Blog from the Capital

Texas' Christian Life Commission counsel Stephen Reeves, formerly of the Baptist Joint Committee, helped deliver an important message at TCU yesterday (my emphasis):

Reeves, who is an adviser to the Baptist General Convention of Texas, said even though the increasing tendency to mix religion in government and politics is bad for the country, it is even more detrimental to churches.

Reeves said partnerships between church-based charitable organizations have existed for 100 years or more, but the 2001 faith-based initiatives removed some important safeguards that were designed to protect both government and religious organizations.
...
The changes in law cause serious problems for both church and state, Reeves said.

"On one hand, for the church, they now have government eyes following the government money into places they didn't have a right to before," he said. "The other side of that is if no eyes are following it then you could have that money being spent on inherently religious projects, and I don't think that is right either."

Posted by Don Byrd at 12:39 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The Texas Board of Education is considering changes to the science curriculum standards (you can read the second draft - in pdf form - here). They would require discussing "weaknesses" in, and "alternatives" to, evolution. A public hearing (Texas Freedom Network live-blogged it here) yesterday was covered by the Houston Chronicle.

The board seemed in for a long evening as 89 people had signed up to testify on the proposal, which also suggests encouraging middle school students to discuss alternative explanations for evolution.

Gathered outside the board meeting, critics complained that talking of weaknesses and limitations of evolution allows for religion-based concepts like creationism and intelligent design to enter classroom instruction.

In order to educate the next generation "with the best science around ... we must listen, not to a few political advocates, but we must listen to the consensus of most scientists from here and around the world," said Arturo De Lozanne, an associate professor of biology at the University of Texas at Austin. "If we do not maintain high science standards in our schools we risk losing our scientific and technological edge."

Federal courts have ruled against forcing the teaching of creationism and intelligent design.

[UPDATE: A follow-up article reports that only 1 speaker, of the 89, supported adding language that would force the teaching of the "weaknesses" of evolution.]

Posted by Don Byrd at 10:13 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Baptist Joint Committee Executive Director Brent Walker shares his views on whether Presidents should officially proclaim national days of prayer, or thanksgiving to God. His new essay at the Washington Post's On Faith page ends this way:

As church-state controversies go, presidential proclamations establishing a day of prayer are not particularly egregious breaches of the wall of separation. After all, there is little, if any, actual coercion affecting one's conscience. But actual coercion has never been the standard for judging whether government has overstepped it bounds in endorsing religion. Also, it is helpful to understand that two of our most influential founders -- Jefferson and Madison -- either opposed religious pronouncements in principle or refused to issue them in practice.

Encouraging our country to repent and pray on designated days is altogether proper. We certainly can use it. But it is more appropriately called for by pastors, rabbis and imams among us -- not civil magistrates, Congress, or even an American president.

Posted by Don Byrd at 03:50 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

A federal magistrate has agreed with Minneapolis pastor Mac Hammond that subpoenas requesting his church's financial records were improper. Living Word Church successfully argued that the request had not come from a "high-ranking official" as required by law.

Amy Rotenberg, an attorney and spokeswoman for the church, said Hammond and other church officials are pleased with the magistrate's recommendation.

"We recognize that churches must abide by the tax laws of the United States, and we have," she said. "But Congress intended ... that government needs to tread very carefully when it's going to enforce the Internal Revenue Code with regard to churches because of the sensitivity in the relationship between government and churches."

The IRS didn't meet the threshold that Congress set, she said.

Posted by Don Byrd at 08:49 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

From the Bill O' Reilly show, Friday Nov. 14 (my emph.):

NEWT GINGRICH: Look, I think there is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us, is prepared to use violence, to use harassment. I think it is prepared to use the government if it can get control of it. I think that it is a very dangerous threat to anybody who believes in traditional religion. And I think if you believe in historic Christianity, you have to confront the fact. And, frank -- for that matter, if you believe in the historic version of Islam or the historic version of Judaism, you have to confront the reality that these secular extremists are determined to impose on you acceptance of a series of values that are antithetical, they're the opposite, of what you're taught in Sunday school.

But seriously, what's he talking about? And does this kind of divisive rhetoric mean that the post-election, unify-the-country honeymoon is already over? It's the "gay and secular fascists" vs. "the rest of us" who believe in "traditional religion"? Really? And already? Can we even inaugurate the new guy before the 2012 wedges come out?

Posted by Don Byrd at 12:00 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

A bid by Rocky Mountain Christian Church in Boulder County, Colorado to double its size led to a 2-week jury trial that has just concluded. The LATimes reports:

Boulder County officials, known for aggressively preserving open space and rural land, agreed to a small expansion of the church sanctuary but denied the rest, calling it "completely out of character" with the area.
...
During the trial, church officials argued that the county commission was biased against them. They cited a planning commissioner's comments about trying to keep the church from getting too big.

[UPDATE: The jury found that Boulder County did in fact violate RLUIPA, but did not find religious discrimination occurred, and did not find any damages for the church. It will be up to the judge to force the county now to allow the proposed expansion.]

Posted by Don Byrd at 03:37 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In an end-of-presidency move that has drawn criticism from his own EEOC, the Bush administration has proposed a new rule (pdf) that would add broad general protection to health care personnel that object to performing or assisting with a service on religious grounds. Today's NYTimes reports:

The proposed rule would prohibit recipients of federal money from discriminating against doctors, nurses and other health care workers who refuse to perform or to assist in the performance of abortions or sterilization procedures because of their “religious beliefs or moral convictions.”

It would also prevent hospitals, clinics, doctors’ offices and drugstores from requiring employees with religious or moral objections to “assist in the performance of any part of a health service program or research activity” financed by the Department of Health and Human Services.

Posted by Don Byrd at 11:13 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Jim Wallis talks with the San Francisco Chronicle about religion in the 2008 election, and I don't really like the way he he starts (my emph.):

I think the Obama campaign made a very deliberate effort, and it was obviously quite successful. Obama won about 43 percent of weekly churchgoers, eight percent more than John Kerry did in 2004. The main reason why he was successful is because he was clearly perceived as a Christian.

Posted by Don Byrd at 03:19 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Via Religion Clause, the Louisville Courier-Journal reports that a district judge rejected the religious freedom argument of 7 Amish men who claim that a public safety law requiring a bright emblem on the back of their buggies violates their beliefs and is discriminately applied.

The men are members of the Swartzentruber Amish sect, who do not believe in using the bright orange and red triangles that state law requires be placed on the back of slow-moving vehicles such as tractors and buggies.

"They were certainly disappointed," said their attorney, William Sharp of the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, in an interview yesterday. "But they also knew this is just the beginning, because we will be appealing the decisions."

Posted by Don Byrd at 11:02 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

A thought after finishing up some weekend reading on the Summum argument and the First Amendment curveball the case has seemingly thrown the Court. Without question, changing times require us to revisit the law, and reconsider frameworks in light of unexpected developments. And surely, the new methods of communication that mark the last 20 years will challenge our understanding of free speech. But, the speech that has the Supreme Court stymied here consists of words chiseled into stone. I mean, it's not hieroglyphics but still a pretty old method of communication. There's something at least a little bit funny about everyone being so stumped now about what to do with stone tablets.

Let's be honest that the problem here - and what previous decisions may not have taken enough care to anticipate - is not some sudden, widespread and ready access to granite monuments...it's religious diversity. The demand for fairness and equality is what always makes our traditions have to answer to our principles. This case is in many respects no different.

Posted by Don Byrd at 12:23 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Tony Mauro builds on his earlier analysis of the Summum argument with a more general consideration of the state of First Amendment jurisprudence when it comes to defining a forum. His perspective is in line with the way it strikes me: when it comes to embracing traditional messages, local governments want to be able to have their cake and eat it too, and the Court would very much like to let them.

The justices...seemed unhappy that under Court precedent, it appeared that the only way a municipality could say yes to the Ten Commandments display and no to the Summum monument was to define the Ten Commandments memorial as a form of speech by the city government, rather than private religious speech. The Court has ruled that when the government speaks it can pick and choose its messages, adopting some and rejecting others.

Posted by Don Byrd at 03:27 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

A Baptist pastor in Norfolk, VA deems President Bush's Faith-Based Initiative a failure.

The Rev. Geoffrey V. Guns said since the president introduced the initiative seven years ago, a large number of those groups benefiting from the federal program are not related to church congregations, The (Norfolk) Virginian-Pilot reported Thursday.

"Out of 100 churches, you'd be hard-pressed to find 10 local churches that have benefited directly from the faith-based initiative," the Second Calvary Baptist Church head said.

Posted by Don Byrd at 10:15 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

At an interfaith conference at the United Nations, President Bush yesterday praised the role of faith in promoting global values and stressed the urgent need for religious freedom.

Our nation was founded by people seeking haven from religious persecution. The First Amendment of our Constitution guarantees the "free exercise" of religion for all. And through the generations, our nation has helped defend the religious liberty of others -- from liberating the concentration camps of Europe, to protecting Muslims in places like Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

Today, the United States is carrying on that noble tradition by making religious liberty a central element of our foreign policy. We've established a Commission on the International Religious Freedom to monitor the state of religious liberty worldwide. We strongly encourage nations to understand that religious freedom is the foundation of a healthy and hopeful society. We're not afraid to stand with religious dissidents and believers who practice their faith, even where it is unwelcome.

Posted by Don Byrd at 01:01 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The Las Vegas Sun gets it right in an editorial today on the Summum monument dispute:

The dispute is a good example of the slippery slope created when government displays something that represents a particular set of religious beliefs. It is a natural reaction from anyone who does not share those beliefs to desire equal time or, in the case of the Summum church, comparable space in the city park.

Before you know it, every religion wants to be represented. Those that get turned down naturally will feel they have no choice but to file a lawsuit, claiming their free speech has been violated.

That’s why Pleasant Grove City would have been better off not accepting the Ten Commandments monument in the first place. When a city sets a precedent, it had better be prepared for the consequences.

Posted by Don Byrd at 02:58 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)