Fox News Channel personality, and apparently self-designated televangelist, Glen Beck staged a rally for God on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial today. Beck had conceived the event more than a year ago saying: “it was supposed to be political. And then I kind of feel like God dropped a giant sandbag on my head.”
THAT explains a lot!
It was built as an event “Restoring Honor” -- but where is the honor in using divisive language to describe members of Congress and really any American with whom they disagree?
In reality, a major goal of Beck’s rallies is to undermine the Founding Fathers’ vision of a nation where government and religion are kept separate. Beck propagates a revisionist historical perspective that says America is an officially religious state. Mainline Christians, Muslims, non-believers and other Americans who fail to meet Beck’s religious test are often maligned.
“Our nation’s destiny will be disastrous, not divine, if Glenn Beck has his way,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director. “The message Beck and his cronies want to send is clear: if you don’t believe in a government based on his religious vision, you should expect to be treated like a second-class citizen. Beck has made it clear that he has no respect for our Constitution’s promise of religious liberty for all.”
We've heard a lot about health care reform this month, but August Recess is for letting your Senators and Representatives hear from you on ALL the issues of importance to you. Here are a few that are important to me.
Not quite, but it appears that I'm giving it about as much attention as our president. President Obama discontinued the annual religious right-focused prayer service that George W. Bush held during his eight years in the White House. Looks like James and Shirley Dobson are going to be out in the cold for awhile.
During the Bush years the Dobson's, along with other religious right leaders, took part in an annual government-sponsored prayer service. According to Americans United for Separation of Church and State: "The relationship appeared to give governmental endorsement to the Dobsons’ National Day of Prayer Task Force, a private fundamentalist group that sponsors Christians-only prayer meetings around the country."
Obama has indicated that he will sign a proclamation recognizing the National Day of Prayer on Thursday, but that no special White House prayer service will be held.
Here's what Barry Lynn, AU's executive director, had to say about President Obama's actions:
I am pleased that President Obama has made this decision. The president is required by federal law to declare a National Day of Prayer, but there is no requirement that a special event be held at the White House in observance of this event.
During the Bush years, the Dobsons and other Religious Right leaders were given special access to the White House. That seems to have come to an end, and I’m glad.
Congress should never have mandated a National Day of Prayer. Americans don’t need the government telling them when to pray and what to pray for. But if the federal government is going to set aside a prayer day, it should recognize the broad diversity of faiths, not just fundamentalist Christians.
Barry Lynn is right. There's a time and a place for prayer, but at the White House -- on a specific day -- is not it. This is something evangelicals like Dobson fail to understand, and what they also don't get is that religious freedom is only guaranteed when there is church-state separation.
You have just watched Pastor Wiley Drake make a fool of himself in action at the Orange County (CA) Board of Supervisors meeting on March 10. Orange County Supervisors want to pull education money from Planned Parenthood and instead fund an anti-abortion abstinence only group. That doesn't sound like a good idea to me, or to Yvette Cabrera at The Orange County Register.
It was the spring of 1965, the same year the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that married women had the right to use contraceptives.
That spring a committee of physicians and community volunteers organized themselves with the hope of opening a family planning clinic. Not only did they achieve their goal on May 29, 1965 when they opened this clinic in the outpatient department of the county's hospital, but they received $30,000 in government funds to support the clinic.
Who exactly approved this funding? The Orange County's board of supervisors, according to historical documents from Planned Parenthood of Orange and San Bernardino Counties' archives, which outline how this same committee applied for affiliate status with the Planned Parenthood Federation of America that year as well.
This particular clinic did not provide medical services at the time, but it offered educational services about birth control from 1965 to 1968, according to Stephanie Kight, Planned Parenthood's vice president of community affairs.
"So back in 1965 our county supervisors understood the need for these services because they allowed us to operate our first clinic at the county hospital," says Kight.
Let's flash forward to 2009. Last week, the county board of supervisors unanimously voted to suspend a $300,000 contract with Planned Parenthood – money that pays for five certified health educators who provide comprehensive reproductive education throughout the county. They give live presentations at schools and after-school programs, and they help run toll-free and online hotlines.
None of this funding, which is allocated from tobacco settlement revenue, is used to provide abortion services, a fact well documented in data submitted to the county, according to Planned Parenthood. The nonprofit is part of the Orange County Coalition of Community Clinics, which shares this funding with other member clinics.
Still, abortions was the reason given when county supervisors explained why they cut the funding. They don't believe the county should fund abortions, and they are morally opposed to abortions.
It was a move that shocked, among others, Dr. Thomas C. Bent, medical director and chief operating officer of the Laguna Beach Community Clinic, which is also a member of the coalition and receives tobacco settlement funds.
"Focusing their energy on punishing somebody who offers a legal service to women in need, as Planned Parenthood does, is so wrong," says Bent. "The irony is that the money that's going specifically to (Planned Parenthood's) program is educational so that women won't get themselves in a situation where they need an abortion..."
Nut cases like Wiley Drake want to impose their beliefs on everyone -- but Drake seems to forget we have separation of church and state in this country.
As Bent put it, part of his job as a doctor is to avoid making judgments. Instead, he's supposed to make sure his patients understand the full scope of the medical options available to them. He believes the same should apply to politicians.
"There has to be a separation of church and state," says Bent. "I don't proselytize in my exam room. (The board of supervisors) shouldn't proselytize with the power of their office."
Yes, Mr. President ... inquiring minds would like to know!
The Office has four priorities, according to the press release, including:
It will be one voice among several in the administration that will look at how we support women and children, address teenage pregnancy, and reduce the need for abortion.
Note that the wording is NOT “abortion reduction” as being reported in the press, but reducing the need for abortion, surely a goal as I have written many times that is common ground. Although I’m not sure why there isn’t a commitment to reduce pregnancies among teenagers rather than it being a topic to be “addressed”, the statement does support the agenda laid out on the White House web site for the new administration:
Supports a Woman's Right to Choose: President Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority in his Administration. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in that case.
Preventing Unintended Pregnancy: President Obama was an original co-sponsor of legislation to expand access to contraception, health information, and preventive services to help reduce unintended pregnancies. Introduced in January 2007, the Prevention First Act will increase funding for family planning and comprehensive sex education that teaches both abstinence and safe sex methods. The Act will also end insurance discrimination against contraception, improve awareness about emergency contraception, and provide compassionate assistance to rape victims.
What’s curious then is that among the fifteen leaders who have been named to the new Advisory Council, only Rabbi David Saperstein from the Union for Reform Judaism is an outspoken supporter of women's reproductive choice, although several of the named persons are vocal anti-choice supporters. Given the President's public commitments and the published White House agenda I note above, the lack of denomination and religious organization leaders who are known to be supporters of these issues and who have expertise working on them is troubling and disappointing. It’s also deeply troubling that only one of the council members is a woman religious leader, that only one third are women, and that none are out gay and lesbian religious or secular leaders.
The last is particularly concerning because the President in establishing the office left in place a Bush executive order that's specifically authorizes religion-based employment discrimination in publicly funded programs, what seems like a reversal of candidate Obama’s strong statement in July: “if you get a federal grant, you can’t use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can’t discriminate against them or against the people you hire on the basis of their religion.”
If you have suggestions about who should fill the remaining spots, leave them on Rev. Haffner's post -- and tell her BAC at Yikes sent you.
President Obama attended the annual National Prayer Breakfast yesterday and used the opportunity to tout the reconstitution and expansion of George W. Bush's Office on Faith Based Initiatives. In his remarks the president said he didn't want to favor one religion over another, or "even religious groups over secular groups." But in fact, that's just what he's doing.
National women's organizations have been lobbying Obama, who has said he is a feminist, to reopen the White House Office on Women's Issues. So far the answer is a big fat no - women's concerns will be under the already swamped Office of Public Liaison. That's a tiny shop that's chronically understaffed and overstretched. Even with the best intentions, there's almost no chance they can interface with women's advocates in a meaningful way, much less shape policy to overcome the many setbacks we inherited from the Bush years.
In a direct insult to women, George W. Bush closed the Clinton-era White House Office on Women's Issues in his first week, then ensconced the first-ever church/state liaison office in the same space. For our new president to "keep the faith" with religious groups while short-shrifting women is equally insulting. There is no doubt that women are responsible for his election. Females went for Obama by 56 percent to McCain's 43 percent, while men split their votes about evenly. The Jesus crowd, on the other hand, voted 60% against the president.
The newly constituted "office for faith-based programs and community partnerships" will be headed by Joshua DuBois, a 26-year-old Pentecostal preacher and Obama confidant, who will preside over a task force of 25 or so religious and community leaders. This group will give DuBois advice, which will presumably be passed on to the president.
To accord this advisory panel so much power, while relegating women to the margins, speaks volumes. Religious groups gained a lot from the Bush years - access to the White House, and millions of dollars in federal money, some of which was used to proselytize. And don't forget, almost all faiths consider women second class citizens; many actively campaign against affirmative action, the Women's Equality Amendment, the international human rights treaty for women known as CEDAW, and civil rights for gays and lesbians. Keeping this act going - even if it is broadened to include "community members" - is not the change women voted for.
Martha sums it up best when she says:
Women's groups are elated that the Texans are finally out of the White House. But if the new president wants their continuing loyalty, he ought to follow some good ol' Texas advice: Dance with the one that brung ya.
"President Obama is expected on Thursday to announce his version of the Office for Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, which brings together government and religious groups to provide social services. Obama is trying to avoid the Constitutional fights that plagued a similar program under his predecessor. But, the office is already caught up in controversy."
AU Executive Director Rev. Barry Lynn was interviewed for this report.
Much as been written about religious inclusion in events leading up to, and including, the inauguration of our 44th president. Obama's selection of Rick Warren to give the inaugural invocation sparked a firestorm of protest from liberals. How could the new president choose such a divisive figure to usher in what everyone had hoped would be a new era.
... once you pass the threshold of having two Protestant ministers, it is not unexpected that one or both (in this case, only one since the Rev. Joseph Lowery did not) is going to pray in the name of Jesus. As you know, I think the prayers should have been restricted to the worship service the then-President elect attended earlier in the day. Adding the Lord's Prayer to the end of Warren's own was really over the top, since this is such a well-known Christian intercession.
Warren doesn't believe non-believers should be elected to public office, at least not to the Presidency. So he still thinks their moral compass is inferior to his own just on the face of it. Also, I don't like people prattling on about "our commitment to freedom and justice for all" when they just participated in a campaign of injustice, in Warren's case his support for passage of California's notoriously discriminatory Proposition 8.
In an attempt to pacify the protests, Bishop Gene Robinson was invited to give the invocation at a pre-inaugural concert. Even that, however, was not without controversy as the television viewing audience on HBO was initially blocked from hearing Robinson's message.
Proving once again that it's important to speak out, the uproar sparked by this omission prompted HBO to eventually include Robinson's invocation in rebroadcasts of the event.
The Washington Post thinks the inauguration ushers in a new era of inclusion.
When President Obama rose to speak between the prayers offered by evangelical megachurch pastor Rick Warren and civil rights veteran the Rev. Joseph Lowery, he indicated -- without ever saying a word -- the breadth of the religious outreach ahead in his administration.
Though Warren's prayer contained touches of inclusivity, it was nonetheless explicitly and solidly Christian, ending with the Lord's Prayer. Meanwhile, when Lowery, a United Methodist, closed the swearing-in ceremony, he remarked on the rainbow of races and religions Obama will represent as president.
"Keep in mind, Rick Warren prayed while George Bush was still president," noted the Rev. Cheryl Townsend Gilkes, professor of African American studies at Colby College in Maine. "It's an interesting ushering out of one era and ushering in of a new era." [...]
Obama's inclusion of gay Episcopal Bishop V. Gene Robinson by having him pray at the inaugural kick-off concert Sunday only expands the expectations for the new president's religious outreach.
"With just the triad of Gene Robinson and Lowery and Rick Warren, that's a very powerful signal to American Protestants -- still more than half of the population -- that Obama doesn't want religious division to get in the way of 'being' America," said Diana Butler Bass, an expert on American religion and author of "Christianity for the Rest of Us." [...]
Lowery's prayer was so broad that even a secularist could embrace it -- and did.
"He didn't say this prayer was for Jesus or Allah or any other god, he said let all who embrace justice say amen," said Lori Lipman Brown, director of the Secular Coalition for America. "I hardly ever say amen, but how could you not say amen to embracing justice?"
And possibly for the first time, non-believers were included in the inaugural speech as well. We are all Americans, believers and non-believers.
Maybe the best way to insure that all are included is to simply take religion out of government-sponsored events. Our founders certainly recognized the danger of mixing church and state, which is why the first words of the First Amendment read: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."
I've been mulling over the Pastor Rick Warren brouhaha. Why does it bother me? Well, in case you missed it, here's an excellent explanation by Rob Boston of Americans United for Separation of Church and State on Countdown last night.
I love what Melissa at Shakesville has to say about it. (h/t Quaker Dave) I especially love what she says about expansion of rights versus the limitation of rights. This has always been the difference between liberalism and conservatism in my view. Because susan-brightside is absolutely correct in the comments on this post. We need to get this separation of church and state thing right. Now.
History has taught us that elected officials are more likely to infuse religion into the public sphere during times of crisis. Without a public vote, the motto "In God We Trust" first appeared on coins during the Civil War. The action marked what many believe to be a dangerous trend — injecting religion into America’s national symbols.
Overcome by pre-World War II patriotic fervor, the US supreme Court ruled it was constitutional to require Jehovah's Witness students to violate their faith and pledge allegiance to the flag in public schools. You might be asking yourself, 'what's the big deal?' Well, a Witnesses' interpretation of the Bible is that saluting the flag would amount to placing another deity before God. Something they just don't do.
Witness missionaries were chased and beaten by vigilantes in Texas. Their literature was confiscated and even burned. Less than a week after the court decision, a Kingdom Hall was stormed and torched in Kennebunk, Maine. The ACLU reported to the Justice Department that nearly 1,500 Witnesses were physically attacked in more than 300 communities nationwide. Partly because of this violent reaction to its decision, the Court reversed itself with remarkable speed.
The Cold War was marked by Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s infamous anti-communist “witch-hunts” -- but also by a greater emphasis on religion. During this shameful period in American history Congress inserted the words “under God” into the Pledge of Allegiance, and “In God We Trust” replaced E pluribus unum as the national motto.
The sudden crush of worshipers packing the small evangelical Shelter Rock Church in Manhasset, N.Y. — a Long Island hamlet of yacht clubs and hedge fund managers — forced the pastor to set up an overflow room with closed-circuit TV and 100 folding chairs, which have been filled for six Sundays straight.
In Seattle, the Mars Hill Church, one of the fastest-growing evangelical churches in the country, grew to 7,000 members this fall, up 1,000 in a year. At the Life Christian Church in West Orange, N.J., prayer requests have doubled — almost all of them aimed at getting or keeping jobs.
Like evangelical churches around the country, the three churches have enjoyed steady growth over the last decade. But since September, pastors nationwide say they have seen such a burst of new interest that they find themselves contending with powerful conflicting emotions — deep empathy and quiet excitement — as they re-encounter an old piece of religious lore:
Bad times are good for evangelical churches.
“It’s a wonderful time, a great evangelistic opportunity for us,” said the Rev. A. R. Bernard, founder and senior pastor of the Christian Cultural Center in Brooklyn, New York’s largest evangelical congregation, where regulars are arriving earlier to get a seat. “When people are shaken to the core, it can open doors.” [...]
Many ministers have for the moment jettisoned standard sermons on marriage and the Beatitudes to preach instead about the theological meaning of the downturn. [...]
Part of the evangelicals’ new excitement is rooted in a communal belief that the big Christian revivals of the 19th century, known as the second and third Great Awakenings, were touched off by economic panics. Historians of religion do not buy it, but the notion “has always lived in the lore of evangelism,” said Tony Carnes, a sociologist who studies religion.
A study last year may lend some credence to the legend. In ”Praying for Recession: The Business Cycle and Protestant Religiosity in the United States,” David Beckworth, an assistant professor of economics at Texas State University, looked at long-established trend lines showing the growth of evangelical congregations and the decline of mainline churches and found a more telling detail: During each recession cycle between 1968 and 2004, the rate of growth in evangelical churches jumped by 50 percent. By comparison, mainline Protestant churches continued their decline during recessions, though a bit more slowly.
Many Americans do turn to their faith during times of crisis, but there are other citizens who hold a different view. And among the faithful there are differences about how their faith is expressed. For this reason we must be vigilant in safeguarding separation of church and state.
It's important that government not sponsor religious messages or activities that may be divisive and make some feel like second-class citizens. We enjoy more individual freedom, religious diversity, and interfaith peace than any nation in history. We enjoy this precisely because we have a wall of separation between church and state.
At this time of crisis we must not hesitate to protect that wall from attack.
Let me start by saying there is nothing wrong with Christians wanting to express their faith. It only becomes a problem when the government is sponsoring it. Such is the case in South Carolina.
Most states offer 'vanity' license plates for your vehicle, and often they come about because of public demand. The 'I Believe' tag in South Carolina was initiated by the State Legislature. The action was challenged by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, representing a group of concerned citizens.
“The ‘I Believe’ license plate is a clear example of government favoritism toward one religion,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “The court drove home an important point: South Carolina officials have no business meddling in religious matters.”
U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie today issued a preliminary injunction forbidding the state to issue or manufacture the plates. She also ordered the state to inform people who requested the plates that they will not be available and to remove information about the plates from the state Web site. Currie will release a written opinion on Monday.
Americans United brought the Summers v. Adams legal challenge on behalf of four local clergy the Rev. Dr. Thomas A. Summers, Rabbi Sanford T. Marcus, the Rev. Dr. Robert M. Knight and the Rev. Dr. Neal Jones as well as the Hindu American Foundation and the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.
In legal briefs, AU asserted that the “I Believe” license plate was unlike other specialty tags offered by the state. The measure authorizing the special plates was passed unanimously by both houses of the legislature, with the active support of Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer.
Americans United also pointed out that some legislators openly admitted that they would not vote for similar plates for minority faiths.
Asked by a reporter if he would support a license plate for Islam, Rep. Bill Sandifer replied, “Absolutely and positively no…. I would not because of my personal belief, and because I believe that wouldn’t be the wish of the majority of the constituency in this house district.”
Said AU Legal Director Ayesha N. Khan, “The ‘I Believe’ license plate sends the message that South Carolina has a favored religion. That’s one message the state is not permitted to transmit.”
One commenter on the Washington Post web site summed it up this way:
Generally sounds just like the Taliban, if we only replace "Mohammed" with "God" or "Jesus." If we do not learn from history we are doomed to repeat it. This is not about being pro-Christianity or anti-Christianity, it is about being pro-Theocracy or anti-Theocracy. Theocracies, throughout time and spanning diverse religions, have proved to be the most repressive and cruel regimes imaginable. Let's honor both God and the wisdom of our founding fathers and keep religion out of our government.
No time for blogging today ... I'm getting ready to spend the weekend with some of my favorite people! I'm not sure why Dr. Zaius is wearing his lab gloves, but it could have something to do with being in DC while George Bush is still occupying the White House. Never fear Dr. Z ... soon we will all be able to take the gloves off!
Bloggers and activists who care about safeguarding separation of church and state are making their way to Washington.
I'll write more about that later, but for now let's just enjoy this post by John Amato at Crooks and Liars: "Irrelevant"
There is a lot of misinformation surrounding the separation of church and state in this country. Some will claim that it was the Founders who introduced "In God We Trust" as the national motto, and "under, God" in the pledge, but that is not the case. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were staunch separationists who advocated for a secular Constitution and Bill of Rights.
IN GOD WE TRUST
The nation’s motto was originally “E Pluribus Unum” (or, “From Many, One”), a phrase selected by a committee of Founding Fathers that included James Madison. "In God We Trust" made its first appearance on United States currency in 1864, during the Civil War. Done without public debate, it was placed on the 2 cent piece as a statement that God was on the side of the Union Army during the Civil War. The motto “In God We Trust” dates from the Civil War not the founding of the nation, and was not formally adopted as the national motto until 1956.
THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister. Bellamy crafted the Pledge for a magazine called The Youth's Companion as part of a patriotic exercise to mark the 400th anniversary of Columbus' voyage to the New World. Bellamy, who was an advocate of church-state separation, did not include religious references in his Pledge. He also didn't include any reference to a specific nation because he had hoped the pledge might someday become a "world" pledge, and be used to bring people together. In 1954, Congress inserted the phrase "under God" into the Pledge after a lobbying campaign led by the Knights of Columbus. Until that time the Pledge had been a purely patriotic exercise. As is often the case, religion was injected into the public sphere during a time of crisis. In this case it was during the McCarthy era, and the change was seen as a blow against "godless communism" in the Soviet Union.
We are in a time of crisis, and we must choose as our next president a candidate who will stand up for separation of church and state. Religious liberty is one of our most precious freedoms, and we must do all that we can to protect it.
I just got back from a quick trip to Oklahoma City and I must admit that flying on 9/11 evoked memories. There were a lot of military personnel on the plane as well, all heading to hurricane areas. Hope they are safe.
I was traveling for work, and I want to thank all the activists in Oklahoma City for such an energizing event! You folks are GREAT! I love traveling and meeting new people, but it's also nice to be home.
Religious Right leaders have long tried to fudge the rules regarding partisan politicking from the pulpit -- but this might be something new, even for them! The socially conservative Alliance Defense Fund is encouraging pastors to openly violate IRS regulations, and endorse candidates from the pulpit. This action is set to take place on Sunday, September 28.
Declaring that clergy have a constitutional right to endorse political candidates from their pulpits, the socially conservative Alliance Defense Fund is recruiting several dozen pastors to do just that on Sept. 28, in defiance of Internal Revenue Service rules.
The effort by the Arizona-based legal consortium is designed to trigger an IRS investigation that ADF lawyers would then challenge in federal court. The ultimate goal is to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to throw out a 54-year-old ban on political endorsements by tax-exempt houses of worship.
"For so long, there has been this cloud of intimidation over the church," ADF attorney Erik Stanley said. "It is the job of the pastors of America to debate the proper role of church in society. It's not for the government to mandate the role of church in society."
Let's be clear about one thing. Houses of worship are governed by THE SAME regulations as any other 501(c)(3) tax exempt organization. So if there is a "cloud of intimidation" over the church, it's over EVERY tax exempt group, too!
Houses of worship, as much as we might not like it, are perfectly free to express views about issues until the cows come home ... they can rant about how much of a sin they think same-sex marriage is, or talk about the "evils" of abortion ... they just can't take their rhetoric to the next level and explicitly tell their followers who to vote FOR or AGAINST.
There are a few religious leaders who get it!
Americans United for Separation of Church and State issued this press release today:
Americans United for Separation of Church and State today commended a group of Ohio clergy for opposing pulpit-based electioneering and unveiled a new Web site designed to counter Religious Right propaganda about federal tax law.
The Rev. Eric Williams of North Congregational United Church of Christ in Columbus is urging clergy all over America to give sermons on Sept. 21 in support of church-state separation and against partisan politics in houses of worship.
At a press conference in Columbus today, Williams and other religious leaders also called on the Internal Revenue Service to take action against the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) for encouraging churches to break the law and endorse candidates. The ADF, a Religious Right legal group based in Arizona, is urging pastors to endorse or oppose candidates from the pulpit on Sept. 28.
Americans United is led by the Rev. Barry Lynn, an ordained United Church of Christ minister. He and Rev. Williams understand the basic value of keeping church and state separate. Clearly the ADF would rather see churches become smoke-filled political machines. Which begs the question, WWJD? I'll leave that to my more spiritual/religious friends to answer.
In the meantime, if you are aware of partisan political activity taking place in your community contact Americans United and let them know. They have a specific web site for reporting these activities.
You can show your support for church-state separation by visiting the site and leaving your comments on posts like: Saddleback: Biased Questions and A Big Mistake, by my favorite Rev. Barry W. Lynn.
