church v state

Imaginary Line

Frank

(I might be the only blogger in the universe not writing something this morning about Steve Jobs.)

Where is the “wall of separation” between Church and State? In the past week there have been some headlines that show that the line is arbitrary and constantly on the move.

Last Sunday was the “Red Mass” in Washington, DC traditionally done before the Supreme Court starts their session. This is a tradition that goes back 58 years. (though the Red Mass isn’t limited to the US government, the actual tradition dates all the way back to 1245) But wait a minute. Aren’t the Justices the ones who decide where the aforementioned line should be drawn? And here aren’t they participating in a religious ceremony explicitly tied to their governmental role? Interestingly, two of their first cases are Separation issues: a 10 Commandments display and applying the Americans with Disabilities Act to ministerial employment decisions.

The same Sunday, not coincidentally, was “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” (No, I’ve never heard of it either) where some ministers were preaching explicitly political sermons, sending the IRS their recording, and daring them to take away their tax-exempt status. The problem is, the whole 501(c)3 designation as a non-profit is very misunderstood. This status isn’t limited to churches, but any non-profit. So say a charity cannot explicitly endorse a candidate because he or she may support the cause of that charity. The same is true of a church. But it does not forbid the church from preaching on social or political issues consistent with their doctrines. They just cannot actively endorse or campaign for a particular candidate or ballot issue. This is why churches were allowed to rally their congregations in support of California’s Proposition 8. Churches are perfectly within their right to assemble political support or opposition. They are only not allowed to endorse specific candidates or political parties from the pulpit. Important note, churches conducted similar activities to abolish slavery and advance Civil Rights. If churches were not allowed to even speak on social or political issues then each of these movements would have died out.
Meanwhile, a student in Northern California was docked points on his grade for saying “bless you” in class. Of course the religious crusade came out to cry persecution! But wasn’t necessarily the case. When you read the story it becomes clear it had more to do with disrupting the class than anything else (though the teacher’s explanation left a lot to be desired.) besides, who didn’t fake a sneeze in school just to get the whole class to start a string of “bless you”s? Keep in mind however, that public schools are an arm of the government.

Finally, California passed a bill banning the banning of circumcision. (if you’re confused by the double-negative, you’re not alone; MSN’s homepage originally linked the article with the headline “California bans circumcision”) This was in response to the city of San Francisco trying to pass such a ban. Never mind that the Courts struck that effort down. California feels the need to be redundant to pass a law to affirm what the Court already decided. Of course, the reason for striking down SF’s law was that the government cannot restrict an explicitly religious practice (though not all are circumcised because of religious views). Hmmm, I wonder how the court cases are going against The Church of Reality (or Cognizance in some places)?

Ok, so after reading the above can you honestly tell me there is an explicit wall of separation between Church and State? Or is it more of an imaginary line?

Flashback Friday: Mud Slinging

Frank

***Originally posted October 31, 2008 prior to the last major election. Reposted as we have the mid-terms right around the corner as a reminder that no matter how much things change, things stay the same. You might as well replace Kay Hagan in this post with Christine O’Donnell and “godless” with “witchcraft“. Two years ago it was a “godless” Hagan, this year is the “witch” O’Donnell, I shudder to think who the target will be next year as some corners of the religious establishment continue to try to seize power politically. Personally, this isn’t about any particular political stripe, but we need to seriously examine the level our politics, and our religion, have stooped down to.***

The North Carolina Senate race is a tight one, and like most races this season no one wants to talk issues but everyone wants to sling mud. In this case it’s Liz Dole, who I just lost all respect for, putting out an ad against her opponent, Kay Hagan, accusing her of being “godless.” This article includes a link to the videos and hers is definitely over the line. If I didn’t know better (and most voters don’t) I’d think the voice that says repeatedly “there is no God” was hers. But then I read the article and find out that she’s an elder in her church and teaches Sunday school. Hagan responds with an add of her own calling out Dole for “bearing false witness” and follows that up with a lawsuit against Dole.

Have we sunk so low that this is the substance of our political debates? Do you base your vote on who is most religious, has the most faith, is the most righteous? If so, you might as well stay home because we are all sinners and Jesus reminds us that “no one is good but God alone.” (Mk 10:18) That’s not all we need to be reminded of.

If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints? Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church! I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? But instead, one brother goes to law against another—and this in front of unbelievers!


The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers. (1 Cor 6:1-8)

“Endure hardship with us like a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No one serving as a soldier gets involved in civilian affairs…” (2 Tim 2:3-4)

They say power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. In the same way political power corrupts politically and drives out whatever spirituality was there to begin with.

Flashback Friday: Jesus is my Campaign Manager

Frank

***Originally posted 10/23/08. Posted today in light of a radio station pulling support for a Christian music festival for inviting Jim Wallis as a speaker in addition to my debate with Sojourners on Twitter and in my post on Monday.***

I made the mistake last night at church talking politics with one of my friends. Actually, she brought up how she can’t wait for it all to be over; she’s tired of hearing the same arguments over and over. Then she said something that totally boggled me. She commented on how Jesus never talked about abortion or homosexuality. Now I understand where she was coming from. The Religious Right is too narrowly focused on these issues above all else. But the case she makes doesn’t apply to her point. She commented on how the world was more “jacked up” in Jesus’ day, yet he didn’t bring up these issues. The Romans practiced infanticide, but Jesus didn’t say anything against it. Homosexuality was common in pagan worship and temple prostitution, but Jesus didn’t say anything against it. Well first of all, Jesus ministered to the Jews who lived in and around Jerusalem. He never went to Rome or Corinth or associated with Greek prostitutes. So why would he bring these subjects up? But here’s a twist on the argument. Slaves were present all around Jesus’ ministry. In fact, the Old Testament gives instructions regarding slavery. And Jesus never said a word about the practice. Should that mean that slavery is not a religious issue of concern to Christians? Someone should’ve told that to William Wilberforce.

I mentioned that and she side-stepped it by then saying that Jesus never preached politics anyway. Well yes, and no. His comment on “giv[ing] to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s” was both a theological and political statement since Caesar claimed divinity. At the same time, he didn’t take any side to the dismay of the religious leaders. The same was true when Jesus instructed his disciples how to pray by saying “Our Father, who is in heaven, hallowed be your name.” The first comment personalized the God of the tetragrammaton, YHWH, which would’ve upset the religious leaders, but followed that up by praising his name which usurped the divinity of Caesar. If anything, his politics were indirect. But because he wasn’t the political leader many thought the Messiah should’ve been, it was easy to entice Judas to betray him.

The extension of my friend’s argument, that she didn’t mention, was that Jesus preached about the poor more than anything else, so that should be a political priority. I don’t disagree, except for the political aspect of it. Jim Wallis, in his book God’s Politics, dedicates a section in his first chapter titled, “The Political Problem of Jesus” and then goes on to turn Jesus’ teaching into a political argument. This is where I disagree with him. I don’t believe that because Jesus said to “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” that that should apply to foreign policy. That is a personal command. Not a political one. And there’s a difference between being under attack and persecuted. But he argues that if a political leader claims to be a Christian, then they should apply that to their politics. I agree that faith should guide morality applied through politics. But to apply faith directly to politics turns this pluralistic country into a theocracy, which I believe Jesus would’ve opposed. A political leader needs to consider the big picture and the good of the country and balance that not against, but rather on, their faith. In other words, their faith should be the fulcrum of their lever, not one side of the balancing act.

Back to the personal aspect of Jesus’ teachings. His commentaries on the poor, lack of explicit political stances, and teachings on the Kingdom of Heaven are personal, not national. So we can’t apply “love your enemies” or “blessed are the peacemakers” to policy. That’s not to say I’m pro-war. But whether or not to go and participate in war is a personal decision that would have to be informed by a personal faith. Whereas the decision to engage in war on the national level must be policy driven. At the same time, I believe our Freedom of Speech also obligates us to speak out against war if our conscience leads us to.

This would then imply that a Christian politician cannot effectively hold an office and still keep Jesus first and God above all. And I think there’s truth to that. That’s why I’m suspicious of any politician who says I should vote for him or her because of their faith. And that’s also why I don’t expect our moral problems to be “fixed” via politics, but instead through individual Christians actively living out their convictions.

As for abortion and homosexuality, I told my friend that sin is still sin. That doesn’t mean that morality at that level should be legislated. But if my vote gives me a voice, I want to cast it to make a statement of my faith. And that is what I will continue to wrestle with up to, and beyond, November 4.

Is Patriotism an Idol?

Frank

My “question of the week” is late coming, just getting back into routine after a weekend spent camping. But the question in the title has been resonating in the back of my mind since I read these blogs from Relevant and Sojourners before I left on Friday. A counter-argument, so to speak, was posted at SoJo this morning.

So I’m throwing the question out to you, the reader. Is patriotism an idol?

Some additional thoughts from past blog posts can be found here, here, and here. And for some humor, check out JesusNeedsNewPR’s Jesus Pictures of the Day.

Please keep the debate respectful.

The Separation between Church and State

Frank

is 240,000 miles. Who knew?

I knew of the controversy surrounding the Apollo 8 mission and Madalyn Murray O’Hair’s lawsuit, but this is the first time I’ve ever heard this story.

The comments following the post are entertaining (as is usually the case) and do a poor job representing either side of the debate, but an interesting point is brought up.

Yes, there was enough publicity after Apollo 8 for NASA to choose not to broadcast Buzz Aldrin celebrating the Lord’s Supper. But that’s where it ended. As much of a publicity hound (pun intended) that Buzz Aldrin is (and I say that with all due respect, having met him on a couple of occasions), it says a lot that not much was made of this.

Contrast with today. The Religious Right fringe of American Christianity (TM) would be up in arms, appearing on every talking-head news show on cable and crying “persecution!” To them, I would offer up this advice:

“Be careful not to do your ‘acts of righteousness’ before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven…

And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.” (Matthew 6:1, 5-8)

The Separation between Church and State

Frank

is 240,000 miles. Who knew?

I knew of the controversy surrounding the Apollo 8 mission and Madalyn Murray O’Hair’s lawsuit, but this is the first time I’ve ever heard this story.

The comments following the post are entertaining (as is usually the case) and do a poor job representing either side of the debate, but an interesting point is brought up.

Yes, there was enough publicity after Apollo 8 for NASA to choose not to broadcast Buzz Aldrin celebrating the Lord’s Supper. But that’s where it ended. As much of a publicity hound (pun intended) that Buzz Aldrin is (and I say that with all due respect, having met him on a couple of occasions), it says a lot that not much was made of this.

Contrast with today. The Religious Right fringe of American Christianity (TM) would be up in arms, appearing on every talking-head news show on cable and crying “persecution!” To them, I would offer up this advice:

“Be careful not to do your ‘acts of righteousness’ before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven…

And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.” (Matthew 6:1, 5-8)

The Culture War Never Ends

Frank
I didn’t get as far as I wanted with my ‘Culture War’ posts. There are still a lot of topics still to be covered, but instead of regurgitating a stream of posts in a mad dash to meet a deadline I’ll post those when I get the chance. I’m going to start using labels for my posts too, so topics can easily be found.

That said, the Culture War isn’t over just because Christmas is. Sure, there were the typical battles over public Nativity scenes, vandalized decorations, and so on. In the Washington State Capitol, for example, atheists placed a proclamation against organized religion and belief in God in general next to their Nativity. What rubs me wrong the most, is how the atheist argument relies on belittling the religious by claiming that “reason” comes to the conclusion that there is no God. In other words, faith in God is unreasonable. But I prefer this instead, “A fool says in his heart, ‘there is no God’” (Psalm 14:1)

That argument is repeated in a series of billboards that are beginning to spring up, intentionally coinciding with the holidays.
But like I said, just because Christmas is over doesn’t mean that the Culture War is over. Michael Newdow (you might remember him for suing to remove “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance) is suing over the oath to be taken by President-elect Barak Obama, which will be taken with a Bible closing with the words “so help me God”. This is his third lawsuit over the presidential inauguration so the lawsuit isn’t taken very seriously. Neither the ACLU nor the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ, known from the radio show Jay Sekulow Live) make any mention of this suit on their home pages (follow the links on the right).
What’s interesting though, is the motivation for the suit. As quoted from the article:

Newdow and other plaintiffs say they want to watch the inaugural either in person or on television. As atheists, they contend, having to watch a ceremony with religious components will make them feel excluded and stigmatized.

“Plaintiffs are placed in the untenable position of having to choose between not watching the presidential inauguration or being forced to countenance endorsements of purely religious notions that they expressly deny,” according to the lawsuit.

I’m a recovering addict, so should I sue the Super Bowl for their Budweiser ads because I feel stigmatized? Or as a Christian, don’t I feel excluded by most television programming that espouses worldly values contrary to my own? Should I sue NBC or the FCC?
It was debated after Obama’s victory whether that would embolden the far-left. I don’t think that’s necessarily the case. The past administration has done plenty to invigorate that base. But there is in increasing hostility towards religion that if it continues unchecked, could result in our own rights being curbed for the sake of Political Correctness.

Jesus is my Campaign Manager

Frank

I made the mistake last night at church talking politics with one of my friends. Actually, she brought up how she can’t wait for it all to be over; she’s tired of hearing the same arguments over and over. Then she said something that totally boggled me. She commented on how Jesus never talked about abortion or homosexuality. Now I understand where she was coming from. The Religious Right is too narrowly focused on these issues above all else. But the case she makes doesn’t apply to her point. She commented on how the world was more “jacked up” in Jesus’ day, yet he didn’t bring up these issues. The Romans practiced infanticide, but Jesus didn’t say anything against it. Homosexuality was common in pagan worship and temple prostitution, but Jesus didn’t say anything against it. Well first of all, Jesus ministered to the Jews who lived in and around Jerusalem. He never went to Rome or Corinth or associated with Greek prostitutes. So why would he bring these subjects up? But here’s a twist on the argument. Slaves were present all around Jesus’ ministry. In fact, the Old Testament gives instructions regarding slavery. And Jesus never said a word about the practice. Should that mean that slavery is not a religious issue of concern to Christians? Someone should’ve told that to William Wilberforce.

I mentioned that and she side-stepped it by then saying that Jesus never preached politics anyway. Well yes, and no. He comment on “giv[ing] to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s” was both a theological and political statement since Caesar claimed divinity. At the same time, he didn’t take any side to the dismay of the religious leaders. The same was true when Jesus instructed his disciples how to pray by saying “Our Father, who is in heaven, hallowed be your name.” The first comment personalized the God of the tetragrammaton, YHWH, which would’ve upset the religious leaders, but followed that up by praising his name which usurped the divinity of Caesar. If anything, his politics were indirect. But because he wasn’t the political leader many thought the Messiah should’ve been, it was easy to entice Judas to betray him.

The extension of my friend’s argument, that she didn’t mention, was that Jesus preached about the poor more than anything else, so that should be a political priority. I don’t disagree, except for the political aspect of it. Jim Wallis, in his book God’s Politics, dedicates a section in his first chapter titled, “The Political Problem of Jesus” and then goes on to turn Jesus’ teaching into a political argument. This is where I disagree with him. I don’t believe that because Jesus said to “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” that that should apply to foreign policy. That is a personal command. Not a political one. And there’s a difference between being under attack and persecuted. But he argues that if a political leader claims to be a Christian, then they should apply that to their politics. I agree that faith should guide morality applied through politics. But to apply faith directly to politics turns this pluralistic country into a theocracy, which I believe Jesus would’ve opposed. A political leader needs to consider the big picture and the good of the country and balance that not against, but rather on, their faith. In other words, their faith should be the fulcrum of their lever, not one side of the balancing act.

Back to the personal aspect of Jesus’ teachings. His commentaries on the poor, lack of explicit political stances, and teachings on the Kingdom of Heaven are personal, not national. So we can’t apply “love your enemies” or “blessed are the peacemakers” to policy. That’s not to say I’m pro-war. But whether or not to go and participate in war is a personal decision that would have to be informed by a personal faith. Whereas the decision to engage in war on the national level must be policy driven. At the same time, I believe our Freedom of Speech also obligates us to speak out against war if our conscience leads us to.

This would then imply that a Christian politician cannot effectively hold an office and still keep Jesus first and God above all. And I think there’s truth to that. That’s why I’m suspicious of any politician who says I should vote for him or her because of their faith. And that’s also why I don’t expect our moral problems to be “fixed” via politics, but instead through individual Christians actively living out their convictions.

As for abortion and homosexuality, I told my friend that sin is still sin. That doesn’t mean that morality at that level should be legislated. But if my vote gives me a voice, I want to cast it to make a statement of my faith. And that is what I will continue to wrestle with up to, and beyond, November 4.