|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Home  News & Opinions In The News Newspapers
|
As published in the Tallahassee Democrat April 22, 2010 Click here to read the article on the Tallahassee Democrat's web site. As someone who was reared, educated, practiced law and lived the first 35 years of my life in Florida before following my calling to be an ordained Baptist minister and constitutional lawyer, I have a special interest in religious liberty developments in my home state. I am deeply concerned at the prospect of the state government gaining the power to deny religious liberty to all its citizens by using tax dollars to subsidize religion.
That is precisely what will occur if some legislators succeed in their attempt to take an ax to the religious freedom guarantee of the Florida Constitution's Declaration of Rights. This guarantee, commonly called the "No Aid Provision," forbids government funding of religious entities. House Joint Resolution 1399 and Senate Joint Resolution 2550 would put an amendment on the November ballot that would change the century-old principle and permit government funding of religion.
Much has been made of the fact that this would allow for the creation of a school voucher program, but the amendment's broad language would open the door for direct government funding of religion in virtually any area.
The current language in the Florida Constitution reflects a recognition by its drafters, like America's Founding Fathers before them, that church-state separation is the best means of protecting religious liberty. Authentic religion should depend on the persuasive power of the truth it proclaims and not on the coercive power of the state. Using the things of Caesar to finance the things of God is averse to true religion and violates the spirit of freedom on which it is based.
Beyond the unfairness of taxing Floridians to support a religion in which they may or may not believe — a proposition that Thomas Jefferson denounced as "sinful and tyrannical" — religious liberty is even further harmed by government funding because the government always controls what it funds. Moreover, the prophetic voice of religion will, even if only subconsciously, be dampened by state sponsorship. Indeed, religion historically has stood outside of government's control, serving as a critic of government. How can religion continue to raise a prophetic fist against government when it has the other hand open to receive a government handout? It cannot. Both the state and religious institutions are better off when neither tries to dominate or do the work of the other. The Legislature faces a clear choice: Adopt the proposed amendment and gut the constitution's protection of the vitality and independence of religious entities, or leave intact a constitutional provision that has protected religion from the shifting winds of politics and allowed generations of Floridians to worship — or not — according to the dictates of their own consciences. I hope the state Legislature will make the right choice and preserve Florida's wise and time-honored protection of religion, guaranteeing that Floridians present and future will continue to enjoy the same religious liberty that has been indispensable and meaningful to me and so many others. J. Brent Walker is executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty in Washington, D.C. He is a graduate of Stetson University College of Law and the University of Florida and was a partner in the Tampa office of Carlton Fields. |
|
|
South Florida Sun-Sentinel
February 14, 2010
PALM BEACH - What's the biggest threat to religious freedom?
Some might blame secular humanists, or maybe Al-Qaida. But for Baptist leader J. Brent Walker, the danger is as clear as George's face on dollar bills.
"What the government funds, it always regulates," said Walker, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty. "Government-sponsored religion is always bad for religion.
"How can we raise a prophetic fist with one hand and take government money with the other?"
Almost as threatening: ignorance. Walker said a recent poll found that only 17 percent of Americans even know that religious freedom is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution.
Walker gave his comments recently in Palm Beach, where leaders of the Anti-Defamation League held their annual conference. His very presence -- a Christian leader at the dais of a prominent Jewish organization -- spoke to the progress in interfaith cooperation in recent decades, he told his 200 listeners.
But he said a new round of activism is vital, in order to explain and defend religious freedoms.
Even those who know the First Amendment -- including some Jews and Baptists -- don't always believe in separation of church and state, Walker said.
"They want to claim the benefits of Free Exercise but not the supposed inconvenience of No Establishment," Walker said. "This is entirely wrong-headed. Both clauses ensure religious liberty, but in different ways. Click here to read the rest of the article. |
|
|
The Tennessean
February 16, 2010 A nationwide atheist group is asking religious leaders to take Jesus' advice and render unto Caesar what is Caesar's — especially when it comes to taking the federal tax break on their housing.
The Wisconsin-based Freedom from Religion Foundation says the housing exemption gives churches an unfair advantage because they can compensate their leaders with tax-free housing. Other nonprofits, such as the foundation, can't do that. So it's suing the federal government to outlaw the housing allowance.
"We think the law is rotten at the core," said co-president Annie Laurie Gaylor. "It is not constitutional, it is not fair, and it is not necessary."
But the exemption's supporters point to a similar court dispute in 2002 that went nowhere after Congress almost unanimously rushed to save the housing break. Click here to read the rest of the article, which includes a statement on the issue from BJC Executive Director J. Brent Walker. |
|
Does it really matter whether the president goes to church? The Constitution says there shall be no "religious test," so perhaps Sunday morning should be the one day each week when the president gets to sleep in. He certainly works hard enough. But before he hits the snooze button, President Obama should return to the question of whether he and his family will join a congregation in the Washington area. He recently said that his family had not made a decision about joining a church, and I can respect that. Such a decision takes time. But it is a critical choice, with political and spiritual implications.
Politically, church attendance is a sign of integrity. If the president says he is a Christian, then going to church shows that he doesn't just talk the talk, he walks the walk. Americans are not interested in the specific doctrinal beliefs of a president, but they consider religion to be a proxy for "personal values." That is why 72% of Americans consider it important that the president have "strong religious beliefs," according to a poll last year by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.
Could an atheist be elected president? According to the Constitution, of course. But he (or she) would have to win over that 72% by demonstrating personal values such as faithfulness in marriage, honesty in business and service to the community. This would be a long, tough sales job because religion serves a handy shorthand substitute for personal values.
Read the rest of the op-ed here.
|
|
Special to the Tribune
For the next six months, people on the roads of Pinellas and Hillsborough counties will rumble past billboard ads making false claims and misleading assertions about our country's history and commitment to religious freedom. One ad even fabricates a comment from the first president of the United States.
Recently, local media reported on the billboard advertisements that use quotes from history to "portray a national need for Christian governance."Those behind the billboards refer to the separation of church and state as a "lie" and say our country's Judeo-Christian foundation is "the reason that this country has prospered for 200-plus years."
The only lies being told are featured on the billboards themselves.
Read the rest of the op-ed here.
|
|
| << Start < Prev 1 2 3 Next > End >>
| |
|
|
|
|
In orders today, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Town of Greece, NY v. Galloway. The decision means the high court will have its say on the hot-button church-state issue of legislative prayer for the first time in 30 years. The 2nd Circuit ruled in Town of Greece that the prayer practic... |
|
Arizona's Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) has been law for several years. The state's RFRA echoes the federal bill of the same name, requiring the government to demonstrate a compelling state interest to justify substantial burdens on religious exercise. Some lawmakers in Arizona ... |
|
