On the separation of Church and State

The Illinois Reader recently ran a letter to the editor in rebuttal to several readers who'd written in claiming that America is a Christian nation. Robert Carver in Massachusetts responded in a sober, rational, well thought-out piece, explaining that many of the quotes used to support the idea that the Founding Fathers wanted the US to be a Christian nation are from people who were either living in a different time than the Founding Fathers or who may have lived during the time that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written, but had no part in their creation. He then offers a number of quotes from Jefferson, Madison and others involved in drafting our governing documents. It is an excellent piece and I highly recommend it. My favourite part, from near the end, is quoted below - but be sure to go to the site and read the entire letter.

You are free to attend any church you desire, to pray anytime you wish, to read any religious text that interests you. You may post the Ten Commandments anywhere on your property, in your house, on your car and advertised on a T-shirt. Some people can actually try to live by them rather than forcing them on others. You have several radio stations, cable channels, publications and Internet sites all dedicated to religious messages, covering all beliefs. You have the right to raise your children in the belief system of your choosing, to speak to others about what you hold to be true and to decide for yourself which religion is right for you or even if no religion is right for you.

So ask yourself why does your God need the help of the government? Does he really need state welfare to succeed? Benjamin Franklin sums up the issue of governmental involvement in religion quite well. He stated, "When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it, so that its professors are obliged to call for help of a civil power, ‘tis a sign, I apprehend of its being a bad one." (The Complete Works of Benjamin Franklin, editor John Bigelow, vol. 13)

So will you support the Constitution and our civil liberties by supporting the wall of separation between church and state, or do you believe your deity is so weak and in need of governmental assistance that you will follow revisionists like Angela Wittman in destroying our freedom?

Another loss for Roy Moore

Roy Moore was handed his biggest setback today as the Alabama Court of the Judiciary removed Moore from the office as the state Supreme Court's cheif justice for his refusal to obey a Federal Court order to remove a 2.5 ton granite monument to the Ten Commandments from the state rotunda. Last week, the US Supreme Court refused to hear Moore's appeal of the Federal Court decision.

Moore does have the option of appealing his ousting to the Alabama state Supreme Court, but it's doubtful that he'd win there - it was his colleagues on the state Supreme Court who had previously voted that the monument be moved in order to comply with the Federal Court ruling and then suspended Moore from his position until the ethics case could be heard by the Court of the Judiciary.

Prosecutors are expected to next seek Moore's disbarment over his failure to follow the rule of law.

There is some concern that by ousting him from his Supreme Court position that it may leave Moore open to run for governor in the next election - which would be pretty disasterous for Alabama should he win. Sadly, the man has a fair amount of support and his supporters are exceedingly loyal.

My favourite quote from the MSNBC story though, had to be this one:

Greg Sealy, head of the Sitting at His Feet Fellowship in Montgomery, an inner-city mission, said Thursday was the “darkest day” he had seen in America since he moved to the United States from Barbados 23 years ago.

“They stole my vote. The judiciary stole my vote. I voted for Roy Moore,” he said.

I suspect he now understand a bit better how Democrats have felt since the US Supreme Court appointed Bush as or leader. At least in the case of Moore, the Court of the Judiciary had good cause for their actions. Moore has no understanding of the separation of church and state, and has consistantly held himself to be above the law - including the Constitution. Hopefully, if Moore does try to run for elected office again in the future, the people of Alabama will realize that these traits make him manifestly unsuited to public service and that he should be left to find whatever employment is available to him in the private sector.

Funding madradssas

As I've been surfing around this evening, I've seen a few references made to one of the suggestions in the Rumsfield memo:

Should we create a private foundation to entice radical madradssas to a more moderate course? What else should we be considering?

While Rumsfeld's suggestion is for a private foundation to fund these madradssas, I've seen numerous references in the blogosphere to the US funding them.

If a truly private foundation, that received no money at all from the US government, wanted to set up these schools as an alternative to the more radical ones currently in place, in the hopes that they might be able to attract students and thus prevent them from being given a fundamentalist Islamacist education and potentially turned into terrorists, that would be a great idea I think. I have a serious problem, however, with the idea of the US government funding such schools.

While the idea behind the funding might be to try and prevent the creation of terrorists, it would be the direct government funding of a religious institution. Imagine if someone in the government was wanting tax dollars to go to funding Christian schools, using the justification that teaching children Christian values would help reduce the crime rate (since the general perception is that Christians would be less likely to commit crimes). In fact, if the government were to start funding madradssas with the goal of using them to reduce the number of potential terrorists, I can almost guarantee you that someone would start trying to use the parallel justification of "crime prevention" to sneak governmental funding of Christian schools through.

Personally, I think the idea of setting up moderate madradssas might not be a bad idea and could be worth a try. But we need to make sure that if it gets turned into an actual project, it's being funding by private individuals and/or corporations, and not by our tax dollars.

Supreme Court to hear 'Pledge' case

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the "Pledge of Allegiance" appeal, though apparently Justice Antonin Scalia has recused himself from the case.

The court said it would consider whether a public school district policy requiring teachers to lead willing students in reciting the pledge violated the First Amendment, which bars the government establishment or endorsement of religion.

The justices agreed to review a controversial ruling by a U.S. appeals court in San Francisco that the pledge, recited by millions of American schoolchildren each day, violated the constitutional separation of church and state.

[...] Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the court's most conservative members who normally votes for government displays of religious phrases or symbols, did not take part in the pledge case.

Newdow had urged Scalia to remove himself from the case. In a speech in January in Fredericksburg, Virginia, Scalia questioned whether courts should remove religious symbols and phrases from public life.

"We could eliminate 'under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance. That could be democratically done," he said. But he added that would be "contrary to our whole tradition."

I imagine the hoopla surrounding this one will probably be even bigger than the Texas sodomy case decided on earlier this year.

'Marriage Protection Week'

In a great show of pandering to the Religious Right, President Bush has declared this week to be "Marriage Protection Week".

Last week, President Bush declared Oct. 12-18 "Marriage Protection Week," a designation that sought to provide "an opportunity to focus our efforts on preserving the sanctity of marriage and on building strong and healthy marriages in America."

"During Marriage Protection Week, I call on all Americans to join me in expressing support for the institution of marriage with all its benefits to our people, our culture and our society," Bush announced in an Oct. 3 proclamation.

First, let me say this idea makes my blood boil. Defining marriage based on religious teachings is not only favouring of one religion over all others by making it's tenets the law of the land, but it also creates a form of legalized religious discrimination, only in this case, the victims are being discriminated against because they won't conform to someone else's religious beliefs.

Fortunately, supporters of gay marriage are taking advantage of "Marriage Protection Week" to reinforce their own points about why marriage should be available to all couples, gay or straight.

Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays is holding their own "Marriage Equality Week".

"PFLAG has no wish to tread on the religious beliefs of any faith; each must remain free to define its own requirement for marriage, as mandated by our Constitution's separation of church and state," said PFLAG Executive Director David Tseng. "We only ask that the government and President Bush provide all people the same standing and extend to them their constitutional right to equality under the law."

The Human Rights Commission has an Action Center project that will send e-mails to your Senators and Representatives (2 short pre-written paragraphs and room for you to add your own comments) in opposition to any kind of an amendment forbidding gay marriage.

One of my favourite protests, though, has to be this wonderful bit of satire by the Department of Faith at WhiteHouse.org which the authors describe as follows:

Beloved American patriot Jerry Falwell recently announced that he will devote the remainder of his Godly life to advocating a Constitutional amendment banning marriage between people of the same gender. The United States Department of Faith supports Mr. Falwell's desire to impose Biblical edicts on Americans of all faiths by converting the Constitution from a document that restricts the power of government into one that limits the so-called freedoms of individuals. Nevertheless, the Department of Faith also recognizes that the Bible is replete with verses restricting marriage in many ways, not merely as relates to Mr. Falwell's infatuation with men licking each other. As such, the USDOF has delivered to the President and each member of the U.S. Congress the following proposal to incorporate Biblical restrictions on marriage into our Christian nation's otherwise embarrassingly flawed and secular Constitution

The origins of Common Law

Given the debate about the Ten Commandments monument and the attempts at justifying it by claiming that the Ten Commandments are the foundation of American law (in spite of the fact that it is clear that American law was based upon English common law), I found this quote from Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Major John Cartwright entitled "Saxons, Constitutions and a Case of Pious Fraud" to be most illuminating:

I was glad to find in your book a formal contradition, at length, of the judiciary usurpation of legislative powers; for such the judges have usurped in their repeated decisions, that Christianity is a part of the common law. The proof of the contrary, which you have adduced, is incontrovertible; to wit, that the common law existed while the Anglo-Saxons were yet Pagans, at a time when they had never yet heard the name of Christ pronounced, or knew that such a character had ever existed.

In other words, the proof that neither American laws nor English common law (from which our laws are derived) were founded on the basis of Christian beliefs, principles or tenets is found in the fact that English common law was developed by the Anglo-Saxons during a time when they were not only still Pagans, but were totally unaware of the existance of Christanity or of Christ, for that matter. They simply could not have based laws on something they were totally unaware of.

Monumental Movement

The Ten Commandments display at the Alabama State House has been removed from public view as per the judicial order. It was supposed to have been moved late last week, but logistics held it up a bit. They had to find a place to put it that was well enough reinforced that it wouldn't fall through the floorboards.

Ten Commandments - good points from Eric

Eric Gilson has some good points in a comment he left to an earlier post on the Ten Commandments. I thought they were worth posting up front.

My feelings on Ray Moore's decision NOT to remove the Ten Commandments from a public building.

Our founding fathers introduced the idea to separate church and state, NOT the separation of GOD and state. It is perfectly acceptable to acknowledge God, we do so on our currency, but it is NOT acceptable to force one's persoanl beliefs onto others. The Ten Commandments is a referrence to Christianity NOT God himself. Does a Buddhist not receive the same treatment within our judicial system? Does a Muslim have to accept the Ten Commandments to hear his/her case in a US court of law? Rev. Ray Moore is so far out of line with his cause, it makes me sick. The guy should be thrown in jail for defying the courts, and the statue removed on the principle that Christianity is not a universal religion, and symbols of that religion have no place within our public buildings.

Good Editorial on Judge Moore and the Ten Commandments

The Kansas City Star has a well-reasoned editorial today in opposition to Judge Roy Moore's refusal to remove the Ten Commandments monument from the state judicial building's rotunda.

His request that the U.S. Supreme Court stop a federal judge from enforcing the removal order was a waste of time and money — as were two earlier pleas to an appeals court. All of these requests have been rejected.

It's good to see someone pointing out that this man's personal, religious crusade is costing our courts' time and money - not just the courts having to hear his appeals, but also his own court, which has surely been at least somewhat disrupted by his activities.

The article also notes that Moore's arguments carry some undesirable overtomes:

Earlier, a three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled against him. The panel noted that Moore's arguments about states' rights echoed claims of segregationists such as George C. Wallace, the state's governor in the 1960s.

In the days of Wallace, the goal of the states' rights arguments was to allow segregationist states be able to treat blacks (and other minorities) as second-class citizens rather than equals - and deny them the basic rights that whites take for granted. Moore's goals aren't that much different, when you get down to it, though he wants to engage in discrimination based on religious beliefs rather than skin colour. This is something that has been forbidden by the Bill of Rights straight from the off, and the idea that it's still open to question over 220 years later speaks volumes about the refusal of some people to accept that the world does not revolve aorund them and their ideals.

The Ten Commandments serve as the foundation for the religious beliefs for many Americans. But placing them in a court building that serves everyone is a clear violation of the constitutional ban on government championing specific religious beliefs.

This ban has served the country well, sparing the United States much of the terrible religious strife that has plagued other societies throughout history.

This, I think, is a point that can't be stressed to strongly or too often. We hear frequently about the dangers posed by countries run by theocrats who are bent in remaking the world according to their religious vision. We campaign against and condemn nations that subjugate women because they believe that is what their God demands. Our nation is a target for terrorists who consider us a great evil, on a crusade to eradicate their religion. All people who live in these theocracies are expected to conform to the rules of the religion whether they believe it or not, and it is a crime to practice or teach any faith other than that approved by the state. Few of us would ever want to live in such a society.

Yet, to a great extent, that is what Judge Roy Moore and his supporters are claiming they do want - a government founded on their interpretation of the Bible, in which believers are granted special rights and privileges, and non-believers are viewed as, at best, inconsequential and undeserving of equal treatment. Ironically, it seems that some of those who are most opposed to the extremist Islamic theocracies in the Middle East are also the ones pushing the hardest for what in essence would be an extremist Christian theocracy. They are so blinded by their quest for political and religious confluence that they fail to see that the problem isn't what religion a theocracy is based upon - the problem is with the concept of Theocracy in and of itself.

[Kynn of Shock and Awe has two excellent articles on Christianism here and here - give them a read - they've quite eye-opening.]

Moore has abused his high state office, squandered tax dollars, encouraged public ignorance about the Constitution, insulted the federal judicial system and held his state up to ridicule. It's time for him to start showing the respect for the law that he no doubt expects from those who appear before him.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Amendment to alter church-state separation introduced (again) by Istook

I received this today from The Interfaith Alliance:

U.S. Reps. Ernest Istook (R-OK) and Sanford Bishop (D-GA) have introduced a “Pledge and Prayer Amendment” (H.J.Res. 46), seeking to radically alter the First Amendment by sanctioning prayer in public schools; allowing the prominent display of the Ten Commandments and other religious text in public buildings such as courthouses and elementary schools; and codifying the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Rep. Istook introduced a similar bill, the “Religious Freedom Amendment” in the 105th Congress that received a majority vote, (224-203/Roll Call No.201), but not the required 2/3 vote for passage, in the House of Representatives. This bill’s introduction attempts to build upon that success under the guise of patriotism to impose one particular set of religious beliefs upon our nation in a time of international unrest.

According to an internal letter sent by Istook to his House colleagues, “Only a constitutional amendment will stop the courts from supporting intolerant attacks on expressions of faith.” The letter went on to say, “Nothing else can resolve this. And we should not need separate amendments to address the Pledge, the Ten Commandments, and school prayer.”

As people of faith and good will, we need to protect our classrooms and our court houses from attempts to undermine religious liberty! Help us fight this systemic campaign by the Religious Right and their allies in Congress to favor one religion over others. Government-sanctioned religious doctrine and state-mandated prayer in public schools have no place in a society that values and affirms freedom of religion.

TIA members and supporters are urged to send a letter to their member of Congress asking them to vote against this dangerous legislation. As members of Congress are getting flooded with calls and letters from the Religious-Right lobby, it is absolutely essential that they hear from moderate and progressive people of faith and good will!

To see the text of H. J. Res. 46, please visit: http://www.interfaithalliance.org/Issues/IssuesList.cfm?c=53

Supremes reject Kentucky appeal on Ten Commandments monument

The Supreme Court has rejected, without comment an appeal by the state of Kentucky of a lower court ruling barring them from placing a 4 foot by 6 foot granite monument of the Ten Commandments in front of the state capital building. Last year, the Supreme Court also rejected a similar appeal from Indiana.

Kentucky Attorney General Albert Chandler appealed to the Supreme Court. He said the 2000 law required an overall public display of historic documents that included the Ten Commandments, a religious symbol.

He said the display was proposed under the law, but it had not yet been designed or installed. He said the appeals court should not have made a constitutional decision based on "speculation and conjecture" over the display's appearance.

The full display may not have been designed yet, but the granite monument in question was donated to the state by the Fraternal Order of Eagles in 1971 and was previously on display until 1980.

While the Supreme Court did not comment on their decision to reject the appeal, it appears that the Court agreed that, even as part of a larger display, the monument would contitute a violation of the separation of church and state. As I'd noted previously, I find the idea that the Ten Commandments are a "foundation" of American law to be rather specious, since only about 2 (and a half) of those commandments are found enshrined in our laws (stealing and killing are illegal, and "bearing false witness" - aka lying - is illegal in some cases).

In any event, even as conservative as this current court is, they've been fairly consistant in their rejection of the display of the Ten Commandments on public property, and for that, I'm grateful. I don't expect proponants of the idea to give up any time soon, but I'm glad that the courts aren't falling for their rather transparent attempts to try and justify their displays.

Faith-based failure

Today's Washington Post and MSNBC have an article on the failure of the Bush administration to push-through their much desired "faith-based initiatives" legislation. With all of the focus on the war in Iraq, news of it's defeat almost got lost. At least I hadn't heard about it, and this is a story I've been watching for.

After 26 months of tussles over Bush's "faith-based initiative," the sponsor of the legislation in the Senate agreed to remove any mention of religion in a bill whose stated purpose was helping religious charities. All that was left was a package of charitable tax incentives-and even those were barely 15 percent of the amount Bush had proposed."

Bush's plan would have allowed religious charities to compete for direct government funding to provide social services, in particular to the poor, while still allowing them to maintain the spiritual aspects of their programs. Part of what made the program controversial to liberals is that people who are entitled to government aid could end up being required to go to programs run by religious group (especially if no secular groups are providing the needed service), which in turn would be allowed to minister to the individual or possibly even push them to attend some kind of religious services in exchange for their aid (they would not be able to require those seeking aid to attend, however). The groups would also be allowed engage in religious discrimination when hiring and other aspects of running their operations.

For religious aid groups to push attendence at religious services or to discriminate in their hiring practices, etc., is perfectly acceptable when they are privately funded and serving those people who choose to make use of their services voluntarily. It's when clients are required to make use of their services (for example, if they win a governmental contract to provide services in a certain area) and when they are being funded by the government that it becomes problematic. When that happens, the government ends up essentially supporting their religious activities, something that it is not supposed to do.

For conservatives, however, the concern was that because the government would be funding religious groups, they would end up having to become more secular in order to conform with governmental requirements. Just as the government is not supposed to fund religious activities, it is also not supposed to tell religious groups how to operate (within certain guidelines - religious groups obviously cannot engage in activities that would otherwise be considered criminal, except under certain circumstances, such as the use of peyote in certain Native American religious rituals).

Some aspects of legislation have been put into operation through executive orders, and Bush has established an office for faith-based initiatives, but the defeat of this legislation, at the very least, sends the message that there is little support for measure of this nature within Congress - and, by extention, the general public.

Even before Bush was elected, there were discussion on programs of this nature in Congress, and Bush made it clear in his campaign that he would push strongly for his "faith-based intiatives". During the summer of 2000, when the Presidential campaigns were in full swing, the House held debates on "charitable choice", which is one program Bush had very much wanted to see put in place.

While debating the merits of the bill on the House floor, Rep. Chet Edwards of Texas, who is opposed to the bill, asked whether Wiccans would be eligible for charitable choice funds. Souder remarked, “It is unlikely under President Bush that the Witches would get funding.” Edwards responded by saying that Souder had proved his point and that no bill should be passed, if, under a possible future Bush administration, government officials would pick which religions would get funding, and thus give federal sanction to some religions while withdrawing it from others.

I have no doubt that Bush will continue to put as much of his desired policy into effect though executive orders. I am glad, however, that Congress has said "no" to this legislation and made it clear that there is little support for this kind of proposition in either party.

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. 

Presumably the last update on the 'Baths for Baptisms' story

I would like to thank a visitor to this site, Deb Conrad, for posting a copy of a letter she had received from the Office of the Cheif of Chaplains into the comment section of the blog (It's attached to the first story on this matter that I posted several days ago).  Since I have posted several times on the issue of Josh Llano and the report of his using baths as a bribe for giving baptisms, I wanted to go ahead and post the test of that message to the main blog, so that it can be more easily found.  Ms. Conrad also has several other points in the comment she left, and I do suggest reading it in its entirety.

Here is the letter she received:

Based on your earlier inquiry about the report of CH Llano, a US Army Chaplain, I wanted to offer you the following information. Thank you for your concern and interest. I hope this reassures you about the expectations of the Army and work of Army chaplains.

The free exercise of religion is a foundational issue to us in the chaplaincy. In fact, we first became aware of this at about 9:30 pm last Thursday, and by 10:00 pm that night, the Chief of Chaplains requested additional information. The Army respects and actively accommodates the religious practices of all soldiers. In accordance with the practices of many Baptist traditions, the Army provides water for full-body immersion baptisms when it is available.

Based on news reports and questions from members of the media, the Office of the Chief of Chaplains requested additional details on the accuracy of the quotations and the nature of the actions performed by an Army chaplain while in Iraq. There are some factual problems with the article. There have been tens of thousands of water produced each day at the Corps Support Base and readily available to soldiers for all personal hygiene, drinking water, and enough to allot water for a baptismal pool during Operation Iraqi Freedom. The Army does not condone religious coercion. The chain-of-command, supported by the Chaplain Corps, ensures that soldiers are free to exercise their religious beliefs. The local commander has direct knowledge of the chaplain's action and has very high regard for the work of the chaplain.

Access to water was never used in any way as a bribe for baptism. Chaplain Llano states he did not offer any quotes or statements in response to questions by the reporter. He indicates she overheard conversations he had with another officer and these were presented as quotations. The supervisory chaplain has direct knowledge of the chaplain's actions and indicates the religious activities described by the reporter are attended by the choice of the soldiers. The Joint Force Land Component Commander in Kuwait has received no complaints of religious coercion from soldiers in the field.

The threshold for concern about protecting the free exercise is extremely low. Chaplains have performed their religious rites, sacraments and ordinances representing the faith group which sends them and provide for the religious support of all soldiers. The Chief of Chaplains affirms and commends the chaplains, chaplain assistants and directors of religious education deployed with US soldiers providing religious support at the risk of their lives.

Chaplain (Lt Col) Eric Webster
Office of the Chief of Chaplains

While I must say I'm not happy that the author of the original article (Meg Laughlin at the Miami Herald) apparently used overheard comments and presented them as if they were quotes from an interview, I must say I'm glad to hear that Lt. Llano was not behaving in the manner the article portrayed.  I am also quite glad that the Office of the Chief of Chaplains looked into it and was able to provide a response.  I never have gotten a response to my own message about the situation, but it's good that one has been made.

I know that information about the original article, and, in fact, copies of my own post about it, were passed around the net.  I hope that people will also be willing to pass around copies of this response, so that it can be out there as well - especially given that it appear the intial article did not paint a true picture of what was happening.

Thanks again, Deb, for sharing your thoughts and the response you got!

HR 153

I posted yesterday about House Resolution 153 which would designate a day as a national day of prayer, fasting and humility.  Well, the damnable thing passed today.  If you'd like to find out whether your representative voted in favour of it or not, here's the vote roll at thomas.loc.gov so you can find out.

Over at Atrios' Eschalon, several people have suggested various ways to protest this action, including declaring your own day of gluttony, bragging and hedonism.  One suggestion is to - on whichever day is eventually chosen to be The Day - spend the day visiting every all-you-can-eat buffet you can find, bragging about yourself and having some good, not-so-clean fun.  While I can't actually go out to do something like this, I love the concept, and want to encourage anyone who thinks this kind of a resolution is inspiringly insipid - not to mention a violation of the separation of Church and State - to join in.

Prayer and Fasting

Below is the text of a resolution that has been submitted to the House of Representatives. (Found via Atrios at Eschaton)

It seems that now our Congress thinks we need to spend time praying and fasting in order to convince God to help us.  Of course, if the war truly was what God wanted Bush (and hence, us) to do, wouldn't he be helping us already?

And even though it may be something of a tradition for such resolutions to be put forth, exactly what business does the secular government of this secular nation have in calling upon the citizens of the US to "seek guidance from God to achieve a greater understanding of our own failings and learn how we can do better in our everyday activities"?  I'm sorry, but I think I have failings that require divine assistance, I think I can figure that out for myself, thankyouverymuch, and will decide on my own if I want to pray or not.  I certainly don't need the House of Representatives to call upon me to do so!

Another thing I found interesting - the resolution states that "all of the various faiths of the people of the United States" recognize "the need for fasting and humble supplication".  Somehow I don't think they did a comprehensive survey before making that assertion.  While I'm sure there are some people of almost any faith who would engage in prayer and fasting as a means of communicating with their God or Gods, it's not an actual tenet of every religion in the nation.  Many of the Pagan faiths, for example, have no position whatsoever about whether or not one should fast and pray. It's certainly not something that is viewed as "needed".

This is just another example of why it is the government should stay out of religion entirely, and if you think this resolution has me a bit incensed, you're right.  I am.  Granted, the resolution clearly has no binding legal effect on me to do anything,  but the government simply has no business trying to tell me what I should or shouldn't do as part of my own personal spirituality.

---

108th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. RES. 153

Recognizing the public need for fasting and prayer in order to secure the blessings and protection of Providence for the people of the United States and our Armed Forces during the conflict in Iraq and under the threat of terrorism at home.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 20, 2003

Mr. AKIN (for himself, Mr. GOODE, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. HAYES, Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia, Mr. BEAUPREZ, Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida, Mr. MANZULLO, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. TIAHRT, Mr. PITTS, Mr. RYUN of Kansas, Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. WELDON of Florida, Mr. BISHOP of Utah, Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. GINGREY, Mr. TERRY, and Mr. SOUDER) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform

RESOLUTION

Recognizing the public need for fasting and prayer in order to secure the blessings and protection of Providence for the people of the United States and our Armed Forces during the conflict in Iraq and under the threat of terrorism at home.

Whereas the United States is currently engaged in a war on terrorism in response to the attacks of September 11, 2001;

Whereas the Armed Forces of the United States are currently engaged in a campaign to disarm the regime of Saddam Hussein and liberate the people of Iraq;

Whereas, on June 1, 1774, the Virginia House of Burgesses called for a day of fasting and prayer as an expression of solidarity with the people of Boston who were under siege by the enemy;

Whereas, on March 16, 1776, the Continental Congress, recognizing that the `Liberties of America are imminently endangered' and the need `to acknowledge the overruling Providence of God', called for a day of `Humiliation, Fasting and Prayer' ;

Whereas, on June 28, 1787, during the debate of the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin, convinced of God's intimate involvement in human affairs, implored the Congress to seek the assistance of Heaven in all its dealings;

Whereas, on March 30, 1863, in the midst of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln, at the bequest of the Senate, and himself recognizing the need of the Nation to humble itself before God in repentance for its national sins, proclaimed a day of fasting , prayer and humiliation;

Whereas all of the various faiths of the people of the United States have recognized, in our religious traditions, the need for fasting and humble supplication before
Providence;

Whereas humility, fasting , and prayer in times of danger have long been rooted in our essential national convictions and have been a means of producing unity and solidarity among all the diverse people of this Nation as well as procuring the enduring grace and benevolence of God;

Whereas, through prayer , fasting , and self-reflection, we may better recognize our own faults and shortcomings and submit to the wisdom and love of God in order that we may have guidance and strength in those daily actions and decisions we must take; and

Whereas dangers and threats to our Nation persist and, in this time of peril, it is appropriate that the people of the United States, leaders and citizens alike, seek guidance, strength, and resolve through prayer and fasting : Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the President should issue a proclamation--

(1) designating a day for humility, prayer , and fasting for all people of the United States; and

(2) calling on all people of the United States--

(A) to observe the day as a time of prayer and fasting ;

(B) to seek guidance from God to achieve a greater understanding of our own failings and to learn how we can do better in our everyday activities; and

(C) to gain resolve in meeting the challenges that confront our Nation.

The CARE act

ACLU Action Alert:

From: Matt Howes, National Internet Organizer, ACLU
To: ACLU Action Network Members
Date: February 12, 2003
Support Civil Rights: Oppose the Faith-Based Initiative!

Two months ago, President Bush bypassed Congress and through executive fiat implemented his program for government-funded religion, a scheme that Capitol Hill had repeatedly rejected.  By executive order, he not only ensured that public money was available to religious groups, but also that they were entitled to fund discriminatory practices with that money.  Now, some Senators are trying to worsen an already bad situation.

Senators Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) have re-introduced their government-funded religion bill and are pushing for quick Senate action. 

Take Action now!  Your actions in the last Congress stopped discriminatory legislation from passing, forcing Bush to act by executive order.  You can continue to stop discrimination by opposing the CARE Act!  Click here to get more information and to send a free fax.

No Comment Needed

An excellent editorial on the differences between a theocratic nation and a secular one. I strongly recommend checking it out.

The trouble with interpreting the Bible verbatim

By: Michael Quay
November 18, 2002

The Islamic laws, so brutally dispensed in various parts of the Muslim world, are from a Semitic book of tribal law we know as the book of Leviticus. In the Christian Bible, this book follows Exodus, and is considered by Christian Fundamentalists, as well as a few other groups, as the actual and unerring words of God ( a.k.a. Allah, Jehovah, YHWH, etc.) The basic moral and ethical codes of each of these groups are quite similar. The difference (and it's a big one) is that western nations are not theocracies anymore, (government based on religion) but are democracies (governments based on the will of the people).

Lessons from Salem

Early American horror show

The Salem Witch Trials remain a hideous -- yet disturbingly familiar -- mystery.
By Laura Miller

Oct. 29, 2002  | The Salem Witch Trials are America's original home-grown horror. The crisis happened over 300 years ago in a world very different from today's -- and to people seemingly very different from ourselves -- and yet so many of its elements keep cropping up again and again in our public life. A panic that spreads like a virus, intimations of a vile conspiracy, children and young women horribly abused, a fog of accusations, shocking confessions, sensational trials, reputations destroyed, culprits (or scapegoats) located and harshly punished, and an aftermath in which anyone with a conscience looks back and asks, "What just happened? Did we really do that?"

Salem, too, is a challenge to everyone, whether on the left or the right, who sentimentalizes or idealizes the Way Things Used to Be. Feeling nostalgic for the peace and safety of small town life? Convinced that what the world needs now is a return to Christian values? Think that the trouble with contemporary society is that we've lost our sense of community? Well, Salem was a small town, as Christian as they come, and it's got to be Exhibit A on the list of what sucks about living in a place where everybody knows your name. 

As you may have noticed, I usually have a lot to say about the articles I link to - but this one says it so well, that I'm going to let it stand by itself.   The rest of the article is quite good as well, but these first too paragraphs really hit home with me.

In the Name of.... ?

Wiccan takes on board's prayer policy

BY MEREDITH FISCHER
TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER
Oct 09, 2002

Fellow witches are rallying around Bon Air Wiccan Priestess Cyndi Simpson and her quest to lead an invocation at Chesterfield County's Board of Supervisors meeting.

Simpson, a member of the Reclaiming Tradition of Wicca, was recently rejected by the county when she asked to be added to its list of religious leaders who perform such prayers.

This has prompted witches, other religious leaders and civil-rights activists to speak out, saying Chesterfield is violating their right to religious freedom. [...]

In the letter, Micas said the county's invocations are "traditionally made to a divinity that is consistent with the Judeo-Christian tradition." [...]

As a Pagan, stories like this tend to catch my attention.  Personally, I think that offering any kind of prayer at the start of a council meeting or other governmental session is inappropriate, because the government is supposed to maintain a neutral position towards religion in general, which goes beyond not picking or establishing an "official" religion, but also includes the idea that the government are not supposed to sho a preference for being religious over being non-religious. 

If, however, councils and other governmental bodies are going to insist on having a prayer to open their sessions, then they need to be open to representatives of any religion represented in their community, including ones they don't follow, understand or necessarily approve of. As the quote above shows, however, they fail to understand even the basic concept that, as a governmental body, they cannot endorse one faith or family of faiths over another.  To only allow prayers to a divinity that is consistent with the Judeo-Christian traditions is very much establishing an officially approved-of religion.

About Face

Robertson Charity Wins 'Faith-Based' Grant

By a Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 3, 2002; Page A02

Early this year, Pat Robertson denounced the Bush administration's "faith-based" initiative, warning that the program is a "Pandora's Box" that could make legitimate religious charities dependent on government and finance cults that "brainwash" prospective adherents.

Today, Operation Blessing International, a Virginia Beach charity created by Robertson, is to get $500,000 in the first wave of grants to be distributed under the faith-based initiative, which gives federal money to religious organizations that provide social services.

Back in March, Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition, told his 700 Club television audience that the groups getting funds "will begin to be nurtured, if I can use that term, on federal money, and then they can't get off of it." He added, "It'll be like a narcotic; they can't then free themselves later on."  [...]

Not really a whole lot to add to this one.  I've never been fond of the idea of funding "faith-based" programs, because I do believe that it ends up in an illegal govenment funding of religious activity. I just am completely taken aback at Pat Robertson's gumption to first complain about the whole "faith-based" concept and then turn around and ask for half-a-million dollars from that very program. The man truly has no shame.

Wolf in Sheep's Clothing?

Practical Ministry Innovations 

In an article announcing the upcoming unveiling of the White House's Faith-Based Community Initiatives, the following bit of advice was included:

Preliminary recommendations from the new office of Faith-Based Community Initiatives have focused on presenting your ministry with a secular look and feel. For example, the White House recommendations suggest that if your program is called the St. Luke School; change the name to the Luke School.

Which of course begs the question: Why try to hide what your program really is if the White House is going to be supporting Faith-Based Community programs? I simply don't understand the point.  Since Faith-Based programs are going to be able to compete with secular programs for funds, is the goal to try and confuse those who distribute the money?  Or is it to try and confuse those who receive the services?

Whatever the reason, the White House's office of Faith-Based Community Initiatives is encouraging Faith-Based orgaizations to try and hide who they are - essentially, to present a front that is a best a misdirection and at worst a lie.  An interesting position for a White House office to take, given President Bush's pledge to return honour and integrity to the White House.