[Scroll down for comments from visitors.]

Peter S. Canellos, Washington bureau chief for the Boston Globe, takes another look at the current mixing of religion with politics, and sees a fairly ugly picture. He begins:

The 2008 primary election campaign began with candidates scrambling to embrace religious leaders, and it's ending with candidates rushing to repudiate them. An election cycle that was supposed to usher in the marriage of religion and politics may be hastening its divorce.

From the evangelical ministers who questioned the fitness of a Mormon to be president, to the religious-right activists who denounced John McCain as godless, to the McCain-backing radio preacher who said Hitler was fulfilling God's will, to Barack Obama's longtime minister who blamed the United States for the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, to Obama's Catholic adviser who last week mocked Hillary Clinton, the clergy haven't just made a bad show of it: They've behaved like small-minded bigots.

These preachers have managed the amazing feat of making all the politicians involved in the campaign seem, by comparison, more tolerant, more reasonable, and less self-interested.

What do you think?
Please send a note
with your own analysis of the faith-and-politics issue
as you see it today --
and we'll share it here.
 

The Rev. Dr. D. James Kennedy, the Christian Right leader Rolling Stone magazine described as "the most influential evangelical you’ve never heard of," died September 5 in Florida of complications from a heart attack. His passing, only months after the death of Jerry Falwell, signals the generational shift of leadership now occurring in evangelical Christian circles.

Diana Butler Bass, a scholar in American religion and author of Christianity for the Rest of Us: How the Neighborhood Church is Transforming the Faith, sees this as one more step toward the clear end of an age when American Protestants viewed their faith as the guiding light of their nation’s life and culture, and saw that linkage as necessary for the well-being of their church.

An observation on the growth of Catholic power in U.S. politics

from Gene TeSelle, Witherspoon Issues Analyst   [3-22-06]

The confirmation of Samuel Alito's appointment means that a majority of Supreme Court justices are Roman Catholics. In order of appointment, they are Antonin Scalia (1986), Anthony Kennedy (1988), Clarence Thomas (1991), John Roberts (2005), and Samuel Alito (2006). Clarence Thomas was raised as a Catholic, attended an Episcopal church with his wife, and returned to Catholicism in the late 1990s.

This is not only a statistical first in the history of the U.S. It also represents a sea change in American politics, which was strongly anti-Catholic until recent decades.

In 1960, Democratic candidate John F. Kennedy traveled to Texas to address a group of Southern Baptist ministers. The Southern Baptist Convention had unanimously adopted a resolution expressing grave doubts over a Catholic becoming president..

At the meeting in Houston, Kennedy said, "I do not speak for my church on public matters — and the church does not speak for me." That reassured many Southern Baptists, who 45 years ago were strong champions of church-state separation.

But that was before the civil rights struggles of the Sixties, and before the subtle or not-so-subtle appeals to Southern whites by Barry Goldwater, George Wallace, and Richard Nixon, leading the majority of white Southerners to switch from the traditional Democratic Party to a new, carefully crafted Republican Party.

Today, Southern Baptists are more likely to be allied with the Catholic church, not only on issues like abortion, stem-cell research, or same-sex unions, but also on the relation between church and state. Some bishops have even declared that Catholic candidates or officials should be denied communion if they fail to follow the church's teachings.

There is another significant difference from the Sixties. The Second Vatican Council, which met from 1962 to 1965, spoke out strongly about the need for social, economic, and political justice, with especially noteworthy consequences in Latin America and elsewhere in the Third World. Today the Vatican and most Catholic bishops take a much more cautious approach to social issues. Some of the most powerful Catholic voices in the U.S. take a line that is almost indistinguishable from the conservative Opus Dei.

There are some cracks, however, in the conservative coalition that has developed in recent decades. The official position of the Catholic Church is one of opposition to the death penalty, quite at variance with the "personal responsibility" emphasis of most evangelicals.

On Wednesday, March 1st, 2006, in Annapolis at a hearing on the proposed Constitutional Amendment to prohibit gay marriage, Jamie Raskin, professor of law at American University, was requested to testify.

At the end of his testimony, Republican Senator Nancy Jacobs said: "Mr. Raskin, my Bible says marriage is only between a man and a woman. What do you have to say about that?"

Raskin replied: "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."

The room erupted into applause.

Did he really say this?  Stop in at Raskin’s own website >>
(He is a candidate for the Maryland State Senate.)

Religious liberty watchdog group calls ruling a victory for public education and church-state separation

News release dated January 5, 2006 [posted here 1-7-06]

Americans United for Separation of Church and State today hailed a Florida Supreme Court decision striking down the state’s school voucher program.

"This is an important victory for public education and church-state separation," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. "Now the state legislature can devote its attention to improving public education rather than subsidizing religious and other private schools. The children of Florida deserve the very best public schools the state can provide. Taxpayer dollars should be spent in public schools, not private religious academies."

The Florida high court, voting 5-2, struck down the state’s "Opportunity Scholarship Program, "holding that it violates a section of the Florida Constitution requiring a uniform system of free public schools.

Americans United co-sponsored the Bush v. Holmes lawsuit along with its allies in the public education and civil liberties communities.

Opponents of the voucher program asserted that the scheme ran afoul of the "uniform public schools" provision of Florida Constitution, as well as its church-state separation provisions. Although lower state courts cited the church-state provisions, the Florida Supreme Court did not rule on that subject, saying it was not unnecessary to address that issue since the plan was unconstitutional under the "uniform" provision.

Florida legislators passed the voucher law in 1999 at the behest of Gov. Jeb Bush. The program provides vouchers for private school tuition for students enrolled in public schools deemed "failing." More than half of the participating private schools in the voucher plan are religious.

In its decision, the Florida high court noted that parents retain the right to educate their children as they see fit.

"Our decision does not deny parents recourse to either public or private school alternatives to a failing school," declared the court majority. "Only when the private school option depends upon public funding is choice limited."

Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.

The Los Angeles Times reports that the Internal Revenue Service has warned one of Southern California's largest and most liberal churches that it is at risk of losing its tax-exempt status because of an antiwar sermon two days before the 2004 presidential election.

A news release from The Interfaith Alliance

Washington, July 14 – Today, the Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, President of The Interfaith Alliance, responded to the announcement that leaders of the religious right will host – in a church -- another simulcast television program, "Justice Sunday II."

"Here we go again!" Gaddy said. "And, this time the imagery and the implications of the message advanced by leaders of the religious right are more offensive, sacrilegious, and undemocratic than those so integral to Justice Sunday I.

"Right now, the most serious threats to the fundamental rights and liberties in our nation are not coming from a lack of God’s interest but from a small group of religious right leaders who have assumed the mantle of national religious authorities and seek to impose on the whole nation and its constitution their particular views on religion, the courts, politics, and justice.

"One can only wonder about the sincerity of the prayerful plea, ‘God save the United States and this Honorable Court’ when members of the religious right have disparaged certain members of the Supreme Court and some even have prayed for the demise of these members.

"There is no confusion, only manipulation—a manipulation of the holy name of God and a manipulation of the United States Constitution—in the implicit suggestion that only a Supreme Court nominee who wins the approval of the religious right is a suitable, God-endorsed candidate for the highest court in our nation.

"Let us get the language straight. Those of us who are concerned about the status of religious liberty in this nation do not want ‘activist judges’ ruling on the constitutionality of various issues. We want conservative judges who will not waver in providing for the citizens of this nation religious liberty which means, one, the guarantee of no establishment of religion and, thus, no entanglement between the institutions of religion and government, and, two, the free exercise of religion for people of all faiths and people of no faith and providing for the citizens of this nation the basic civil rights for which the Constitution was written apart from whether or not any person meets the litmus tests of acceptability established by the religious right.

"Neither the religions nor the government of this nation will be well served by such pontificating by the religious right. We urge the Family Research Council and its colleagues, please don’t put our nation through this again."

The Interfaith Alliance (TIA) is a nonpartisan, grassroots organization dedicated to promoting the positive and healing role of religion in the life of the nation and challenging those who manipulate religion to promote a narrow, divisive agenda. With more than 150,000 members drawn from more than 75 faith traditions, and 47 local alliances, TIA promotes compassion, civility and mutual respect for human dignity in our increasingly diverse society. www.interfaithalliance.org

Church-State issues loom large these days, from the White House to the Supreme Court to many communities around the country. There seem to be two absolutely opposing positions, as some advocate making America a "Christian nation," while others want to keep religion and political life two entirely separate worlds.

Noah Feldman, writing in the New York Times, suggests the two warring groups might best be understood as the "values evangelicals," who insist on the direct relevance of religious values to political life , versus the ''legal secularists,'' who see religion as a matter of personal belief largely irrelevant to government and who see religious values as a divisive factor in our national life.

He suggests the solution might be found by giving a legitimate place to religious language and symbols in our political debates, while maintaining an absolute ban on government funding support for religious groups.

Noah Feldman is a professor at the New York University School of Law and a fellow at the New America Foundation. His book Divided by God: America's Church-State Problem -- and What We Should Do About It, from which the article is adapted, has just been published by Farrar, Straus & Giroux.

Sojourners’ editor Jim Wallis was in Louisville last week-end for an interfaith "Freedom and Faith" service at Central Presbyterian Church, which called for a very different view of the relation of faith and politics than that being pushed in the televised event calling on "people of faith" to defend themselves on the alleged attacks on the by those who are defending the power of the Senate to deal seriously with some questionable nominees for federal judgeships.

He urged people to "take back our faith" from those who seems intent on hijackiing it for their conservative political agenda, and declaring anyone who disagrees as being an enemy of faith.

He concludes:

This is a call for the rest of the churches to wake up. This is a call for people of faith everywhere to stand up and let their faith be heard. This is not a call to be just concerned, or just a little worried, or even just alarmed. This is a call for clear speech and courageous action. This is a call to take back our faith, and in the words of the prophet Micah, "to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with our God."

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist plans to join with the conservative Family Research Council, demanding support for judicial nominees on grounds of religious and moral convictions. 

Many faith-based groups are raising objections and urging the people contact their representatives in Washington.

Various press reports provide helpful background.

~~~~~~~~~~~

NCC general secretary voices deep concern

Dr. Robert Edgar, General Secretary of the National Council of Churches USA, has sent an open letter to the media, expressing his concern about the campaign being launched by the Family Research Council with the support of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, pushing the view that "those who disagree with them on President Bush's judicial nominees are ‘against people of faith.’" Edgar says this effort "serves to further polarize our nation, and it disenfranchises and demonize good people of faith who hold political beliefs that differ from theirs."

~~~~~~~~~~~

A coalition of religious leaders, religious freedom advocates, and human rights activists has called on President George W. Bush to act swiftly and appropriately in regard to Eritrea, Saudi Arabia, and Vietnam as newly-designated "Countries of Particular Concern for Severe Violations of Religious Freedom."

America's national parks are getting a conservative Christian makeover. Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) has released documentation showing that the Bush Administration is "sponsoring a program of Faith-Based Parks," including selling new books of Creationist explanations for the Grand Canyon at Park Service gift shops, and re-editing a documentary video shown at the Lincoln Memorial to remove images of gay and abortion rights demonstrations that took place at the memorial.

Academic panelists discuss controversial book on The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity, and "Bush, the War, and Religious Rhetoric."   [11-26-03]

Academic panelists discuss controversial book on The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity, and "Bush, the War, and Religious Rhetoric."

[11-26-03]

by Gene TeSelle, Witherspoon Society Issues Analyst

Gene TeSelle summarizes some of the criticisms and defenses of Philip Jenkins' thesis that the Christianity of the world's South, which is "traditionalist, orthodox, and supernatural," will soon dominate the Christian scene as the northern nations become more "post-Christian." The panel on Bush's religious rhetoric took a generally moderate view of what the President has been doing with religious language, with David Brooks observing that the President's speeches contain no more religious language than is typical of the civil religion of past presidents. TeSelle adds that Brooks also "emphasized what to some observers has been obvious, that almost no theology is reflected in the speeches."

A recent article by syndicated columnist Jonah Goldberg, published in the Philadelphia Inquirer, posed the interesting (and currently pressing) question: "Should judges be disqualified if their religious beliefs impact their votes?" Goldberg suggests - or even asserts - that it is religious prejudice to object to Supreme Court nominees who take strong positions on the basis of their faith.

This is an issue of great concern to many conservative Presbyterians (among lots of others), as evidenced by its inclusion in the PresbyWeb listings for Thursday, August 14, 2003.

For another perspective on religion and politics in America, you might consider a provocative essay in The Guardian, by George Monbiot.

To explain why the Bush administration is so selective in its "intelligence" about the world, and specifically about Iraq, he says that

The United States is no longer just a nation. It is now a religion. Its soldiers have entered Iraq to liberate its people not only from their dictator, their oil and their sovereignty, but also from their darkness. As George Bush told his troops on the day he announced victory, "wherever you go, you carry a message of hope - a message that is ancient and ever new. In the words of the prophet Isaiah, 'To the captives, "come out," and to those in darkness, "be free."

So American soldiers are no longer merely terrestrial combatants; they have become missionaries. They are no longer simply killing enemies; they are casting out demons.

He concludes:

The dangers of national divinity scarcely require explanation. Japan went to war in the 1930s convinced, like George Bush, that it possessed a heaven-sent mission to "liberate" Asia and extend the realm of its divine imperium. It would, the fascist theoretician Kita Ikki predicted, "light the darkness of the entire world". Those who seek to drag heaven down to earth are destined only to engineer a hell.

The full text of this article is available on Monbiot's own website and on The Guardian's site.

Who is this man Monbiot? You can check the "Who I am" page on his website.  When you finish you may wonder what he does for adventure. 

The Presbyterian Washington Office has provided more information on the "Political Speech Bill," HR2357, which would give churches and pastors greater freedom to engage in direct political activities. This legal analysis of the bill has been provided by the Office of Management and Budget. Basically the paper argues that, contrary to the claims of the bill's proponents, the bill is not needed to allow religious leaders to speak on issues, and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 will not prevent religious congregations from spending funds on partisan electioneering if H.R. 2357 becomes law.

Presbyterian Washington Office sounds a warning:

Legislation would let religious leaders endorse candidates from the pulpit.

The right can't lose: If it fails, they'll have a campaign issue to use against opponents in November.  [9-5-02]

Leading religious groups urge opposition to House bills that would allow churches to endorse candidates and otherwise involve themselves in partisan political activities.  [9-13-02]

Speaking at the University of Chicago Divinity School earlier this year, Justice Antonin Scalia had the opportunity to give a clear exposition of his view of "church and state." Among other points he revealed his view that democracy is really the enemy of the divine authority of the state, adding that "The reaction of people of faith to this tendency of democracy to obscure the divine authority behind government should not be resignation to it, but the resolution to combat it as effectively as possible."

Speaking of the death penalty, Scalia said that "the more Christian a country is the less likely it is to regard the death penalty as immoral."

The group Equal Partners in Faith has offered one statement in support of the decision.  [6-27-02]

The Presbyterian Washington Office reports that Congress now has a bill that would remove the IRS regulation against houses of worship supporting or opposing particular candidates during an election.

They offer a comment from our Constitutional Services department in reference to the issue as well as an article by Laura Goodstein.  You may want to contact your member of the House with your opinion on this.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State sees Supreme Court action on Ten Commandments display as a healthy step against "government-supported religion."  [5-31-01]

Inaction by high court means Indiana religious display must come down

[Media release from Americans United for Separation of Church and State, May 29, 2001]  [posted here on 5-31-01]

The U.S. Supreme Court announced today that it would not hear an appeal of an Indiana case dealing with a government-sponsored Ten Commandments monument displayed on public property.

The high court's rejection of Books v. City of Elkhart allows a lower court ruling prohibiting government endorsement of the Commandments to stand.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which filed a brief in the case at the appeals court level, said this is the latest in a long line of setbacks for supporters of government-sponsored religion.

Eventually opponents of church-state separation will learn that the law is not on their side," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. "Religion simply doesn't need the government's help to promote the Ten Commandments.

Today's announcement should help bring the Religious Right's Ten Commandments crusade to a screeching halt," added Lynn. "The writing on the church-state wall is clear: It's not the government's job to promote religion."

justices, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice William Rehnquist, took the unusual step of issuing a dissent today, announcing they wanted to hear the case. Rehnquist, writing for the three, said the Commandments monument "simply reflects the Ten Commandments' role in the development of our legal system." (The votes of four justices are needed to hear a case.)

response, Justice John Paul Stevens issued a statement of his own. He wrote that Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist failed to note that the Elkhartmonument begins with the lines, "THE TEN COMMANDMENTS -- I AM the LORD thy God," which appears in a larger type size than the rest of the Commandments. "The graphic emphasis place on those first lines," Stevens said, "is rather hard to square with the proposition that the monument expresses no particular religious preference...."

issue was a Ten Commandments monument erected in front of the city municipal building in Elkhart, Ind., in 1958. Local residents William Books and Michael Suetkamp filed suit against the city in 1998 over the granite tablet, which is 6 feet tall and stands alone in front of the city building.

Last December, the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the display violates the separation of church and state.

TV preacher Pat Robertson's legal group, the American Center for Law and Justice, was representing Elkhart and encouraged the high court to consider an appeal.

Supreme Court's decision to not to hear the case represents yet another hindrance for the Religious Right.

Controversy over government endorsement of the religious text has grown dramatically in recent years. Religious Right groups such as the Family Research Council have aggressively lobbied for government displays of the Ten Commandments in city halls, public schools and other public buildings.

In addition, congressional legislation, such as the "Ten Commandments Defense Act," has been introduced several times to allow displays of the Decalogue in public buildings. Similarly, over the past two years, 18 state legislatures have considered bills on the issue.

The Elkhart case had generated interest from attorneys general in seven states, each of whom urged the Supreme Court to hear the Elkhart case, including Alabama, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina and Texas.

Even President George W. Bush weighed in on the issue during the 2000 campaign, indicating that he would support changing the law to allow the display of the "standard version" of the Commandments in public schools and other buildings. In fact, there is no standard version -- different faith traditions use different interpretations.

Advocates of government-sponsored religious displays have fared poorly in courts. Over the last three years, state and federal courts have struck down Commandments displays in South Carolina, Kansas, Kentucky and Indiana in a separate case.

"Experience shows that state promotion of religion cheapens and demeans genuine faith," concluded Lynn. "There's an easy solution to this controversy: Let religious groups promote the Ten Commandments. The government should stay out of it."

Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization represents 60,000 members and allied houses of worship in all 50 states.

If you like what you find here,
we hope you'll help us keep this website going ... and growing!

Please consider making a special contribution -- large or small -- to help us continue and improve this service.

Click here to send a gift online, using your credit card, through PayPal.

Or send your check, made out to "Witherspoon Society" and marked "web site," to our Witherspoon  Bookkeeper: