God Bless America and no one else?

There's no getting around it.  Religion is serious business, it matters, and is relevant to everyone (beliver and  non-beliver alike).  According to the many scholars and people that advanced the concepts of Secularization Theory, the United States and much of the world should have let go of their attachments to spirituality and faith by now, replacing it with critical thinking and rationality.  Events of the past few weeks in a rural, mountainous county, as well as the chambers of the Virginia House of Delegates and the Kentucky legislature, disputes this theory. 

The issues of hanging the Ten Commandments and prayer on school property are once again being hotly debated.  On one side, citizens who profess America's foundations as a Christian Nation.  On the other, advocates for strict separation in matters of faith and state.  This tug-of-war has found a new ground zero in this ongoing national debate:  Giles County Virginia. 

Back in December, in response to a complaint from a group that advocates for the strict separation of church and state called the Freedom from Religion Foundation, the Giles County Schools Superintendent agreed to remove prints of the Ten Commandments from the classrooms after conferring with the attorney for the School District. 

In late January, the Giles County School Board vote unanimously to rehang the prints of the Ten Commandments after more than 200 parents, citizens, and leaders from Giles County churches packed the School Board meeting room and spoke passionately to defy the law.  This has brought strong reaction from the Freedom from Religion Foundation, as well as the Virginia ACLU who has threatened to file a lawsuit. 

Eric Gentry, Chairman of the Giles County Board of Supervisors, expressed support for fighting any legal action that may come, as well as fighting any "hate groups" like the ACLU.  In response to Eric Gentry's statement, Virginia ACLU Board Member David Drachsler has written an op-ed in the Roanoke Times that address this charge and does an excellent job of framing the historical context and perspective of why it is a really, really, bad idea for any government body to promote one faith over another. 

Then we have Delegate Bill Carrico, (R)-Grayson County, who again introduced a bill to amend the state Constitution, HJ 593, to guarentee the right to pray on public property, which includes public schools in Virginia.  It passed the House of Delegate easily, but it is likely to die in the State Senate. 

In Kentucky, three Democratic legislators have introduced a bill to "teach Bible literacy", as an elective.  Opponents argue this is noting more than a "backdoor approach to teaching religion" in public schools. 

These might seem like well intentioned efforts, but one has to question the raw motivation behind challenges to longstanding state and federal legal rulings on Church-State separation.  So why do we have a First Amendment which states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment off religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;", or the constitutional guarentee that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States" (U.S. Constitution, Article VI sec. 3), or state laws that reflect the same legal philosophy?  It seems the reasons can be found much farther back than those of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams.

Contrary to what we have been told or learned in school, the founding of the original colonies were not based on a desire for religious freedom.  It seems that when any of the religiously oppressed groups landed and established their communities, they also enacted laws and other rules that established their faith and prosecuted anyone that did not conform. 

In an article published in the Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion in 2005 titled "Political Origins of Religious Liberty", Anthony Gill, PhD., Professor of Political Science at the University of Washington, offers a very insightful section on religion in the colonies called "The Early United States."  If you can picture a map of the original Thirteen Colonies, Congregaionalists had New England, down south (Virginia to Georgia) was dominated by Episcopalians and Presbyterians, the Quakers had Pennsylvania and the Catholics controlled Maryland. 

Each colony had some form of a religious tax or mandatory tithing.  Individual towns and communities had religious laws, some of which were quite strict.  What became clear very early on, it's extremely costly to enforce a strict set of religious laws.  As Anthony Gill states,

"While some denominations tried to maintain strict control over the beliefs and practices fo the local population, de facto religious pluralism and freedom gradually resulted from the mere fact that people could up and move if they did not like the laws under which they were living,..."

What is also interesting is that strict enforcement of religious laws started impacting interstate trade.  So much so that religious orthodoxy almost resulted in a trade war between Puritans and Quakers in 1659.  In essence, the desire to engage in commerce and trade trumped religious dogma and purity.

So, all this nibbling around the edges with introducing bills to change state constitutions to allow prayer on public school property, elective classes on Biblical literacy, and fighting to post the Ten Commandments in every classroom, is a little disconcerting to say the least.  So again, what are the motives behind these efforts to introduce religious regulations into a secular government?  Political pandering, plain and simple. 

Religion is a private matter that has a public presence.  Billions of people draw personal strength from their respective faiths.  By and large, most people that publicly profess their faith are good people.  But then there are those that profess those same beliefs and take them a step or two, or three further and politicize their faith.  There are just places that are meant for faith and places that should be neutral ground.  Our public schools are a place where religion can be discussed as part of the learning process, but not where one faith is promoted over all others. 

While these recent moves to post the Ten Commandments in classrooms, allow government sanctioned prayer on public school property, and teach Biblical literacy are not likely to withstand longtime legal precedent on the matter, if it did would this also mean that we would be on the path to laws that forbid the United States from doing business with China or the Middle East?  Who knows, but one thing is clear, the United States was founded on commerce and trade and not Christian principles.

The least religious are the most knowledgeable about faith

As reported by CNN's Belief Blog and The Washington Post's On Faith blog, most Americans fail in a test of religious/faith knowledge.  A report published by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found that those who are the least religious are the most knowledgeable about religion.  Here are some of the key findings: 

• Atheist and agnostics answered and average of 21 questions correctly out of 32. 
• Jews answered an average of 20.5 questions correctly with Mormons just a hair behind. 
• Catholics performed the worst, answering an average of 15 questions correctly. 
• The average American only answered an average of 16 out of 32 (50%).

For CNN's Belief Blog coverage of the story, click here. 

For The Washington Post's coverage, click here. 

For the full Pew Report, click here. 

While it's hard not to shake your head or chuckle, this is actually pretty serious.  More times than not, lack of knowledge and misunderstanding of other faiths are the primary cause of violent conflicts.  They are also a primary factor of prejudice, as well as anti-semitism. 

Image found at:  http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID10965/images/religious_candles.jpg

Baptist leader slams Glenn Beck's "generic God"

Earlier in the week, just after the much advertised and publicized "Restoring Honor" spectacle, Robert Parham posted his thoughts on the rally.  In one of his observations, Parham writes: 

"No amount of Bible reading, sermons masquerading as prayers and Christian hymns can cover up Beck's civil religion that slides back and forth between the Bible and nationalism, between authentic faith and patriotic religion." 

Robert Parham is the Executive Director of EthicsDaily.com and its parent organization, The Baptist Center for Ethics.  Until I read the article on the Washington Post's On Faith Panelists Blog, I was unaware that there were Baptists (Southern Baptists as a matter of fact) that were just as un-enamored with Glenn Beck as myself.  So much so that Mr. Parham also points out a disturbing characteristic that seems to allude most conservatives and evangelicals around this nation.  That being the ease and comfort of Glenn Beck's "revivalist agenda for Americanism - blended nationalism and individualism", according to Parham. 

With all the effort that Corporate Faith is putting into tearing down the wall of separation between Church and State, it is refreshing to learn there are Baptists that understand what it really means to be a Christian, by putting on the "whole armor of God" and not just the parts that fit a narrow view of the world or advance a Theological Political Agenda. 

I highly encourage anyone that is interested to visit their web site to learn more about them. 

EthicsDaily.com    

Image found at:   http://www.eurweb.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/glenn-beck-fox-news.jpg

Fort Eustis soldiers told go to Christian Rock Concert or stay in their racks

With all the uproar around the proposed Islamic Center in lower Manhattan, it appears that religious freedom has come under attack again.  This time from within the United States Army. 

According to an Associated Press story on August 20, 2010, the Army is investigating if Fort Eustis soldiers who did not want to attend a Christian Rock concert on base were forced to stay in their barracks.  To read the full story click here. 

Those on the Evangelical Right vigorously advocate that this nation was founded on Christian principles and that this is a Christian nation.  I don't think it can be disputed that the people who came to this continent from Western Europe were predominantly of the Christian faith (Catholic and Protestant).  But, it also cannot be denied that the First Amendment and specifically the parts about Religious Freedom and the Separation of Church and State, were discussed, debated, argued just as strongly during the drafting of our Constitution. 

It is clear that our Founding Father didn't want one faith to have legal preference over another, and that in referring to "God" they went to great lengths to acknowledge the "Creator" of all mankind.  It cannot be denied that there is a strong connection to Christianity in our founding documents.  This is reflected by the men who had the greatest influence in their development.  But, it is also clear that in forming a Federal Republic, a nation based on the rule of law, that Enlightenment thinking was also woven into the fabric of the Constitution to protect and preserve the individual rights of man.  Specifically freedom of Religion, as advocated by Thomas Jefferson. 

When a person signs-up for military service in the United States, our men and women are not protected by all the laws they have sworn to "defend."  But, Religious Freedom and the free exercise thereof does apply to our brave men and women of the Armed Forces.  What kind of a military, and nation, would we be if the exception to the rule were the very citizens that have sworn to fight for Religious Freedom and all the other lliberties the United States Constitution affords us all? 

If this were just one or two, or even a just few more, then this could be chalked-up to soldiers gripping.  But out of a 200 soldiers, nearly 100 were confined to their barracks because they didn't want to attend a Christian Rock concert on base.  I hope the Army's investigation is unbiased and complete, and if these soldier's Constitutional Rights were violated then the offender(s) should be punished accordingly. 

Image found at:  http://www.citizensproject.dreamhosters.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Church-State1.jpg

How may minority constituencies can the GOP alienate?

While President made the right call regarding the construction of the mosque and Islamic Cultural Center a few blocks away from Ground Zero (citing that if it conforms to the local building codes, ordinances, and laws, there is no reason why it shouldn't be built), his retreat from his statement, that he didn't say it was a wise decision for it to be build there, has opened the door for the GOP demagoguery once again. 

The Muslim population is not very large in the United States, but it does make up a sizable part of several communities in places like New York, Detroit, New Jersey, and Minneapolis.  The GOP was very conscience of reprisal and bigotry directed towards Muslims right after 9/11, and went to great lengths to embrace the Muslim community and show support for those that peacefully live in the United States.  Heading into the final months of an election year, you can add Muslims to the long list of minorities that the GOP proudly alienates. 

African Americans haven't been supporters of the GOP since passage of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts.  Hispanics were once a major part of the GOP's conservative faith base and for it's position on Cuba.  This has now changed with their hard line, if not militant position, on boarder security and illegal immigration.  Now Muslim, who for all intents and purposes share many conservative positions with the GOP, are not from the right faith and are all painted with the same brush as the extremists who attacked the United States on 9/11. 

The potential benefit of introducing another wedge issue into an already contentious election season, that of radical Islam bent on destroying America, may very well come back to haunt them.  One of the few voices of reason in the GOP, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, is warning the rest of his fellow Republicans (and Democrats), stop using the mosque as a "political football" which is casting a pox on both political parties. 

At some point, distressed Americans will take stock of the cost of all the racial and identity politics and stop pointing the finger of blame.  When the dust settles, and if Republicans are back in control of Congress, the damage will be done and the short term gains made by GOP politics of divisiveness will further confine them to the place they've been heading for 20 years.  A regional party located in the Deep South. 

President Obama supports construction of Mosque near Groud Zero

This is the right call.  Freedom of Religion in America doesn't mean the freedom to only practice the Christian faith.  If anything, this is more of a poke in the eye to the Taliban that feeding into their propaganda of American hypocrisy and intolerance. 

This is what Jeffersonian Democracy looks like.  Religious tolerance is an American Value.  This mosque will be on private property and there's already one close to Ground Zero.  This is going to make the evangelicals crazy and fire up the Birthers.  Hang on to your hats! 

Liberty University Democrats Update: LU and College Democrats closing in on a resolution

According to today's News Advance, the LU College Democrats have submitted a form of an apology and a proposal to be a recognized club on Liberty University's campus once again. Negotiations are ongoing but appear to be coming to a final resolution. One of the points to still be worked out, if the College Democrats want to have campus recognition, is their ability to endorse candidates as a club. If they plan to endorse Democratic Candidates, Liberty University will not grant them recognition. If they agree not to endorse Democratic candidates, then they will likely be recognized by the University.

If this is the case, then will this stipulation apply to the College Republicans as well? If not, I don't see how the LU College Democrats can operate as a campus club or organization if other clubs and organizations are not compelled to comply with the same rules and stipulations as they have been presented with.

This hark-ens back to the earliest days of the Christian Church, where the Romans governed and had control over most of the people (alive at the time) in the known world. Christians were persecuted and had to meet in secret to worship in accordance to their beliefs. The symbolism of this is eerily uncanny. Those that were once persecuted for their beliefs and forced to meet, worship, fellowship, in secret or in places that didn't openly display their faith or have public recognition, are now guilty of the same persecution of a group that does not share the same vision of fairness, equity, or interpretation of the Bible.

These courageous young men and women have to make up their own minds and come to their own conclusions, but if the same stipulation of not being able to endorse Democratic candidates is not imposed on other political clubs that Liberty University "recognizes", they should reject this latest offer of recognition from Liberty University.

One last thought, or question. Mr. Mark Hine has never explained where he got the idea that the Democratic Party supports Socialism, or Hate Crimes? I have read nothing or seen nothing that indicates to me or states Democrats support Socialism or persecuting/harming marginalized groups and people. If his preference is to only give his support to groups that support family values and protects traditional marriage, that also support concentrating wealth and power in the hands of a few or a social and religious elite, then give the the groups that will fight for individual freedom and the protections of the individual to make their own choices and decisions how they want to live their lives, not by a narrow and rigid vision of self righteousness which is advocated by Liberty University and all it stands for. It seems that the Ruling Council at Liberty University has a lot more in common with the Ruling Council of Iran than they want to admit.

Splitting hairs, parsing words, the “Liberty Way”

Over the last couple of weeks, there has been much said about the shocking decision by Liberty University to not recognize the College Democrats that they recognized back in 2008 prior to the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States. That recognition came with the caveat, the condition that the petitioning LU College Democrats include in their club constitution that they were a pro-life organization and supported “Traditional Marriage” as a Democratic Party affiliate on Liberty University’s campus. While it was a surprise that Liberty would even show this level of tolerance for divergent political views, it is clear now that this little experiment with acceptance of different ideas, beliefs, and attitudes about politics has flamed out.

In Sunday’s Editorial section of the Lynchburg News Advance, it was pointed out that “Liberty University, first and foremost, is a private institution that has every right to craft its own mission, set its own standards and principles and enforce those standards as it sees fit.” This witness, or testament, to the Beast that is Liberty University is as accurate a statement about Jerry Falwell’s school, Liberty Christian Academy, and Thomas Road Baptist Church as I’ve seen in a while. It is also their prerogative to change the rules or re-interpret their policies as they see fit. It is also within their rights as a private institution of higher learning to challenge their students to stretch their intellectual curiosity by their own standards and strengthen their moral and spiritual commitments according to their interpretation of God’s will and the teachings of Jesus Christ.

On May 15th Liberty University exercised those rights and prerogatives to re-interpret their policies concerning recognized clubs and organizations consistent with the “Liberty Way.” Liberty University’s administration changed their mind about the LU College Democrats and decided that putting a pro-life and “Traditional Marriage” plank into their club constitution wasn’t enough to warrant Liberty University recognition. According to the email sent to the College Democrats by vice president of student affairs, Mark Hine:

“The Democratic Party platform is contrary to the mission of Liberty University and to Christian doctrine (supports abortion, federal funding of abortion, advocates repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, promotes the “LGBT” agenda, hate crimes, which include sexual orientation and gender identity, socialism, etc.)”

While abortion will be always be a point of contention conservatives and liberals, I don’t recall from my reading of the Bible where Christian doctrine supports discrimination and marginalization of any person or group of people. I also don’t recall seeing any mention of socialism in the Bible, the literal word of God as evangelicals believe. I also don’t remember reading anything that calls for Christians to exclusively support Democrats, Republicans, Fascists, Socialist, Communists, Libertarians, or any other political party. I do remember reading, in the New Testament, for all of God’s people to share the peace and spread the word about God’s love for me, you, and all sinners who walk the earth. When they talk about putting on the whole armor of God, the “Liberty Way” doesn’t even cover an eye lash.

Such narrow understanding and teaching of Christianity is dangerous. While Liberty University is a forth tier institution, their Law School is very good. What happens if enough of their “Liberty Way” trained lawyers are let loose on the world and evangelicals find their way back to the halls of political power in Washington, D.C.? How long will it take for the legal scholars of the “Liberty Way” to split hairs and parse the words of the Constitution of the United States until we have an Iranian style theocracy and the Bill of Rights is erased? Institutions of higher learning that promote marginalization and discrimination should not be “tax exempt.”

Liberty University REBUKES campus Democratic Club

In line with the continued efforts to purify the Republican Party and squelch political descent on campus, Liberty University sacked the College Democrats Club. While it is a private college and they are within their rights to make and enforce any policies to run their school, this is a very alarming move on the part of Liberty University.

While I am no lawyer, I do wonder if this crosses the line as far as their non-profit status? It is clear they are engaged in overt partisan activities and only recognize clubs and organizations that support the Republican Party ideology and platform. I wonder if this move would impact their SACS accreditation (Southern Association of Colleges and Schools) and their eligibility for federal Stafford and Plus loan payments?

If their views and doctrines are so weak that they can't stand up to scrutiny and debate, then maybe their version of Christianity is nothing more than a dressed up cult. Get thee behind me Democrats! So much for the love of Christ and the concept of tolerance.