group whose membership includes Jerry Falwell and former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore — proposed a solution. “There is another way, ladies and gentlemen, and that is to reassert our constitutional authority over the courts.” The proposed means to do this include mass impeachment of judges, ending minority filibusters for judicial nominees and cutting court funding for judges who don’t fall in line with Congress’ wishes.

DeLay’s statement represents a new level of confidence in the religious right. It is an explicit and undisguised advocacy of the rejection of the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary. As one spokesman for a Wisconsin congressman said, “There does seem to be this misunderstanding out there that our system was created with a completely independent judiciary.”

Where he got this idea, one can only guess. Certainly, the designers of the Constitution would disagree. One of the accusations against King George III stated in the Declaration of Independence was that “He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.” In the Federalist papers, Alexander Hamilton wrote, “There is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.”

The intent of the Founding Fathers was clear: The judicial branch must be independent and free from coercion by the executive and legislative branches of government. The courts were vested with the power to interpret the laws and actions made by the other branches in order to ensure they conformed to the Constitution.

What the framers of the Constitution saw as necessary to securing the liberty of the people, DeLay and company see — correctly — as the only remaining obstacle to imposing on the nation the dictates of the Bible. This motive is clear from their statements regarding abortion, school prayer, public religious displays and Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube.

Consider the suggestion at the “Confronting the Judicial War on Faith” conference that Congress pass “bills to remove court jurisdiction from certain social issues or the place of God in public life.” This, the most dangerous of the options presented, reveals the extent to which religious conservatives are willing to go to pursue their agenda: If judges continue to refuse to rule in your favor, simply declare your refusal to acknowledge their jurisdiction.

If some conservatives are willing to refuse to allow courts to uphold the Constitution in religious matters, what’s stopping them from legislating away the courts’ jurisdiction in other areas? This sort of mentality is a stone’s throw away from advocating theocracy.

According to The New York Times, “Dr. Rick Scarborough, chief organizer of the conference, called on Congress ‘to protect us from an overactive judiciary,’ saying: ‘Right now they are ruling as an oligarchy. They are the kings of the land.'”

He might as well have added: “It’s our turn now.”

The extent of the religious conservatism in Congress is hard to judge, but it does seem to be growing. It is ironic that Democrats, the traditional defenders of religious freedom, are now failing to take a stand on this issue (almost half of Democrats present voted in favor of the Terri Schiavo bill).

If judicial “activism” means judges who are unwilling to submit to the demands of certain congressmen — who claim that they represent the “will of the people” — then we need as active a judiciary as possible.