Blog from the Capital

I said it back in December when Mike Huckabee was pushing it, and I say it again now after seeing Barack Obama's Kentucky campaign literature. (warning: that's a link to CBN News...)

As I mentioned in Huckabee's case, it's not that it creates a church-state issue per se, but it is the kind of thing that contributes to a general climate of division along religious lines. Do we need direct appeals to a voter's religious affiliation and comfort level? As opposed to plans and governing philosophies and actual qualifications? Am I being too sensitive? It happens...

Posted by Don Byrd at 02:22 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In the newest issue of BJC's Report From the Capital, Holly Hollman asks a sensible question: "Where is the Workplace Religious Freedom Act?"

And hey, why not subscribe to this flagship publication of the Baptist Joint Committee? E-Mail Kristin Clifton to start receiving it in your home or church.

Posted by Don Byrd at 01:34 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

After reviewing their packet of online information for ministers, Melissa Rogers finds that the Alliance Defense Fund's "Pulpit Initiative" is more about mounting a legal challenge than it is about defending earnest religious expression.

So the goal is not for the ministers to provide the most faithful words and witness to the flock. No, the goal is for the ministers to prepare the sermons "with the assistance and direction" of a bunch of lawyers "to ensure maximum effectiveness in challenging the IRS." Good to know.

Posted by Don Byrd at 02:47 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

An editorial in the Des Moines Register offers this perspective today:

"This is nothing more than a nonprofit tax review," Grassley has said.

And his inquiry isn't about religion, as some critics have suggested. It's about congressional responsibility to ensure good governance. It's about tax-exempt status.
...
Eventually, Congress could issue subpoenas requiring adequate responses.

If it comes to that, so be it. A refusal to answer questions makes one wonder what the televangelists have to hide. Tax-exempt organizations shouldn't be allowed to hide - regardless of their religious affiliation.

Posted by Don Byrd at 04:49 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Kenneth Copeland, one of the six televangelists to receive inquiries from Senator Charles Grassley regarding tax-exempt regulations and their financial practices, has launched a web site to corral public support for his defiant stance against the request for information. BelieversStandUnited.com offers Frequently Asked Questions about the ministry and the current controversy. My favorite is a question about the "wall of separation" between church and state, which they of course readily assert in this case.

Posted by Don Byrd at 09:38 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

A few more thoughts on the majority-rule commencement prayer concept being used by a Louisiana school district. The excuse, to sidestep (they hope) the constitutional prohibition against school-sponsored prayer, is that the school really has nothing to do with it. This is really - the argument goes - a "student-initiated" prayer...if, that is, you can ignore the school administrator forcing the seniors to have the vote in the first place. It was all the kids' idea, you see, and prayer may not be restricted if it is "initiated by private individuals such as students."

But this cynical manipulation of the process, in nearly the same way as the high school football coach who polls his players to make sure none of them object to his pre-game prayer, makes a mockery of students' religious freedom protections.

A student "initiates" prayer before school or during lunch with friends, during non-instructional time, maybe in a club or silently any time it seems like a good idea. Before - or often in my case during - a geometry exam is a popular choice. In any case, it is an individual act, and an individual's freedom, worth fighting to protect as vigorously as any we cherish.

But when a group of seniors is divided by a school administrator into those who are for and those who are against prayer, "student-initiated" is hardly the phrase to describe it. And, assuming the students also determine the one who will do the praying through a similar vote (that part of the process is not clear), it hardly reflects a "neutral criteria" in selecting commencement speakers, as prescribed in Education Department guidelines.

Posted by Don Byrd at 02:17 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

This is not the constitutional way to conduct graduation for public schools.

The Ouachita school system (LA) supports the students and their decision to pray. In fact, they directed each school to let their senior class choose whether they would like to include prayer at graduation.
...
Students at Ouachita Parish, West Ouachita, Richwood and Sterlington high schools have all voted to have student-led prayers at their graduation ceremonies this year. West Monroe High School Principal Sherry May said that their class has not yet voted.
...
"We are going to pray," Ouachita Parish High guidance counselor Tesa Stewart said. "We were told to let the students make the decision. They voted and the majority ruled."
...
[T]he decision by the Ouachita Parish High senior class was nearly unanimous and that those who may have had differing opinions, did not voice concerns.

[S]ome things should not be subject to elections or majority rule – like our religious liberty rights. Certain freedoms are deemed so important that they are put beyond the reach of elections and majority decision. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and other key liberties are among them.
...
The Supreme Court has already struck down this “majority-rules” prayer scheme, and it’s remarkable that in 2008, some people believe they have the right to vote to impose religious worship on others.

Why is this difficult for an entire community of adults to grasp?

Posted by Don Byrd at 12:25 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

An AP story over the weekend picked up on the news that the Alliance Defense Fund is actively recruiting pastors to violate their churches' tax-exempt prohibition on electioneering. Baptist Joint Committee Director Brent Walker is quoted on one important, often overlooked element of the equation: the harm to religious integrity in such a breach:

Some religious groups support keeping politics out of the pulpit.

J. Brent Walker, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty in Washington, which advocates for religious freedom, said churches should be involved in public issues, but partisan activity can "compromise the essential calling to spread the Gospel."

"The church can't raise prophetic fist at a candidate or at a party," Walker said, "when it's locked up in a tight bear hug with that candidate or party."

Posted by Don Byrd at 03:00 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Receiving a religious freedom award from the Becket Fund, former presidential candidate (and possible vice presidential pick?) Mitt Romney offered a more nuanced speech on the role of faith in America than his highly controversial effort back while he was still running. This new address (thanks to Religion Clause for the link) did finally acknowledge the importance of protecting non-believers as well as believers. As the Dallas Morning-News also mentioned, Romney stood by his claim - which frankly I still don't entirely understand - that "freedom requires religion".

Posted by Don Byrd at 05:48 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

As I posted last month, the Alliance Defense Fund is actively encouraging pastors to violate the terms of their tax-exempt status and endorse candidates from the pulpit. Today's Wall Street Journal picks up on the story.

The action marks the latest attempt by a conservative organization to help clergy harness their congregations to sway elections. The protest is scheduled for Sunday, Sept. 28, a little more than a month before the general election, in a year when religious concerns and preachers have been a regular part of the political debate.

Houses of worship belong to divine authority – they are not the property of either political party. The Alliance Defense Fund’s call for pastors to break the law represents the height of irresponsibility. They are putting churches across the country unnecessarily at risk to costly and time-consuming investigations that could result in harsh financial penalties. Putting churches in legal and financial jeopardy seems a bizarre way of defending religious freedom, which the ADF claims to defend.

Posted by Don Byrd at 03:02 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Yesterday, a panel of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 3-0 that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act does not protect a Native American who killed a bald eagle for a religious ceremony. You can read the decision here. A lower court had ruled in favor of the Northern Arapaho tribe. They argue that the government's supposed permit process designed to accommodate such needs was highly ineffectual.

Posted by Don Byrd at 12:42 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The Maryland State Court of Appeals has ruled that the Talaq divorce proceeding fails to allow proper due process and equal rights to men and women, thwarting a man's efforts to short-circuit the civil divorce proceeding his wife had initiated. The unanimous decision invalidated the Islamic divorce procedure as an enforceable procedure in US Courts. You can read the decision here. Claire Hoffman has more at the Washington Post's On Faith page.

Here's a not-so-bold prediction. In coming years, principles of fairness and freedom will drive an growing gap between marriage as a religious institution and marriage as a civil bond recognized by the government. That might not be such a bad thing.

Posted by Don Byrd at 04:05 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The ABA and the American Constitution Society are presenting a live teleconference on Thursday, May 15 on entitled "Religion, Children and the Public Schools: Contemporary First Amendment Issues."

The practice of faith in public schools has been an issue of public contention throughout American history. In 1948, the Supreme Court ruled that religious instruction was prohibited in public schools. In 1963 the Court held that mandatory reading of prayers or Bible verses was prohibited. But the debate is still ongoing. What technically constitutes prayer? Can students pray, as long as it’s not mandatory? Do controls on prayer limit freedom of speech?

This panel will debunk the myths surrounding these issues.

Donna Howell, Yampa Valley Housing, Steamboat Springs, CO

Anthony R. Picarello, Jr., General Counsel, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Washington, DC

Catherine J. Ross, Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School, Washington, DC

Posted by Don Byrd at 12:27 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The statement by a group of evangelical leaders I wrote about earlier this week has been released today and is online.

Maybe because of the Baptist tradition to resist a creed, I'm a bit uncomfortable with the very idea of *a manifesto* of evangelicals. But if nothing else - and there is plenty there for me to personally disagree with - it's nice to see a group questioning the wisdom of a close association between religion and politics.

Christians from both sides of the political spectrum, left as well as right, have made the mistake of politicizing faith; and it would be no improvement to respond to a weakening of the religious right with a rejuvenation of the religious left. Whichever side it comes from, a politicized faith is faithless, foolish, and disastrous for the church – and disastrous first and foremost for Christian reasons rather than constitutional reasons.

Called to an allegiance higher than party, ideology, and nationality, we Evangelicals see it our duty to engage with politics, but our equal duty never to be completely equated with any party, partisan ideology, economic system, or nationality.
...
Let it be known unequivocally that we are committed to religious liberty for people of all faiths, including the right to convert to or from the Christian faith. We are firmly opposed to the imposition of theocracy on our pluralistic society. We are also concerned about the illiberalism of politically correct attacks on evangelism. We have no desire to coerce anyone or to impose on anyone beliefs and behavior that we have not persuaded them to adopt freely, and that we do no not demonstrate in our own lives, above all by love.
...
[W]e utterly deplore the dangerous alliance between church and state, and the oppression that was its dark fruit. We Evangelicals trace our heritage, not to Constantine, but to the very different stance of Jesus of Nazareth.

I appreciate the tone of this document, especially the call to remove religion from politics, though it does not and should not remove the right of people of faith to voice their concerns on issues of national importance. We will have to wait and see what, if any, impact this document has on the Religious Right.

Posted by Don Byrd at 09:26 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)