Churches endorse politicians and the 10 Commandments/prayer in schools?

I received a message from The Interfaith Alliance today on two issues involving church-state separation issues:

Walter Jones’s “Houses of Worship Church-Politicking” Legislation Returns with 101 Co-Sponsors

As the nation recovers from the effects of war and a devastating economy, two members of Congress, who often work in conjunction with Religious Right pressure groups have quietly introduced divisive bills that seek to undermine and overturn the separation of religion and government under the guise of patriotism.

U.S. Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) has introduced his “Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act” (H.R. 235), which bears a striking resemblance to his “Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act” that failed last year by a vote of 178-239 on suspension. This year’s bill, authored by Pat Robertson’s American Center for Law and Justice, would allow clergy to issue political endorsements from behind the pulpit on behalf of their house of worship and allow churches to publicize their endorsements through paid advertising at any time before the elections.

Current federal law upholds the integrity of houses of worship by stating that houses of worship, like other 501(c)(3) organizations, cannot legally engage in partisan political activities and retain their tax-exempt status. This provision has served as a valuable safeguard for the integrity of both religious institutions and the political process.  H.R. 235 would lift these important safeguards, and allow houses of worship to keep their tax-exempt contributions while endorsing their favored political candidates.

TIA believes that this bill will serve to divide congregations along partisan lines and eventually lead to a time when congregations are not identified by their faith tradition, but instead by the political ideology of its leadership. When pulpits, bimahs and other sacred desks, become stumps on which ministers stand to hand out political endorsements, the prophetic voice of the religious community — arguably religion's most important contribution to the nation — will be silenced.

TAKE ACTION ON THIS LEGISLATION NOW!

Contact your congressman by using the Interfaith Community Action Network and urge them to oppose H.R. 235

Ernest Istook’s School Prayer and Ten Commandments Constitutional Amendment Starts with 88 Co-Sponsors

U.S. Rep. Ernest Istook (R-OK) has introduced his “Pledge and Prayer Amendment” (H.J.Res. 46), which would amend the Constitution to affirm the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance; sanction prayer in our nation’s public schools; and allow the display of the Ten Commandments and other religious symbols in the public square, including court houses and schools.  This amendment is similar to one Istook proposed in 1998.  That effort received a majority of the vote in the House of Representatives but failed to muster the two-thirds majority required for passage.

TIA is firmly committed to defeating both of these bills, which are bad for religion, bad for politics and bad for America.

For further developments on either the Jones bill (H.R. 235) or the Istook Amendment (H.J. Res. 46) be sure to visit: http://www.interfaithalliance.org/Issues/IssuesList.cfm?c=50

 

To join or support the efforts of The Interfaith Alliance, please click on the link below: http://www.interfaithalliance.org/JoinGive/JoinGiveMain.cfm

Both of these are issues I feel very strongly about.  One of the great things about this country is that the government is not allowed to endorse any religion or spiritual path (including the absence of one) over any other religion or spiritual path.  This it supposed to help ensure that every citizen, regardless of their religious belief, can feel a part of the community and be assured that they can follow their heart and conscience in practicing their chosen faith (or in not practicing their lack of one.)

The first bill, which would allow churches to endorse political candidates could have the effect of making it difficult, if not impossible, for leaders in at least some areas - and probably on the national level - to get elected unless they are able to gain the endorsement of the church or religious leaders.  This would mean that just as many politicians are now beholden to corporate interests, they could also end up being beholden to religious interests.  This would put them in the position of having to do things like support certain legislation that the church wants to see passed - whether it has the support of the majority of the people or not.  Politicians would be expected to follow the church's agenda on issues such as abortion and gay rights.

As it stands now, we've seen just how dangerous a President who is owned and operated by big business can be.  Do we really want to find out what one who is owned and operated by the church could do?

As for Istook's amendment, the man just never gives up.  It seems like I've been hearing about one amendment or another of his for years now.  Proponants of posting the Ten Commandments in schools always claim that it's appropriate because "our laws are based on them".  Yet if you look at our laws, that's not entirely true.  Sure, we have laws against killing and stealing, but most of the rest of the Commandments don't appear in our laws at all.  We (thankfully) have no laws saying that you must worship only the Christian God or prevent anyone from doing anything on the Sabbath in order to "keep it holy". If people want to, it's legal for them to have "graven images" or "idols" in their home and to worship these if they so choose. There are no laws against taking the name of the Lord in vain, nor are there laws requiring children to honour their father and mother.  Adultry certainly isn't illegal, or our jails would be bursting at the seams.  Lying in certain circumstances - such as when you're under oath - is illegal, but lying in general doesn't violate any laws.  And as George Carlin noted the 10th Commandment, which says it is wrong to wants your neighbors things (including his wife), would pretty much wipe out the entire basis for a capitalistic society.  "Coveting" is the foundation of our entire economic system!

So, lets dispence with the "foundation of our laws" nonsense.  Only 2 (and a half, since lying is illegal in some situations) of the 10 Commandments show up in our laws.  That's only 25% of the whole document, which, were this a copyright case, would probably qualify as "fair use".

As for the rest of his suggestions, I know that I, as a Pagan, would be very uncomfortable meeting with a government official if he had the 10 Commandments on the wall, and I would be worried that, if my faith came up at some point, he or she would hold it against me.  Were I a parent, I would be outraged if my child was being lead in prayers by his or her teacher to any Gods other than the ones I would choose to raise my children with, and I've never thought that the words "under God" belonged as part of our pledge.  They weren't in the original version - they were added during the communist scare to try and make us sound more "moral" than the "Godless Soviets".  We should simply return the Pledge to the way it was originally written and leave it at that.

People are supposed to be free to worship as they choose.  People who work for the government or who work in the private sector are all welcome to do as they see fit about their spirituality in their homes and other time "off the clock".  They can have as many displays as they want of any religious documents, ideas, imagry or whatever else might strike their fancy there.  Surely, it's not too much of a burden to ask that people go for 8 hours a day without having to have their religon blasted out at everyone who approaches their desk?  And in the criminal courts, religion is already a liablity for people of some faiths.  There's no need to reinforce the idea that only Christianity "matters".

Please follow the links above and help to defeat these two measures.