It’s about the Kids, Stupid: A Review of The Future of Marriage by David Blankenhorn (Nicholas P. Miller)
In response to the articles by Professor David Crane and John Stevens regarding potential problems with a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage, attorney Nicholas P. Miller has offered the following essay in which he responded to The Future of Marriage, by David Blankenhorn. One of the bedrock principles of ReligiousLiberty.TV is to present opportunity for all thoughtful voices to be heard on the issue. If you have a view on the issue, please respond via comment below or submit an essay for publication.
It’s About the Kids, Stupid
A Review of The Future of Marriage by David Blankenhorn
By Nicholas P. Miller, Esq.
David Blankenhorn, marriage and family policy advocate, is a Christian. He takes the Bible seriously. He just disagrees with what it says about homosexual practice. He thinks that principles of equality mean that practicing homosexuals should be treated with full acceptance and affirmation in America today. But he firmly opposes gay marriage. He does so for one fundamental reason: he believes strongly that “every child has a right to a mother and a father.”
A few years ago, this statement would have been considered a truism—so banal as to hardly be worth mentioning. This is no longer the case. Blankenhorn wants to re-direct the marriage debate to focus on children. Staffers for Bill Clinton in the ’92 election kept their team focused on the key campaign issue by coining the term “it’s about the economy, stupid.” Blankenhorn’s book argues that in the gay-marriage debate the key mantra should be—he uses the idea though not the phrase—“its about the kids, stupid.”
Blankenhorn’s book, The Future of Marriage, argues that the raising of kids by their parents stands as the core concern and reason for the societal institution of marriage. Many close, personal, even intimate relationships exist in society, but for some reason the marriage relationship has been singled out by society for special acknowledgement and protection. Blankenhorn uses history, sociology, and current empirical, scientific evidence to support an argument that the societal institution of marriage has as its core, public value the effective raising of children. He makes a strong case, using data from 35 countries, that in those countries where gay marriage is accepted, commitment to marriage and family as the proper context for raising children is significantly weaker than in those countries where only traditional marriage is allowed.
Blankenhorne’s book is a must read for all those that sense there is something important, even vital, for society in the traditional institution of marriage, but have trouble articulating that belief in other than religious or Biblical terms. Many people think that the definition of marriage as a man and a woman is purely or at least primarily a Biblically-based concept. They think—including even many Christians—that enshrining that model into law is akin to imposing spiritual values on non-believers. This, they argue, would violate America’s fundamental commitment to the separation of church and state.
Blankenhorne convincingly shows why this argument is wrong. He begins by revealing that marriage existed well prior to the Biblical culture of the Israelites, and that at very early point in the historical record it already served as a fundamental societal unit for the rearing of children. He demonstrates that while sexual activity existed in a number of different forms and ways in different societies, that marriage was a way that societies consistently elevated the role of women and protected the rearing of children. More than half a millennium before Moses wrote the Torah, Lipit-Ishtar, ruler of the Tigris-Euphrates Valley and promulgator of one of the world’s first legal codes, proclaimed, “I made the father support his children. I made the child support his father. I made the father stand by his children.” (48) Almost a quarter of Hammurabi’s 275 legal provisions in his famous Code—written centuries before Moses—are concerned with traditional marriage and family life.
Not only did traditional marriage exist prior to the Hebrew culture, but it also existed, and exists, pervasively outside Judeo/Christian cultures. Indeed, Blankenhorne argues that marriage, traditional marriage between a man and a woman, is a universal concept or rule. Virtually all cultures and societies have had this concept of marriage, and the concept has almost invariably involved the care of children by their biological parents. In a fascinating cross-cultural analysis he shows how certain obscure groups within certain societies, the Nayars in southwest India, the Nuer in eastern Africa, have for limited periods of time under extreme pressures modified the traditional arrangement. But these exceptions are generally very limited, often short-lived, and are the exceptions that prove the universal rule. They are recognized as exceptions because the rule is so pervasive, both through time and across societies and cultures.
The Bible certainly supports the notion of the traditional family unit, with spouses in a mutual relationship of love and care, with roles of support and care for their children. But the Bible itself, which did not begin to be written until after the 15th century BC, did not originate the traditional family unit. Certainly, arguments for the family are not limited to the Bible. On the contrary, cultures, societies and civilizations through time have seen the importance of the family unit to children and to society. What most societies have seen through instinct and experience, we in our modern age have demonstrated through scientific studies.
Blankenhorne cites leading family scholar, David Popenoe, as summarizing the evidence this way: “Few propositions have more empirical support in the social sciences than this one: Compared to all other family forms, families headed by married, biological parents are best for children.” (123) Everything from educational outcomes to mental health to cognitive development to social stability to avoidance of risky social and sexual behaviors to educational and employment success is positively affected by a child living with his or her own mother and father.[1] Another leading family expert put it this way, “research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage . . . Thus, it is not simply the presence of two parents, as some have assumed, but the presence of two biological parents that seems to support children’s development.” (123)
Blankenhorne shows that commitment to marriage as an institution suffers in a society that accepts gay marriage or even civil unions. In perhaps the most compelling part of the book, he shows that the statistical support for marriage and child-rearing in the context of marriage is significantly weaker in countries that accept either gay marriage or same sex unions. He reports the results of the International Social Survey Programme that reported responses in 35 countries to a wide range of questions on marriage and family life. Almost without exception, countries that had same-sex marriage viewed marriage as less important generally, and less important to raising children in particular, than countries with only traditional marriage. In countries that allowed gay marriage, only 21.5% of those surveyed believed that “Married people are happier,” versus 43.5% of those in countries with only traditional marriage. Similarly, in gay-marriage countries, only 37.8% of respondents believed that “People who want children should marry,” whereas 60.3% of respondents in traditional-marriage countries thought so.
Blankenhorne acknowledges that this study shows correlation rather than cause, but to him correlation is very important. The attack on the traditional family-child rearing unit is multi-pronged. Teasing out what elements are responsible for what amount of decline is not necessary to know that all correlated variables, insofar as reasonably possible, should be avoided and minimized. He is convinced, through the testimony of both family and anti-family advocates alike, that those on both sides of the discussion see gay marriage as weakening the commitment to marriage generally and traditional forms of child-rearing in particular. He is willing to sacrifice what he views as the lesser good of marital equality for gays, for the greater good of healthier, happier, more successful children.
Blankenhorn’s book has gaps in it. He relies perhaps too heavily on expert assertions that biological parents provide the best environment for child rearing. He could have discussed some of the data presented in the underlying studies that he cites. He also does not explain why he is willing to accept less-than-ideal, stop gap measures such as step-parenting and adoptions, but not parenting by two parents in a committed gay relationship. His oversight here is somewhat surprising, as his earlier book, Fatherless America, has been termed the “bible of the Fatherhood movement.” There are plenty of studies showing the importance to the health and welfare of a child of the influence and involvement of parents of both genders.[2]
For instance, an Australian study showed that children from traditional-marriage households outperform children from unmarried heterosexual households, and that children from both forms of heterosexual households outperformed the children living in homosexual households.[3]
Similarly, a recent study found that teenagers living with their two
biological parents have significantly improved mental health and academic achievement, and significantly lower rates of serious behavioral problems at school, compared to teenagers living in single parent households or “blended families.” This study was sponsored by the Urban Institute, which has published material in favor of same-sex marriage, but frankly concludes that “the most favorable outcomes we observe are for teenagers living with their biological parents who are married to each other.”[4]
The American Psychological Association’s Review of General Psychology, recently contained an article that concludes that there is overwhelming evidence that the love of mothers and fathers differs in significant ways, and that the receipt of both kinds of love is very beneficial to children.[5]
Also, Blankenhorn does not really explain why opposing gay marriage rises to the level of a moral imperative. In an imperfect world, we accept all sorts of arrangements for child rearing that are less than ideal. Given that some children are orphans, and many are raised by poor, single parents, why should society in principle object to the alternative of an affluent, stable household of two mothers or two fathers raising children? Absent from Blankenhorn’s book is a discussion of morality. Indeed, the words “moral” or “morality” do not appear in the index. Perhaps this is to escape the labeling of the book as a religious argument. But ultimately any argument about opposition to gay marriage, and the prevention of adoption by gay couples, that hopes to be successful must involve a discussion of morality.
Our society is confused about the status of morality in relation to law. Often people say, “you cannot legislate morality.” But we do, all the time. Laws against murder, theft, and public nudity all involve implementation of moral principles. These have to do with civic morality, right and wrong that directly and primarily impacts others. What the state should not involve itself in is morality that is primarily religious, such as acts or conduct that primarily involves our relation to God, e.g., prayers, religious rites, days of worship, etc. So the fundamental question becomes is the question of homosexuality and gay marriage a question of civil or religious morality?
Despite not framing his discussion in these terms, Blankenhorn provides materials and data that strongly support the view that gay marriage involves questions of civic morality. The universal nature of traditional marriage, the importance of biological parents to both conception and child-rearing, the importance of both genders to the raising and formation of healthy children, and the weakening of marriage and family in those countries where gay marriage is accepted all provide support for the notion that the state has a civil moral interest in affirming traditional marriage and preventing gay marriage. To make the argument more complete, one would need to venture into the world of the dynamics and results of the gay relationship.
Government statistics have shown that gay persons are between at least five to ten (depending on gender and relationship status) more likely to experience domestic violence with their partners than heterosexuals.[6] Rates of domestic violence among lesbian relationships approach fifty percent in a number of studies.[7] It is well known that the rate of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases is far higher in the gay community.[8] The sexual practices of that community are far riskier and associated with, among other negatives, higher rates of eating disorders, depression and suicide.[9] Indeed, according to the International Journal of Epidemiology, participants in the gay lifestyle lose an estimated 8 to 20 years in lifespan.[10]
Institutionalizing gay marriage would not only weaken traditional marriage and family, as Blankenhorn demonstrates, it would also provide legitimacy and affirmation to that lifestyle in the eyes of children. More people would be raised in gay households, and children in public schools would be educated that such a lifestyle was an acceptable, viable alternative lifestyle. Studies have shown that children raised in gay-led households suffer from higher levels of gender disorientation, and that girls engage earlier in sexually risky and promiscuous behavior.[11] It is not just unwise, but wrong, to knowingly place children where they face these sorts of increased risks to their health and welfare.
Several thousand years of nearly universal experience has shown that traditional marriage, with all its flaws and shortcomings, is a very good way of raising children. Gay marriage has nearly a zero track record in this regard. The scant evidence that does exist is troubling. Given the instabilities and pathologies associated with gay relationships, whatever their sources, should we bet our society’s future—our childrens’ future—on gay families providing an equally good child-rearing environment?
Some will argue that these pathologies and instabilities are caused, in some part, by societal discrimination. These arguments overlook the fact that in our coastal cities, where the gay population is the greatest, acceptance of the gay lifestyle has been widespread for many years now. But still the troubling tendencies detailed above persist. At the least, it would seem wise to let gay relationships go through a period of time with some sort of civil union, to see if they can provide a track record of stability and reliability, before we bestow on them the honor of carrying out society’s most delicate and important task—the raising of our children. Because fundamentally, it is not about equality, or sameness, or self-actualization, or self-affirmation, or self-respect, or self-anything, rather, it’s about the kids, stupid.
——————————————————————————–
[1] In support of these claims, Blankenhorne cites to the research brief by Kristin Anderson Moore et al., Marriage from a Child’s Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect Children, and What Can We Do About It? (Washington, D.C.: Child Trends, Research Brief, June 2002), pp. 1-2.
[2] A number of such studies are collected at www.childtrends.org.
[3] Sarantakos, Sotirios, Children in Three Contexts: Family, Education & Social Development, 21 Children Australia No. 3, 1995 (finding that children of married heterosexual couples do significantly better in a broad range of academic areas than children of unmarried heterosexual couples. And that the children of married and unmarried heterosexual couples significantly outperform children raised by homosexual couples).
[4] Sandi Nelson, Rebecca L. Clark, Gregory Acts, “Beyond the Two-Parent Family: How Teenagers Fare in Cohabitating Couple and Blended Families,” www.urbaninstitute.org (finding that teenagers living with their two biological parents have significantly improved mental health and academic achievement and significantly lower rates of serious behavioral problems at school compared to teenagers living in single parent households or blended families. This study was sponsored by the Urban Institute which has published material in favor of gay marriage, but frankly concludes that “The most favorable outcomes we observe are for teenagers living with their biological parents who are married to each other.”)
[5] Ronald P. and Veneziano, Robert A., “The Importance of Father Love: History and Contemporary Evidence,” 5 Review of General Psychology, Volume 5(4), December 2001: 382–405, http://academic.uofs.edu/student/sitoskis2/fatherlove.html. This and other material on negative outcomes associated with children being raised in non-traditional households is discussed by James Standish in “Equality and Matrimony,” Liberty, Sept/Oct 2004.
[6]“Gay Domestic Violence Finally Measured,” Journal of the Family Research Institute, Vol. 16, No. 8, Dec. 2001, at http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRR_01_12.html
[7] Several such studies are discussed in Janice Ristock, No More Secrets: Violence in Lesbian Relationships (New York: Routledge, 2002), 10-12.
[8] Homosexuals contract syphilis at up to 10 times the rate of heterosexuals C. M. Hutchinson et al., “Characteristics of Patients with Syphilis Attending Baltimore STD Clinics,” Archives of Internal Medicine 151 (1991): 511-516; incidence of gonorrhea are estimated to be 3.7 times higher among homosexual males than heterosexual males. Vincelette et al., “Predicators of Chlamydial Infection and Gonorrhea among Patients Seen by Private Practitioners,” Canadian Medical Association Journal 144 (1995): 713-721); They experience dramatically increased incidence of HIV/AIDS. For example, according to AVERT, an international HIV/AIDS charity, in Australia “A history of male homosexual contact was reported in more than 85% of newly acquired HIV infection diagnosed in 1997 to 2001 http://www.avert.org/ausstatg.htm.
[9] Articles supporting these statements can be found in Sexually Transmitted Infections and other scientific journals described at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/
2007/09/070913132930.htm.
[10] (Robert S. Hogg et al., “Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men,” International Journal of Epidemiology 26 (1997)).
[11] For the discussion of an article relating to this in the American Sociological Review, see http://www.narth.com/docs/does.html.
Namibia: Divine Right and ‘Moron’ (namibian.com.na)
This is a fascinating article about the relationship between church and state in Namibia.
http://www.namibian.com.na/2008/July/letters/08193A2750.html
EXCERPTS:
Churches were major driving forces in getting Namibia’s independence on the formal international agenda through resistive courage, a record that worldwide is, unfortunately, neither consistent nor unblemished; they do support the wrong side sometimes! But in Namibia’s case they did well and the political elements owe a considerable debt.
Now that the “struggle” is over, apartheid has gone and the new order is entrenched, political elements realise a rising tide of criticism is flowing and is being pumped by the engine of religion fuelled by social/ethical conscience, glued together by faith! God, all versions, has a good track record of survival under duress; in a world of increasing unfairness and division, whatever theocratic mantra dominates, religion and other fundamental beliefs are gaining support.
…
Their allegiances are likely to shift towards the spiritual; congregations (and other civil society groupings) that have power and are beginning to exert it.
On the other hand religion has also entered a rocky road as it forsakes God for mammon; recent criticism of the “world preacher class” buying private jets and excessive lifestyles indicates there are black sheep in the flock.
Locally several cases of the “very religious” being caught with their hands in the till big-time, have emerged! Hypocrisy flavoured with violent intent is also far from new as is the intent to monopolise the truth by imposing ignorance upon their flock.
…
Kings no longer have the power of Divine Right and through this the right to treat their kingdom as a personal playground! So it was quite interesting to note that a regional leader seems intent on restoring the power of Divine Right; probably in a similar phase of his rule of his predecessor who said “never in a thousand years”.
It was also interesting that one of Namibia’s more youthful politicos is reportedly recommending this separation be negated by having a “Ministry Of Religions Of Namibia” (Moron).
Visions of denomination desks, desks for transubstantiation, virgin birth and reincarnation, a religious electoral commission, praying licences and a levy on donations loomed; and lots of jobs.
However I fear the spiritual society would be literally “up in arms”.
Prof. Daniel Crane – “A Judeo-Christian Argument for Privatizing Marriage” (Cardozo Law Review)
In this law review article, Cardozo Law School professor Daniel Crane argues that marriage has traditionally been in the province of faith, not of the state, and that this should be taken into consideration when evaluating proposed marriage amendments.
The full article is available in PDF format at http://www.cardozolawreview.com/PastIssues/CRANE.WEBSITE.pdf
Here is a brief excerpt (citations available at the link):
Opponents of same-sex marriage propose to nationalize the definition of marriage through a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.1 Other, more federalist-minded defenders of traditional marriage express discomfort with a federal amendment and propose instead to constitutionalize the definition of marriage at the state level.2 Either way, most opponents of same-sex marriage are committed to state or federal constitutional reforms that define marriage traditionally, ostensibly on the grounds that a legal definition of marriage as heterosexual union is necessary to save the marital institution.
Curiously, the push to constitutionalize—to legalize and nationalize—the definition of marriage comes primarily from conservative religious communities, particularly Christianity and Judaism,3 whose traditions and theology are generally opposed to state intervention in the institution of marriage. Catholic tradition regards marriage as a spiritual estate or sacrament and hence the province of the church not the state. Protestant tradition, while expressing skepticism about the sacramentality of marriage, asserts that marriage has a highlyspiritual dimension that requires mediation by the church. Jewish tradition regards Jewish marriage as the province of Jewish law—Halakhah—and not of civil law. In neither the Jewish nor the Christian tradition is marriage understood as primarily the province of the state.
The current political movement against same-sex marriage threatens, perhaps unwittingly, these religious conceptualizations. By insisting that legally defining marriage is necessary to preserving the institution of marriage, these religious communities are implicitly acknowledging and confirming the state’s right to dictate the definition and contours of marriage. If a uniform legal definition is necessary to save marriage, it must be because marriage owes its legitimacy to the government. By pushing to legalize, even nationalize marriage, religious conservatives are reifying marriage as a legal, rather than religious, construct contrary to their conventional, religious view of marriage.
This essay presents a theological argument against the secular legalization of marriage and in favor of the secular privatization of marriage. It argues that the traditions of Judaism and Christianity understand marriage as an institution whose legitimacy derives not from the state but from the sanction of religious communities. As such, marriage is the province of religious communities, and not the state, and empowering the state to define marriage uniformly not only profanes a holy institution but threatens the ultimate autonomy and authority of religious communities with respect to marriage.
The full article is available in PDF format at http://www.cardozolawreview.com/PastIssues/CRANE.WEBSITE.pdf
John Stevens responds to Prof. Daniel Crane’s article on privatizing marriage
Editor
Thank you for sharing this item. As you know, I am personally opposed to same sex unions. But I am also opposed to a lot of other things, such as honoring the pagan day of the sun in the name of Christianity and rejecting the day God blessed and sanctified for our worship and fellowship.
But my God has given everyone the power to choose and if I am going to have His image restored in me, and that is my goal, then I will have to accept that part of Him, and honor the freedom to make choices of people with whom I disagree. I cannot in good conscience deny others the right that I wish to claim as my own. Consequently I oppose all constitutional amendments to codify religion or any aspect of it into law.
Bringing the recognition of the marriage union to the church and to private institutions with the submission of a simple form informing the government that the marriage has taken place is fine with me. That provision would make the marriage legal in case of divorce, etc. But the government could not under this plan require a license, hence no one needs the government’s permission to get married.
These people who oppose same sex marriage and want the government to enforce their personal religious views are the identical people that want the government to conduct worship services in the public schools for their minor children, and force non believers’ children to attend such services. I find that repulsive and unacceptable and yes, even unAmerican.
We are witnessing a replay of the time when Christ was tried and sentenced to curcifixion. Remember the religious leaders’ testimony? “We have no king but Caesar.” Whenever the church resorts to the state asking them to do for them what God has not seen fit to do, they testify anew that the state is mightier and more capable than God, whom they profess to worship and serve. So we hear in these demands by religiously conservative political forces, “We have no king but Caesar.” Wonder how God must feel about that and them, for whom He paid an infinite price?
Having lobbied government on all levels for over 45 years I have yet to find anything in which the government really excels, and that I apply to all governments in the world. They are made up of faulty people, for there are no other kinds, including ourselves, and what then can we expect? And I certainly honor the far sighted wisdom of our Founders in making this new nation a secular one, where religion is not controlled by the government and where the government is not controlled by religion, the latter being one that is taking place and expanding.
Such thinking and acting is bringing us daily closer to the fulfillment of Revelation 13:11-18. It is so sad that we are headed that direction, especially when our beginning, and during much of our history, we have reflected the lamb, Christ.
Even so come Lord Jesus. Amen.
John V. Stevens, Sr.
VIDEO CLIP: Compulsion in religion and the freedom to disbelieve
Dr. Ravi Zacharias speaks out in support of religious freedom and against attempts to create theocracy. He also tells a couple of very interesting stories about religious freedom in other countries. It was recorded at a recent event at the Atlanta Civic Center and you might also recognize the event MC. Ravi Zacharias answers a tough question about religious freedom- specifically the freedom to disbelieve- in other countries. From the DVD titled “Is America Really Christian.”
Dr. Zacharias was born in India in 1946 and immigrated to Canada with his family twenty years later. While pursuing a career in business management, his interest in theology grew; subsequently, he pursued this study during his undergraduate education. He received his Masters of Divinity from Trinity International University in Deerfield, Illinois. Well-versed in the disciplines of comparative religions, cults, and philosophy, he held the chair of Evangelism and Contemporary Thought at Alliance Theological Seminary for three and a half years. Mr. Zacharias has been honored by the conferring of a Doctor of Divinity degree both from Houghton College, NY, and from Tyndale College and Seminary, Toronto, and a Doctor of Laws degree from Asbury College in Kentucky. He is presently Visiting Lecturer at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford University in Oxford, England.
See more at http://www.rzim.org/USA/Resources/Watch.aspx
Bush Calls for Religious Freedom in China, Iran (Voice of America)
White House 14 July 2008 |
U.S. President George Bush says he will continue to press for greater religious freedom in his meetings with world leaders – including those in China. VOA’s Paula Wolfson reports Mr. Bush spoke at a ceremony marking the 10th anniversary of legislation designed to promote religious freedom around the world.
 |
| George W. Bush makes a statement in Rose Garden of White House, 14 Jul 2008 |
The president says in too many countries, too many people lack the right to worship as they please.
“Our thoughts turn especially to countries where religious freedom is of particular concern,” said President Bush. “Some of these nations have taken steps toward reform. Others have not.”
In remarks on the 10th anniversary of the International Religious Freedom Act, the president made specific mention of Iran, Eritrea, Sudan, North Korea, Burma, Uzbekistan and Saudi Arabia. But his most detailed remarks concerned the treatment of those seeking religious freedom in China.
Mr. Bush spoke about his recent meeting in Washington with a Chinese human-rights lawyer named Li Baiguang who is a devout Protestant.
“For his work he has been repeatedly jailed and attacked,” he said. “A few months ago, he was scheduled to meet with members of Congress. State authorities blocked the meeting and detained Li on the outskirts of Beijing.”
President Bush said he has brought up the need for greater religious freedom in China in past meetings with Chinese President Hu Jintao. He has indicated he plans to do so again when he travels to Beijing next month for the opening of the summer Olympic games.
“Wherever and whenever I meet leaders, I am going to constantly remind them they ought to welcome religion in their society, not fear it,” said Mr. Bush.
Mr. Bush made his comments to a small audience made up largely of members of Congress who pushed the International Religious Freedom Act through the legislature in 1998. Among other things, it set up a U.S. commission to monitor religious rights around the world, established the position of an ambassador for religious freedom, and authorized the use of sanctions against nations that deny their people the right to worship as they see fit.
http://voanews.com/english/2008-07-14-voa61.cfm
Used with permission pursuant to VOA Terms of Service.
China Responds: “China reject’s Bush’s ‘religious freedom’ remarks” and asks him to stop “interfering” in internal affairs (Xinhuanet)
BEIJING, July 16 (Xinhua) — Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao on Wednesday rejected U.S. President George W. Bush’s remarks concerning religion freedom in China, urging the United States to view China’s religious condition with a just and objective attitude.
“China is a country under the rule of law, and the Chinese government protects its citizens’ freedom of religious belief according to law, and Chinese citizens enjoy full freedom of religious belief protected by law,” Liu said.
…
“Meanwhile, what needs to be stressed is that people are all equals in the eyes of the law. Anyone’s speech or behavior should not violate the country’s law nor imperil the state security and social stability,” Liu said.
Read more at http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-07/16/content_8557004.htm
Announcing and Enacting Peace in an Age of Empire
By Ryan Bell
Introduction/Story
Who are the children of God?
Who will inherit the kingdom of God?
These are the questions that are heavy on the minds of the Jewish people at the time Jesus begins his public ministry. There was a great debate between the various parties of the Jewish people about how God’s kingdom would finally be restored to Israel.
For the Pharisees, outward, ritual purity was the way to please God and facilitate God’s reign. For the Essenes, separation and isolation from the world was the way to usher in God’s kingdom. For the Saducees, practical accommodations needed to be made and so strategic partnership with the Roman Empire would be necessary to accomplish God’s ultimate ends. Finally, for the Zealots, violent revolution was the only way. Through military might the pagan empire would be cut down and God would reign, at last, in Jerusalem.
So, when Jesus began his public ministry with the words, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near,” he had everyone’s attention. Whose side would he take? Each of these ‘special interest groups’ wanted to claim this powerful teacher for themselves, but one by one, Jesus revealed that the kingdom of God did not conform to any of their ideas.
As the Pharisees quickly found out, Jesus would not conform to their ritual practices. Contrary to the Saducees, Jesus would make no accommodation to Herod. Jesus habit of eating and drinking with sinners would not have pleased the Essenes. And Jesus practice of non-violence and teaching about peacemakers would not have set well with the Zealots.
Blessed are the peacemakers
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.
Like all the beatitudes, and indeed Jesus whole teaching about the kingdom of God, this saying, “blessed are the peacemakers,” is deeply counterintuitive. Mostly likely directed at the Zealots, this teaching flew directly in the face of their most cherished idea – that the way to be a child of God, the way to secure your place in the kingdom of God as a loyal and faithful son – was the take up the sword and smite the pagan dogs who dare to set their kingdom above God’s.
Jesus instead says, those who are called “the children of God” are the peacemakers. Like so many of Jesus’ other teachings, this is 180 degrees opposite from conventional wisdom. How is anything going to get done in this world without a sword? Peacemaking is weak, powerless – or so it seems.
However, Jesus’ teaching is not novel. Jesus is simply picking up one of the most significant strands of Hebrew teaching and bringing it into the present with a new twist. Isaiah paints this divine vision perhaps more clearly that any other Old Testament writer.
Proclaiming Peace
Throughout Isaiah we see that God envisions peace, or shalom, not just for Israel, but also for his entire creation.
Isaiah begins with a vision of the nations coming to Zion, the mountain of the Lord, where the Lord will settle their disputes so that they can “beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks.
“Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore” (Isa 2:4).
Isaiah then pictures a day when God’s people, who have been walking in darkness, will see a great light. A child will be born who will be known, among many other titles, as the “Prince of Peace.” “Of the increase of his government and peace,” Isaiah prophecies, “there will be no end” (Isa 9:2-7).
In chapter 54, Isaiah describes the “covenant of peace” which will never be removed, and in one of the most beautiful passages in all of Isaiah, God’s people are described as messengers of this covenant of peace.
How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of those who bring good news, who proclaim peace, who bring good tidings, who proclaim salvation, who say to Zion, “Your God reigns!” (Isa 52:7)
It is this remarkable and compelling vision of the peaceful reign of God over all the nations that Isaiah holds up as the purpose for which Israel exists.
He Is Our Peace
When the “Prince of Peace” is born in Bethlehem of Judea, in fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah, Israel has languished for centuries waiting for the fulfillment of the prophecy. Many have lost hope. Others, as we have seen above, have developed strategies to bring in God’s kingdom by force or cunning.
In the story of Jesus’ birth, Luke has the angels singing, “Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests” (Luke 2:14, TNIV), reminding us of the messengers (the Greek word for angel is literally, messenger) of Isaiah 52, who bring good news, proclaim peace and announce God’s reign. The gospel writers want us to know that we are witnessing the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy.
Later New Testament writers highlight these connections. In his letter to the Ephesians, Paul writes, “For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility” (Eph 2:14).
Jesus, himself, is the peace of God, come to mediate between the nations and create a lasting peace, which will know no end.
When Jesus enters upon his public ministry by saying, “The kingdom of heaven has come near,” he creates quite a stir. His description of the kingdom is remarkably similar to that of Isaiah and the other prophets.
This is why Jesus is able to say that peacemakers – those carrying a message of good news, saying “Your God reigns!” – will be known as the children of God.
Practice of peacemaking today
As the church continually reevaluates and reconsiders its role in God’s plan, this Beatitude, or blessing, of Jesus must not be taken lightly. It would be incorrect to see peacemaking as a minor part God’s plan to restore creation. What I have tried to show in this very brief overview is that God’s shalom is perhaps the central theme of God’s creation restoring work; the central metaphor throughout scripture for the complete wholeness of creation, which God is restoring.
The messengers of God’s shalom – those described in Isaiah 52:7 – are God’s precious co-laborers. Look again at this prophetic text.
How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of those who bring good news, who proclaim peace, who bring good tidings, who proclaim salvation, who say to Zion, “Your God reigns!” (Isa 52:7)
What is the English word for “those who bring good news?” Evangelist. An evangelist is one who proclaims the evangel, or good news.
And what is the content of the good news that these evangelists are proclaiming? Peace. Shalom. Salvation from all her enemies. The reign of God!
So, peacemaking – announcing and enacting peace in our world – is evangelism. It is bearing the good news to a world awash in violence, war, poverty, disease and every other injustice. The good news of God’s kingdom envisioned by the prophets (Isaiah most notably), incarnate in the person of Jesus and taught by him in passages like the Beatitudes, is a good news of God’s shalom gaining the upper hand in the world.
But how does God’s peace gain the upper hand in the world? And what is the role of peacemaking in all this?
Jesus’ way of achieving this peace is not the world’s way. In Jesus day, the Pax Romana – Peace of Rome – was widely heralded as the salvation of mankind. The Roman Empire proclaimed peace for the entire world. But it was a peace that came at the end of a sword. It was peace achieved by violence. The Pax Romana turned out to be an illusion, because peace cannot ultimately be achieved through violence.
Jesus taught a different way. The peace of God’s reign would come on a cross – from the greatest display of self-giving love. On the cross Jesus put into practice the teaching of his Sermon: love your enemies, do good to those who spitefully use you and persecute you, turn the other cheek, etc.
Rome’s way was peace through violence, or peace through victory. Jesus way is peace through justice. The two are radically different. Rome’s way says that peace will finally come when all foes are vanquished and the way you accomplish this is through military might. Jesus eschewed this kind of violence and militarism. Jesus taught that peace would finally come when righteousness, or justice, was the order of the day.
******
What does all this means for the church today? When the church reads this beatitude today, what is it that we hear?
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.
First, it means that the gospel is, fundamentally, a gospel of peace. The gospel is pacifist, by its very nature. The good news of God’s at-hand kingdom eschews all forms of violence to achieve its ends. This includes all forms of manipulation we might be tempted to use to achieve “gospel ends.” Taking our cues from Jesus example, we cannot proclaim peace, violently. We cannot ensnare people in freedom. We cannot deceive people into the truth. The methods we use must be congruent with our message.
Secondly, the message of peace that we proclaim is more than words. Peace is something we are called to enact, as well. This is why the language of “peacemaking” is more helpful than pacifism, which implies passivity. There is nothing passive about the peacemaking that Jesus calls us to in the gospel. This means that as the church is considering it’s role as witnesses to God’s kingdom, we must recognize that our role goes beyond talking about God and his plans for the world. We must act in harmony with God’s plans. We must do what we anticipate in God’s future. If we, along with Isaiah, picture a future where nations beat their swords into plowshares, then the church must put its conviction to work and start beating on swords now.
Thirdly, being peacemakers in God’s kingdom today means speaking and acting for justice for the poor, the outcast, and the war-torn. It means speaking out again an unjust war and actively working to bring that war to an end. It means speaking truth to power and holding power to account for the righteousness that God envisions. In short, being peacemakers in God’s kingdom means being radically committed to overcoming evil with good.
What has faith to do with politics?
I want to share two brief stories from our congregation’s ministry that illustrate the way we are coming to understand our role as peacemakers.
In March our church held a Christian Peace Witness for Iraq, in which we prayed, read scripture, sang, told stories and shared experience of working for peace in our world. We lamented the injustice of the current Iraq War. Then, we took candles and went out on the street, and we marched with our candles, prayed and sang some more, as a public witness for peace. It was a very small thing, but it was putting our faith into action. Did it change the world? No. Did anyone notice? Very few. But in God’s kingdom – God’s economy, all these actions matter. Remember the mustard seed?
In June our church participated in several events that culminated in a Town Hall meeting with our elected city officials in which we insisted that they pay attention to the housing crisis in Los Angeles that is squeezing the lower and middle income families. We stood with over 1,000 residents of our town and spoke our truth to power. They listened and made commitments. We did that for the thousands and thousands of families who are being mistreated by their landlords and unjustly evicted from their apartments. We did that for those who cannot afford to live in the community where they have grown up all their lives.
Many have asked why we do these things – why our ministry is like this. We do these and many other things in our church and our community because we believe we are called to be those messengers with beautiful feet, who proclaim peace – God’s peace – to our world. It is our evangelism – our witness – to the world that God way is a better way and God wants people to experience life and freedom now, as well as some day in the future, in the world made new.
Some have said that the church shouldn’t get involved in politics. While I agree that partisan politics have no place in the church, we cannot escape the call of Jesus to affect our world for his kingdom. This is what it means to be peacemakers – to announce to the world, “Our God reigns!” and to enact God’s peace in tangible ways in the neighborhoods where he has planted us.
_____________________
Ryan Bell is the Senior Pastor of the Hollywood Seventh-day Adventist Church in Hollywood, California. He and his wife and two daughters live two miles from the church are learning to be peacemakers in their local context. He maintains an active blog at http://www.ryanjbell.net
J. Brent Walker – “Church and State in the USA: Promises and Challenges”
This thought-provoking address was given by J. Brent Walker of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty at the Congress on Religious Liberty in Buenos Aires, Argentina on April 28, 2008. It was originally posted on the BJC website (bjcpa.org) and is reposted here in its entirety with permission.
Good morning! I appreciate the kind invitation of Raul Scialabba to participate in this Congress on religious liberty. I am truly honored and delighted to be here in Buenos Aires. I bring greetings from the U. S. and the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty. The BJC is a seventy year old group supported by fifteen different Baptist bodies and working on matters concerning religious liberty and the separation of church and state. Established to provide a united witness for Baptists in Washington D.C., the BJC works to defend and extend the religious liberty of all. History has taught us that if anyone’s religious liberty is denied, everyone’s religious liberty is endangered.
I. Introduction
Informing our understanding of the proper relationship between the church and the state is a conviction that religious liberty is a gift from God, not the result of any “toleration” on the part of government. It has to do with our being created in the image of God, and the ability that God gives us to respond as free and competent moral agents. This is why we Baptists treasure voluntary religion and “soul freedom” — a God-infused liberty of conscience — that Roger Williams, a 17th Century Baptist champion of freedom, and many other Baptists since then have fought for and sometimes died for.
Even though our religious liberty is a gift from God—not the result of an act of grudging concession by the state—in the U.S. we have chosen to tailor our political institutions to protect that God-given religious liberty. We do this mainly through the first two provisions of the First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution. The first sixteen words of the First Amendment provide: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” These two clauses require government to be neutral towards religion—neither helping nor hurting religion, but turning it loose to allow people of faith to practice their religion—or not– as they see fit, not as government wants them to.
Both of these provisions ensure religious liberty; both require an institutional and functional separation of church and state. Full religious liberty is a goal; church-state separation is the political means of accomplishing that goal. Simply stated, separation of church and state is good for both.
The wise architects of the U.S. Constitution had learned the lessons of history. They knew from experience that, as soon as government meddles in religion – for or against— or takes sides in religion – favoring one over another – someone’s religious liberty is at least threatened and persecution sometimes ensues. If nothing else, government control of religion – even in the hands of a benevolent government – often winds up watering religion down.
The U.S. Constitution is a secular document. It never mentions Christianity and religion is mentioned only once in Article VI and then to ban religious tests for public office. And, with the adoption of the First Amendment’s religion clauses, our founders made it clear that one’s status in the civil community would not depend on a willingness to embrace any religious confession.
II. Establishment Clause
There are two basic views about the meaning and interpretation of the Establishment Clause. The first is a broad view, or “no-aid view.” It understands the language “no establishment” to prevent governmental endorsement of and aid to religion in general, not just a ban on denominational discrimination or outright coercion. Proponents of this view point out that the nation’s founders considered and rejected three proposed amendments that would have expressly allowed the government to prefer or advance religion generally, as long as it did not favor one religion over another. For example, the Senate in 1789 rejected a proposal that provided, “Congress shall make no law establishing one religious sect or society in preference to another.” Instead, the founders settled upon much broader language that banned laws even “respecting an establishment of religion.”
Others take a narrow view of the Establishment Clause, sometimes called “non-preferentialism.” They understand the intent of the framers and the language of the First Amendment only to prevent government from preferring one religion over another, establishing a single national church or coercing religious choices. They would allow government to aid religion generally if done evenhandedly. Proponents of this view often point to the actions of the nation’s founders that showed little interest in keeping government from promoting religion, at least a generic Protestantism.
Generally speaking, the broad view of the Establishment Clause has been majority view for most of the past sixty years. Justice Hugo Black, writing in Everson v. Board of Education (1947), articulated its parameters when he said:
The ‘establishment of religion clause’ of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither the state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws…which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. In the words of Jefferson the clause against the establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a “wall of separation between church and state.” (Everson v. Board, 330 U.S. 1, 15-16, 1947)
Over the ensuing decades, culminating in a Supreme Court decision called Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), the Court fashioned a three-part test for deciding the constitutionality of government action challenged under the Establishment Clause. In order to be upheld, the law or governmental action must (1) have a secular purpose, (2) have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religions, and (3) not foster excessive entanglement between church and state. Over the past several years the test has been criticized as encouraging hostility to religion and has been modified by the Court at least in the area of challenges to governmental funding of religion.
Those who have a narrow, non-preferential understanding of the Establishment Clause usually favor what is called a “coercion test.” This test posits that,
government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in any religion or its exercise; and it may not…give direct benefits to religion in such a degree that it in fact establishes a [state] religion or religious faith, or tends to do so. (County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, 659 (1989) Kennedy, J., concurring in part.)
Otherwise government is free to aid religion.
Establishment Clause cases tend to fall into one of two general areas. First, concerns are raised when government expresses an opinion on or takes sides in matters of religion. It has to do with attempts by government to promote or endorse religion in words or symbols. These cases involve, for example, government displays of the Ten Commandments and other religious symbols and state-sponsored religious exercises in the public schools.
The second general category of Establishment Clause cases has to do with what government does with public funds. These cases involve claims that government establishes religion by subsidizing pervasively religious organizations or religious activities. Examples include attempts to fund parochial schools and churches’ social service ministries.
III. Free Exercise Clause
The second religion clause – the Free Exercise Clause – is intended to prevent government from burdening or inhibiting the exercise of religion.
People disagree on how this clause should be interpreted and applied as well. Those who have a broad understanding contend that governmental exemptions based on religion are often permitted and sometimes required to remove burdens from the exercise of religion. This view says that robust religious liberty involves not just the right not to be discriminated against, but sometimes requires an exemption from facially neutral, general applicable laws.
So, for example, a Seventh Day Adventist could not be required to work on her Sabbath or risk losing unemployment compensation. Likewise, members of the Amish community would be entitled to an exemption from the compulsory education law that requires school attendance through age 16 when the Amish, for religious reasons, object to formal education through that age. This view of the Free Exercise Clause says that government may not impose a substantial burden on the exercise of religion without showing a compelling state interest – an interest of the highest order – and then it must do so in the least restrictive way. This broad view of the Free Exercise Clause was the majority view of the Supreme Court from the 1940’s through 1990.
Others take a narrow view of the Free Exercise Clause. They say that religiously-based exemptions from laws of general application, while in some cases permitted, are never constitutionally required. This view declares that the government need not demonstrate a compelling interest in order to justify burdening religious exercise; it simply must treat religion as it treats secular counterparts and not discriminate against religion. Of course, this view offers scant protection for the exercise of religion as a matter of right. But this narrow understanding of free exercise has become the majority view of the United States Supreme Court.
In Employment Division vs. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), the Court ruled that members of a Native American Church were not entitled to an exemption from the anti-drug laws to allow them to ingest peyote – a banned substance – as a sacrament in worship. As long as anti-drug laws are even-handedly enforced, government would not have to demonstrate a compelling interest to justify a denial of a religiously-based accommodation.
IV. Challenges
Having given this general overview of the interpretation of the First Amendment’s religion clauses, I now want to talk about two challenges to religious liberty in the U.S.
As I have said, both of these clauses in the First Amendment ensure religious liberty, but in different ways. The Establishment Clause keeps government from indirectly hurting your religion by helping somebody else’s religion and Free Exercise keeps government from harming your religion directly. Even though these provisions are complementary, sometimes—when taken to their logical conclusion—they rub up against the other clause.
This tension between the two clauses is good. If one assiduously enforces the Establishment Clause and forgets about free exercise, an environment of hostility to religion can result. However, if one concentrates only on the Free Exercise Clause and forgets about no establishment, the logical outcome can be a theocracy or something close to it. In either case, religious liberty would be diminished.
In short, it is important that we understand that government should accommodate religion, without advancing it; protect religion, without privileging it; sometimes lift burdens on the exercise of religion without extending religion an impermissible benefit.
Although U.S. constitutional law has come up with elaborate typologies to help us sort through this dilemma (mandatory, permissible and impermissible exemptions), I like to employ a common sense exercise. Every time we say “no” to government activity to uphold the Establishment Clause, we should find a way to say “yes” to its Free Exercise counterpart. This allows us always to try to find a “win-win” solution.
For example, if we disallow teacher-led prayer in the public schools or devotional Bible reading in the classroom, we should also permit voluntary student prayer, student-initiated Bible clubs, and teaching about religion at appropriate places in the curriculum. If we ban government subsidies for religion and religious institutions, we should favor tax exemption and permit government to fund separate religiously affiliated social service agencies that minister without religious discrimination. If we forbid government-sponsored displays of the Ten Commandments, we should permit private citizens to do so even in public places. Again, every Establishment Clause “no” should be teamed up with a Free Exercise “yes”.
The second challenge that confronts us in the U.S. has to do with how we uphold our commitment to the separation of church and state without diminishing the relevance of religion to public life. This is a particularly apt topic this year because of our quadrennial presidential elections.
The separation of church and state does not require segregation of religion from politics or strip the public square of religious discourse. Religious people have an equal right to vend their views in the marketplace of ideas and (with some limits) to convert their religious ethics into public policy by organizing, speaking out, voting, and running for and serving in office.
People of faith need not limit their piety to the church house or to acts of private devotion, nor do they have to concede the public square to others. They should be involved, and seek to transform culture in part through the political process.
Religion can be a positive force in politics—both running for office and in governing – in at least two ways.
First, when candidates and government officials talk about their faith it helps us know who they are and examine what their moral core is like. We should have a free and fluid discussion, as I think we have had over the past 30 years since Jimmy Carter in a sense broke the silence on talking about faith in a campaign. But we must always keep in mind that Article VI of the Constitution bans religious tests for office. True, that provision addresses only legal disabilities based on religion and citizens can take religion into account when voting. But we should make every effort to live up to the spirit as well as the letter of Article VI. And, we must be tolerant of some candidates who, although they might have deep religious convictions, are not comfortable discussing them publicly. We should respect their right to keep their deepest religious convictions private and not quickly conclude they are irreligious just because they are not used to bearing their souls in public.
Second, it is important to inquire about how a candidate’s religious views will impact public policy and how one’s leadership style will be affected. There must always be this linkage. It is not at all helpful to have a theological discussion isolated from impact on policy and governance. For example, will religion merely motivate or entirely dominate a potential office holder’s decision-making? Does a candidate’s religious convictions ordain a particular policy position? What about choice of language? Will it involve narrow and sectarian or broader and more inclusive language? What about a conscious effort not to let one’s religious beliefs dictate policy? Will a candidate promise, for example, to bracket his or her convictions? We tend to see this a lot in connection with the abortion issue (John Kerry, Mario Cuomo), capital punishment (Virginia Governor Tim Kaine) and religion generally (President Kennedy, Governor Romney).
All of this said, I want to offer three words of caution to the notion that religion can be helpful. The first is theological. Any foray into politics with focused religious motivation should be tempered with a dose of humility. For good reason. Was it Blaisé Pascal who said that “men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction?” We need to understand that, however sure we think we are of our position, the other person at least has something to say and maybe in the final analysis is right. As James Dunn has said of the bombastic broadsides that we hear mainly from the religious right in recent years, “What they say is not totally false; it is falsely total.” It often lacks a note of self-evaluation, of tentativeness, of humility that one needs to bring to bear on a public policy message based squarely on one’s religious conviction. This goes for extremism on the religious left as well.
The second caveat is ethical in nature. It has to do with the use or abuse of “civil religion”—a blending of a generic Judeo-Christian piety with U. S. patriotism to the point that one can’t tell them apart. It should not surprise us that, in a country as religious as the U.S., references to God find their way into our civil ceremonies, mottos, slogans and public rituals. These include, “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, “In God we Trust” on coins and the ubiquitous “God Bless America” at the end of almost every speech of public officials. These acknowledgements of religious heritage generally have been tolerated by our courts. But, I bristle when it appears civil religion is being used to advance a political agenda. We must apply some ethical breaks here on the general idea that including religion in a campaign and in governance is (or can be) a plus. It’s dicey and dangerous to judge a politician’s sincerity and good faith. But we do it the same way we make other judgments about such matters: observing the demeanor of the speaker and seeking to determine if they walk the walk as well as talk the talk.
The third cautionary note is a constitutional one. The ultimate outcome of religiously motivated policy initiatives should always have a secular purpose and have the primary effect that does not advance religion. That is what U.S. Representative David Price means when he talks about “a coincidence of the religious precept with broader public values.” For example, former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court Roy Moore clearly crossed the line when he installed outside his court a two ton monolith bearing the Ten Commandments, as every court that looked at the case concluded. But at the same time Alabama Governor Bob Riley was seeking tax reform, explicitly citing his Christian beliefs and Jesus’ teachings about the poor for justification. Riley’s religious motivation, however, was proper because there were a number of non-religious arguments and secular justifications to support tax reform.
While it is permissible for religion to motivate a policy, it should not dominate it. Stated differently, Jon Meacham the editor of “Newsweek” has said religion is a thread in the tapestry of American life, not the tapestry itself. Religion should shape policy, but not strangle it. Moreover, if the only rationale for a policy position is an a priori religious assertion, it is hard for it to be debated and tested in the marketplace of ideas and on the political scene. There must be some secular rationale for public policy that is based on religious conviction. Otherwise, it runs risk of violating the First Amendment’s ban on the establishment of religion.
I do not shy away from talking about separation of church and state as some are wont to do these days. Properly understood, it does not ban, but actually makes possible, the full inclusion of religion in the public square. And with these three caveats, that is good for religion and good for politics.
V. Conclusion
Along with theological precepts and constitutional principles, good citizenship and common sense compel the same results. Another way to look at this is to think of the “golden rule.” Everyone appreciates the sheer reasonableness of the golden rule, people of faith and no faith alike. I would like to propose a golden rule of church-state relations: I must not ask government to promote my religion if I do not want government to promote someone else’s religion; I must not permit government to harm someone else’s religion if I do not want the government to harm my religion. Enlightened self-interest, common courtesy and fundamental fairness require no less. What could be more Christian than that?
Obama Sets Off a Debate on Ties Between Religion and Government (NY Times)
On Tuesday, Senator Barack Obama did his best to reclaim for Democrats the idea of partnerships between government and grass-roots religious groups — and except for six little words he did a very smooth job.
First, he recalled his own community service in Chicago, noting that it had been church supported.
Then he reminded listeners that it was President Bill Clinton who signed landmark legislation widening the role religion-based groups could play in government-financed programs, and Al Gore who in 1999 first proposed a full-scale religion-based initiative.
. . .
“First,” he said, “if you get a federal grant, you can’t use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help, and you can’t discriminate against them — or against the people you hire — on the basis of their religion.”
That little phrase between the dashes — “or against the people you hire” — ignited a political explosion. “Fraud,” declared Bill Donohue of the Catholic League. “What Obama wants,” Mr. Donohue said, is “to secularize the religious workplace.” In its newsletter, the conservative Family Research Council called Mr. Obama’s position “a body blow to religious groups that apply for federal funds.” No less heated reactions came from the other end of the political spectrum, where the Obama proposal was denounced not for that short phrase but for what liberals saw as an abandonment of their principles and part of a suspicious move toward the center.
. . .
(Read the rest at NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/05/us/05beliefs.html?em&ex=1215403200&en=a09309a4e26fb70c&ei=5087%0A
Add to Google