Linda Galloway and Linda Stephens filed suit in 2008 claiming that the town’s prayer practice affiliated the town with the single creed of Christianity in violation of the Establishment Clause. The district court dismissed granted summary judgment against Galloway and Stephens. The 2nd Circuit overturned the summary judgment and remanded the case to the lower courts.

In this ruling, the Second Circuit did not preclude prayer, but noted that even though prayers may be offered with the best of intentions, those giving them may attempt to “convey their views of religious truth, and thereby run the risk of making others feel like outsiders.”

The court set what appears to be a new standard for determining whether a prayer, or pattern of prayers, is appropriate.

Justice Guido Calabresi wrote for the majority.

“What we do hold is that a legislative prayer practice that, however well-intentioned, conveys to a reasonable objective observer under the totality of the circumstances an official affiliation with a particular religion violates the clear command of the Establishment Clause. Where the overwhelming predominance of prayers offered are associated, often in an explicitly sectarian way, with a particular creed, and where the town takes no steps to avoid the identification, but rather conveys the impression that town officials themselves identify with the sectarian prayers and that residents in attendance are expected to participate in them, a reasonable objective observer would perceive such an affiliation.”

The court also was not impressed by the town’s claim that it would have accommodated volunteers from other faiths since the town “neither publicly solicited volunteers to deliver invocations nor informed members of the general public that volunteers would be considered or accepted, let alone welcomed, regardless of their religious beliefs or non-beliefs.”

The Galloway court referenced the Supreme Court case Marsh v. Chambers., 463 U.S. 783 (1983) where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Nebraska Legislature did not violate the establishment clause by opening its sessions with prayer as it was “simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country.”

The Alliance Defense Fund, which had argued for the Town of Greece, is currently deciding whether or not to appeal the decision either by petitioning the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari or asking the full circuit to rehear the case en banc. The appeal would be based on the idea that the town should not need to take additional steps, such as calling for volunteers, to insure compliance with the Constitution.

ANALYSIS

This decision appears to be a rare win-win where the town can continue to have prayers offered, but needs to be more proactive in making sure that the opportunity is made available to a wider range of faith groups.

Prayer is a way to reach for the Divine in reverence and should not be a launching point for an argument. After 2,000 years, there is still wisdom in these words:

“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full.  But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.  Matthew 6:5-6 (NIV).

###

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals - San Francisco

SAN FRANCISCO, CA – MAY 17, 2012 –

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is hearing a case this morning on the issue of whether the Sacramento Unified School District is violating constitutional principles of separation of church and state in awarding Waldorf-method charter public schools tax-based funding.

In the case brought by People for Legal and Nonsectarian Schools (PLANS), PLANS argues that Waldorf-method schools should not publicly funded because they are rooted in a spiritual philosophy called Anthrosophy, which was developed by Rudolf Steiner in the late 1800s. Proponents of Anthrosophy attempt to “extend the clarity of the scientific method to phenonema of human soul-life and to spiritual experiences.” This includes developing new concepts of objective spiritual perception.
In the lawsuit, PLANS contends that this is based on spiritualist beliefs such as reincarnation and combines elements of Hinduism, European occultism, Gnostic Christianity, and other religions.

In a website, WaldorfAnswers.org, Waldorf proponents state that, “anthroposophy strives to bridge the clefts that have developed since the Middle Ages between the sciences, the arts and the religious strivings of man as the three main areas of human culture, and build the foundation for a synthesis of them for the future.”

Waldorf proponents deny that Anthroposophy is a religion  because it is open to people of any faith or no faith at all and that this openness in practice, leadership, and belief precludes it from being categorized as a religion. Members are not required to perform a specific form of spiritual practice, and there is no profession of faith.

According to OpenWaldorf.com, which features links to a variety of Waldorf materials but is not affiliated with Waldorf education, teachers in Waldorf schools are encouraged to read a variety of books on spiritual topics, including A Western Approach to Reincarnation and Karma.
Pacific Justice Institute attorney Kevin Snider, who is arguing the case on behalf of PLANS,states, “The record is replete with examples of Anthrosophy that cannot be described as anything other than religious. We cannot have a double standard where mainstream religions like Christianity and Judaism are excluded from public schools while the door is open for esoteric, occult beliefs.”

In 2003, the Ninth-Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that PLANS had tax-payer standing to pursue the case.

###

In Luke chapter 20, Jesus recounts an interesting parable. In it a man plants a vineyard and rents it out to husbandmen before going on a long journey. At the time of harvest he sends servants to collect from the husbandmen. Instead of giving the landlord what is rightfully his, they beat the servant and send him back. Each servant who comes to collect is beaten. Finally, the man sends his son, thinking that they will treat the son with respect. They do just the opposite and kill the son of the man.

“The past year has marked a shift in religious liberty debates, one that previously centered on hiring rights but became focused on health care requirements. When President Obama first took office, faith-based groups were especially concerned that organizations that discriminate in hiring based on religious beliefs would become ineligible for federal funding. In 2011, the President indicated that he would not rescind an executive order on hiring rights. Just a week later, though, Health and Human Services ruled that religious groups other than churches must provide their employees contraception, triggering lawsuits and petitions. But contraception is not the only religious freedom issue faith-based groups are eyeing. The following timeline shows a number of actions the government took in the past year, setting precedents and priorities on various issues, including sexual orientation, health care, and hiring decisions.”

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2012/marchweb-only/timeline-obama-religious-freedom.html?utm_source=ctdirect-html&utm_medium=eNews&utm_term=9465269&utm_content=122402270&utm_campaign=2012

By Michael D. Peabody

Like it or not, the GOP Primary season seems to be winding down. Mitt Romney is emerging as the clear winner, and while there may be some chance for another candidate to take the flag, it is “mathematically unlikely.”

So let’s debrief. More than any other time in recent history, specific religious beliefs took the center stage throughout this election. One of the things that deserves closer attention is Rick Santorum’s statement that mainline Protestantism is essentially dead in America, or as Santorum, a Catholic, so delicately put it during a 2008 speech at Ave Maria University in Florida, “mainstream Protestantism is gone from the world of Christianity.”

As a Protestant (i.e. a non-Catholic or non-Anglican Christian), this statement first struck me as borderline offensive. I wanted to jump up and down and shout, “I’m still here!” In fact, there are 45 million of us according to the National Council of Churches which claims that 16% of the electorate belong to their churches. And while the media excoriated Rush Limbaugh for bloviating about a law school student’s choice of extracurricular activities, where were the Protestants when Santorum was essentially saying that they were no longer in the “world of Christianity” and were now in the grasp of Satan?

Not only did Santorum ignore separation of church and state, he focused on the church side of the divide and argued that Protestantism was separated from Christianity – there was Catholic and there was something akin to Satanism. It seems incredible to even be typing what Santorum said, but oddly enough, the only people who seemed to take a serious look at it were the secular media. Protestants seemed to shrug their shoulders and say, “Yeah, that’s us.” But what if Santorum is actually right? Is Protestantism actually dying or negotiating itself away? Then it ought to take lessons on Catholic consistency. There are liberal and conservative Protestant churches and they run the gamut of the American political spectrum on almost every issue.

Protestantism has indeed fallen on hard times as many American churchgoers have grown tired of theology and moral standards that are as wishy-washy as pop culture and look for churches that emphasize a clear moral standard and upright living. And it is true that no church has produced as monolithic a structure along these lines as the Roman Catholic Church. Catholic leaders long ago learned that the best way to address moral issues is to state a moral standard and stick with it regardless of whether people agree with it or live by it. Protestants continue to swim around in Laodicean tap water and are in danger of circling the drain as they are afraid to espouse standards even within their own congregations.

While Protestant churches tend to see themselves as democracies, there is no such thing in Catholic thought. In the Catholic Church there is God, the saints, the Church hierarchy which handles the spiritual welfare, then the Government which serves the civic functions of life, then you. In Protestantism, there is God and then there is you.  In Protestant thought, you could assemble with other people and make a church, or not.

Of course, by removing the Divine seal of approval from the church or civic hierarchy, the very foundations of those establishments were threatened. Kings could no longer claim to rule for generations by Divine Right, and the Pope didn’t hold the keys to salvation and require people to jump through various hoops in order to get into Heaven. In Protestant thought, salvation was only through Jesus Christ and it was indeed possible to have a very real, personal relationship directly with Christ. The structures of the Holy Roman Empire gradually lost their relevance in Protestant countries. In Protestant thought, one could no longer involuntarily participate in sacraments and benefit spiritually from those exercises. You couldn’t find yourself in Heaven just because somebody else did something on your behalf. You, yes you as an individual, needed to intellectually accept certain spiritual realities. While sacraments remained important, they were useless without a concurrent “renewal of the mind,” which was aided by prayer and Bible study, which, until the Reformation, was unavailable to individuals. In fact, before the Reformation, the mere act of translating scripture into a common language was considered heresy as John Wycliffe found out the hard way after he translated parts of the Latin Vulgate into vernacular English. Although Wycliff died of a stroke in 1384, he had so irritated the ecclesiastical powers that be that his bones were dug up and burned in 1415 at the command of Pope Martin V.

The priesthood of all believers, or the idea that believers were seen as equals in the eyes of God was fundamental to the formation of American democracy where any citizen could become active in government and any citizen older than 35 could run for President. People could group together to form churches, and separation of church and state preserved the rights of religious groups and protected them from each other, and preserved the right to be non-religious, or even form your own church. So long as you didn’t hurt anybody else, your beliefs were welcome at the table and your right to believe, or not believe, was jealously guarded.

As an American, you could benefit from unprecedented individual civil and religious freedom brought about by two keeping the sphere of church distinct from the sphere of state. What happened between you and God was your business, and the state didn’t get involved in what your church taught and your church was not allowed to set the agenda for the state. It was this combination of the Protestant ethic and the republican form of government that made America a free country and set the standard for true freedom of religion. This reality was preserved through the rule, not of politicians or prelates, but of law, specifically the United States Constitution and its Bill of Rights which kept government from being involved in affairs of the church and vice versa. This environment gave religion, faith, property rights, and entrepreneurship the room to thrive. The only times of challenge were when people tried to use force to rob other people of their God-given freedom and inherent human worth.

While Christianity in Europe has struggled with dying national churches, and where birthright determined the likelihood of individual success, the American form of government has proved a blessing to generations of America.

What threatens American Protestantism the most is when Protestants stop believing in God and begin believing in belief. When belief becomes bigger than God, there is pressure to use the power of the church to influence religious politicians and to extend the power of the church to the government and beyond. We need to remember is that America is not the church. Just because we believe something doesn’t mean that we need the government to make a law to force it on everybody. To put it bluntly, in America, it is legal to believe things that could compromise your own eternal salvation. The state won’t stand in the way of your own theological stupidity. And it would be wrong for the state to assume such power because, in Protestant thought, spiritual actions and even knowledge without a change of heart is worthless.
Conservatives who express great concern about an emerging “nanny state” ought to take notes.

If Protestantism is, as Santorum suggests, on life support, then it desperately needs revival as a belief system that recognizes the value of the unfiltered grace of God. Protestantism, indeed Christianity in general, is here to tell the world that there is something more than what we see around us and to point to transcendent truths. If the American church wants to really reach its Divine potential, it needs to elevate humanity, not by confirming itself to the secular society or forcing secular society conform to its religion, but by pointing the world to a better alternative.

If the faith community can truly embrace this calling, and it is a calling, not a prodding, it will achieve the transformation that it seeks to achieve in the hearts of Americans and people around the world.

“But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.” 1 Peter 2:9 (NIV).

###

EXCERPT:  The Roman Catholic position on contraception takes a thoroughly biblical worldview and tries to make a general mandate that only a minority of Roman Catholics themselves follow. This view has not rallied other religionists the way that the Catholic Church’s anti-abortion stance has. The abortion issue has become a powerful political rallying point. Contraception has not, until now, had anywhere near the political resonance.

…

The real sleeper issue here, as it is with much of the political warfare of the present day, is money. Liberty magazine has consistently warned church organizations against taking state money. We have from the very beginning of the Faith-Based Initiative of the previous administration (an initiative still alive and kicking against the First Amendment establishment prick) warned that it is inimical to church-state separation for public monies to be used to advance any particular faith view. So it would seem a little ungrateful to the public purse for a church to object when the state applies generally applicable regulations to an operation it might tend to see as its pocket money project.

Read More at: http://www.libertymagazine.org/index.php?id=1840

I would like to say that Franklin Graham’s appearance on “Morning Joe” was unique in this political season. On Tuesday, Graham was asked whether he thought President Obama was a Christian. Graham said he has to take President Obama at his word, but that he did not know whether Obama was a Christian. When asked why he felt unsure about Obama’s spirituality, Graham recounted a story of when he asked the President how he came to me a Christian. Pastor Graham asserted that Obama started attending a Christian church only to make inroads into the communities he was working at the time. Furthermore, President Obama’s Christianity is further obscured because Muslims consider the President to be a son of Islam, and because the President’s actions do not show him to be a Christian. However, when he was asked whether Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich were Christians, Graham readily said yes. This would have been very surprising if not for Rick Santorum’s statements over the weekend that President Obama was attempting to establish a “phony theology,” a theology that is not based on Christianity.

Religion often becomes a political football during the election season, and this year is no exception. In addition to these statements questioning President Obama’s religion we have also seen contraception become a major religious freedom issue with many church charities and organizations upset about the new health insurance regulations. While there are many different ways to look at these subjects, I see a strong commonality in all of these events – they each deal with the power of definitions in interesting ways.

Santorum and Graham each seek to define what it means to be a Christian. For Franklin Graham it seems that your Christianity is in doubt if you fail to support his political agenda. For Santorum if you support an agenda that seeks to protect the environment, than you support a phony, unchristian theology. It was so odd to see Franklin Graham express doubt about President Obama’s theology and then turn around and wholeheartedly support the Christianity claims of Santorum and Gingrich. It would have been better if he stayed with his original line of thought – that he should believe what people say regarding their religion. The first problem with Graham’s statements is that so many of them are wrong. While the President may not have been as forthcoming with Pastor Graham in private conversation, he certainly has made very explicit statements about his faith, as recently as the National Prayer Breakfast on February 2nd of this year. Also, I am not an expert on Sharia law (and neither would I suspect is Pastor Graham), but it seems that he may be wrong about President Obama as a son of Islam. The freedom of conscience that people like Pastor Graham and Senator Santorum advocate for is the same freedom of conscience that should allow them to respect President Obama’s version of Christianity, even though it differs from theirs.

The attacks on President Obama’s religion and the Religious Right’s fight against the new healthcare regulations are evidence of another attempt of redefinition that is taking place in America. In fact, at the root, these attacks are an attempt to redefine the constitutional role of religion in American life. Both Senator Santorum and Pastor Graham have established a de facto religious test for the office of President. Why does it matter to Pastor Graham whether President Obama is a Christian? Why does it matter to Senator Santorum that Obama has a phony, unchristian theology? These things matter because to them a person should not be president unless they are Christian. And that Christianity cannot just be any Christianity, but a form of Christianity that is aligned with what they think is correct. The problem is that the U.S. Constitution expressly forbids religious tests for public office. The “religious freedom” being claimed by Christian groups as they debate the new healthcare regulations is an attempt to redefine the principle of the separation of church and state. Never in U.S. history have the courts granted such expansive exemptions as the ones these denominations propose. The question of religious exemptions has been settled law since 1990, when Justice Scalia writing a Supreme Court opinion that established the principle in Employment Division v. Smith that religions cannot get exemptions from neutral laws of general applicability. These religious groups are seeking to establish a one-way principle for the separation of church and state where the government cannot interfere with them, but they are allowed to dictate to government as they please.

By Jason Hines – Last week on the ReligiousLiberty.TV Facebook Page, Michael Peabody asked us to put historical, feasibility, and preferential objections aside and describe what a truly “Christian nation” would look like. How would it conduct foreign and domestic policy for example? This is an incredibly difficult question for me. Of course, part of my life’s work is about pressing against the idea of a “Christian nation,” but I thought this would be an interesting question to take up to see if I could fashion what a true Christian nation would be like.

I think we have to start at the most basic point – what do we mean when we say “Christian nation?” Part of what makes the notion of a Christian nation unworkable is that I don’t think Christians in America (or anywhere else for that matter) could ever agree on what a Christian nation should be. If Christians can’t agree on what it is, how could the ever actualize it? In some of the comments on left on the Facebook page, some have noted that a Christian nation is impossible because of Christ’s statement that his kingdom is not of this world. (John 18:35-37) While this argument has merit, I mention it only to make the point that it would be hard to actualize a Christian nation if you had a contingent of Christians saying that having a nation is against the very premise of Christianity. In order to address the idea of what a Christian nation is, we have to define both what a nation is and what it means to be Christian.

Some would say that a nation is simply its people and therefore a Christian nation is a nation that has a majority of Christians. If that is the case, than America is already a Christian nation. According to Gallup, 78% of Americansidentified themselves as Christian in 2011. However, I think that definition is too simplistic. A nation, in my opinion, is more than just its people. Our nation isn’t just a bunch a people running around. We have levels of government and other institutions that make up what our nation is. So I think a Christian nation would have laws and institutions that reflect the Christian ethos. But how will we define the Christian ethos? Obviously we would attempt to have our laws reflect the teachings of Christ, but is there anything else we need to fulfill the Christian ethos? I want to argue that we should restrict it to just the teachings of Christ, but that would not be accurate in terms of describing what Christianity is today. We would have to include the entirety of the New Testament (including what people like John the Baptist, Paul, and Peter taught) as well as what we can glean from the Old Testament. Referencing the Old Testament makes the project particularly thorny because while the Old Testament gives us a very explicit guide about what a Godly nation would be through the Children of Israel, one could also argue that the Old Testament is very different from the new. Moreover, we would now have to go through a project of deciding which laws given then would be relevant today. While this forum is not the place to give a complete delineation of what a Christian nation would be and do (I think this is actually a really good book topic) I will attempt to address some of the more interesting elements of policy that I think a Christian nation would enact.

One of the more interesting things that would exist in a Christian nation would be the debt and welfare system. In Deuteronomy 15: 1-11, Moses lays out a fairly liberal and debt and welfare system. Not only were Israelites expected to loan people what they needed, all debts were to be cancelled every 7 years. Moses explicitly mentions that Israelites should not refuse to loan someone what they need because the 7^th year is approaching. Moses also fails to mention any kind of repayment plan or interest. I think this is an interesting thing to have done on a national scale. I am not sure if you would enact a law that required citizens to assist each other, or if you would just create a wide open welfare system where no one was rejected and anyone could have access to resources from the government to be able to survive. I assume you would also have regulations to ensure that credit card companies and other lending organizations would cancel debts every 7 years. This would essentially erase poverty and a phenomenon that may be worse – debt slavery. For example, it has been more than 7 years since I left law school. Imagine if my law school debt had been cancelled at some point since 2003? Imagine if credit card debt were cancelled every 7 years?

How could there no be universal healthcare in a Christian nation? Besides all the miracles of Christ (most of which deal with improving the physical and mental health of others), you would essentially have universal healthcare because you would be required under the welfare system to loan people the money they needed to cover hospital costs, if the situation should arise.

I think it is important at this juncture to point out that these things do have a parallel in the New Testament. In the parable of the sheep and the goats, Jesus delineates what his followers will do. In Matt 25: 35-36 He says, “For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.” A Christian nation should certainly live up to this high standard.

When we look at the Sermon on the Mount, we see several things that would have to change in our society. Imagine if we could arrest you for anger (Matt 5:21-22) or if you could potentially be liable for adultery for looking with lust at someone who was not your spouse (Matt 5: 27-28). Foreign policy could be summed up by Matt 5:43-45 – “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.”

I have so far avoided the elephant in the room, which is the relevance of Levitical laws. I have avoided it because I am unsure exactly what to do with it. Levitical laws (found mostly in Leviticus 19 and 20) seem outdated and many of them require death for things that we would not even dream of considering capital crimes today. However there is a strong argument for the idea that if we’re going to rely on the Old Testament for anything in the Christian ethos, then we have to include the “bad” with the good and include all of these laws in our Christian nation. However, I would rather argue that those particular laws are contextual and not meant to apply to today, or to nations outside of the children of Israel.

There seems to be one requirement for a Christian nation that would stand above all. In Exodus 24, after God has given Moses a series of laws (not just the Ten Commandments), Moses presents them to the people. Exodus 24: 3 records the people’s response. “[T]hey responded with one voice, ‘Everything the LORD has said we will do.’” This requirement is what makes a truly Christian nation impossible. In order to truly be a God-led nation, God must make a covenant with that nation, and the people of that nation must then confirm that covenant with God. While each of us is able to make that covenant for ourselves, there has been no record of any nation having such a covenant on a nationwide scale with God. Wake me when that day comes and maybe we can have this discussion again for real.

 A Harvard Law graduate, Jason Hines practiced commercial litigation in Philadelphia for five years and conducted seminars on religious liberty in his spare time. This gave him the opportunity to discuss issues of religious freedom with Adventists in churches all over the United States. In 2008, Jason decided to devote his life to work in religious liberty. To that end, he enrolled at the Seminary at Andrews University, where he is pursuing a Master’s Degree in Religion. He is also a PhD candidate in the Religion, Politics, and Society at the J.M. Dawson Institute for Church-State Studies at Baylor University. Jason blogs about religious liberty and other religious issues at thehinesight.blogspot.com and is also an associate editor of ReligiousLiberty.TV, an independent religious liberty website.

Americans’ religious liberties are under attack — or at least that’s what some conservatives say.

Newt Gingrich warns the U.S. is becoming a secular country, which would be a “nightmare.” Rick Santorum says there’s a clash between “man’s laws and God’s laws.” And in a campaign ad, Rick Perry decried what he called “Obama’s war on religion,” saying there is “something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can’t openly … pray in school.”

Of course, children can pray in school, but Perry is echoing a larger argument: that religious freedom is at risk. The story is much more complicated than either side makes out.

Read more and listen to the radio broadcast at http://www.npr.org/2012/01/08/144835720/has-obama-waged-a-war-on-religion

The point was made by secretary of state Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone who, at a Vatican meeting of European Bishops’ Conferences on the New Evangelisation yesterday said: “The [global] crisis illustrates clearly the untenability of a market that has become totally self-referential . . .

“This present difficult situation prompts a whole series of new questions about the responsibilities and the ethics of the marketplace; it urgently asks a fundamental question about the destiny, dignity and spiritual vocation of man . . . ”

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/1123/1224307999115.html

In the months leading up to the election, on September 12, 1960, presidential candidate John F. Kennedy spoke to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on the issue of his religion. In the weeks leading up to the speech, many Protestants had questioned whether Kennedy’s religious beliefs would preclude him from being objective in the White House. Kennedy’s response that he believed in separation of church and state was an eloquent response to the questions.   Fifty years later, they remain relevant. Here is a transcript of what he said:

Rev. Meza, Rev. Reck, I’m grateful for your generous invitation to speak my views.

While the so-called religious issue is necessarily and properly the chief topic here tonight, I want to emphasize from the outset that we have far more critical issues to face in the 1960 election: the spread of Communist influence, until it now festers 90 miles off the coast of Florida; the humiliating treatment of our president and vice president by those who no longer respect our power; the hungry children I saw in West Virginia; the old people who cannot pay their doctor bills; the families forced to give up their farms; an America with too many slums, with too few schools, and too late to the moon and outer space.

These are the real issues which should decide this campaign. And they are not religious issues — for war and hunger and ignorance and despair know no religious barriers.

But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected president, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured — perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again not what kind of church I believe in — for that should be important only to me — but what kind of America I believe in.

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew— or a Quaker or a Unitarian or a Baptist. It was Virginia’s harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson’s statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim, but tomorrow it may be you — until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.

Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end; where all men and all churches are treated as equal; where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice; where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind; and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.

That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of presidency in which I believe — a great office that must neither be humbled by making it the instrument of any one religious group, nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a president whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation, or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.

I would not look with favor upon a president working to subvert the First Amendment’s guarantees of religious liberty. Nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so. And neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test — even by indirection — for it. If they disagree with that safeguard, they should be out openly working to repeal it.

I want a chief executive whose public acts are responsible to all groups and obligated to none; who can attend any ceremony, service or dinner his office may appropriately require of him; and whose fulfillment of his presidential oath is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual or obligation.

This is the kind of America I believe in, and this is the kind I fought for in the South Pacific, and the kind my brother died for in Europe. No one suggested then that we may have a “divided loyalty,” that we did “not believe in liberty,” or that we belonged to a disloyal group that threatened the “freedoms for which our forefathers died.”

And in fact ,this is the kind of America for which our forefathers died, when they fled here to escape religious test oaths that denied office to members of less favored churches; when they fought for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom; and when they fought at the shrine I visited today, the Alamo. For side by side with Bowie and Crockett died McCafferty and Bailey and Carey. But no one knows whether they were Catholic or not, for there was no religious test at the Alamo.

I ask you tonight to follow in that tradition, to judge me on the basis of my record of 14 years in Congress, on my declared stands against an ambassador to the Vatican, against unconstitutional aid to parochial schools, and against any boycott of the public schools (which I have attended myself)— instead of judging me on the basis of these pamphlets and publications we all have seen that carefully select quotations out of context from the statements of Catholic church leaders, usually in other countries, frequently in other centuries, and always omitting, of course, the statement of the American Bishops in 1948, which strongly endorsed church-state separation, and which more nearly reflects the views of almost every American Catholic.

I do not consider these other quotations binding upon my public acts. Why should you? But let me say, with respect to other countries, that I am wholly opposed to the state being used by any religious group, Catholic or Protestant, to compel, prohibit, or persecute the free exercise of any other religion. And I hope that you and I condemn with equal fervor those nations which deny their presidency to Protestants, and those which deny it to Catholics. And rather than cite the misdeeds of those who differ, I would cite the record of the Catholic Church in such nations as Ireland and France, and the independence of such statesmen as Adenauer and De Gaulle.

But let me stress again that these are my views. For contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for president. I am the Democratic Party’s candidate for president, who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me.

Whatever issue may come before me as president — on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject — I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.

But if the time should ever come — and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible — when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same.

But I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or Protestant faith, nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election.

If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate, satisfied that I had tried my best and was fairly judged. But if this election is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being president on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser — in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people.

But if, on the other hand, I should win the election, then I shall devote every effort of mind and spirit to fulfilling the oath of the presidency — practically identical, I might add, to the oath I have taken for 14 years in the Congress. For without reservation, I can “solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, so help me God.

The conference pulled together issues from the federal level and various states. For instance, in Illinois, after 40 years of cooperation, government officials stopped working with Catholic Charities on adoptions and foster-care placements because the agency refused to recognize a new civil union law. Bishops are suing the state, claiming that denying funds because of the religious beliefs of the church is impermissible. In New York, the Catholic church has complained that the religious exemption to gay-marriage laws is too weak.

On health care, the Catholic Church has argued that there should be a broader exemption to the federal mandate that private insurers pay for contraception. The church is also fighting the Health and Human Services Department’s recent denial of renewal of financial aid for their anti-human trafficking work. The ACLU had filed suit opposing government funds to anti-human trafficking groups that “impose religiously based restrictions on reproductive health services,” claiming that many of the women who are victims of rape and forced prostitution are in need of reproductive health services.

This is coming on the heels of recent attempts by the church to pressure Catholic politicians to vote in line with church teachings.
Each year, Catholic charities across the nation receive hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding, which have increased over the years, and the battle for “religious liberty” is about who gets to control the way that the tax dollars are spent.

In the past, Catholic public policy discussion covered a broad range of issues ranging from immigration and workers’ rights to nuclear proliferation. Today, the focus has narrowed to the issues of abortion and gay rights.

The conference has formed a new “religious liberty” committee, the Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty and is hiring another attorney and lobbyist to address “religious liberty and marriage issues” on Capitol Hill. The Committee is also planning to lobby against a Congressional repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act and the military’s repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Sadly, as part of this change in focus, the term “religious liberty” is being redefined away from protecting the rights to speak, believe, and practice religion. Instead, “religious liberty” is apparently the right to receive government money without restrictions.

And we cannot ignore the fact that other Americans have sincere religious disagreement with the positions being promoted by the bishops. Are the rights of conscience of those who take a different stance on the disputed issues to be dismissed as illegitimate?

To be sure, these are not easy questions to answer. Certainly institutions should not be compelled to act against their religious mission. Yet, the state does not have an implicit obligation to fund them. The Church can assert its right speak in the the public square, but it should not assume power it does not have in order to force the rest of society to follow its lead.

In 1773, a Baptist minister in New England observed that where “church and state are separate, the effects are happy, and they do not at all interfere with each other: but where they have been confounded together, no tongue nor pen can fully describe the mischiefs that have ensued.”

That separation should not be torn down in the name of religious liberty. I hope that the US Conference of Catholic Bishops will keep this in mind as it begins its new chapter of advocacy in Congress, and recognize that they are not the arbiters of morality in the nation, but rather are one of many organizations representing the broad spectrum of belief and non-belief in the United States.

(Click here to read Archbishop William T. Lori’s speech at the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.)

###

Yesterday was a premiere event for the Religious Right movement. In churches, homes, and other venues around the country, conservative Christians watched the premiere of “One Nation Under God,” a DVD created by the group United in Purpose, headed by Bill Dallas. (You can find out more general information about the DVD at the One Nation Under God website.) We attended a showing that was being held at the Old West Cowboy Church in Robinson, TX. Yes it was exactly as it sounds. One man showed up in spurs and chaps on a horse. The pastor of the church, who is also a charter member of the Waco Tea Party, welcomed us and talked about how it was important for Christians to “repossess America.” He told us that about 2,500 different venues would be premiering the DVD and they hoped to have 50,000 showings before the 2012 election.

There were several speakers on the DVD, and each of them had two responsibilities. First, to make sure that they established the idea that America is a Christian nation that that Judeo-Christian principles are to be inculcated into government. Second, the goal was to convince Christians that they should be politically involved, vote their values and encourage other Christians that they should do the same. Several popular conservatives are recruited to help make these points. Despite the multiplicity of voices, there are some problematic themes that run throughout the presentations. Each of the presenters engages in some element of either misrepresentation or misinterpretation of facts, specious logic, or just plain bad theology.

The misinterpretation of facts was somewhat expected. Most of it was conservative evangelical talking points. Both David Barton and Newt Gingrich made mention of the fact that the Supreme Court has taken prayer out of schools. Of course this is not true. Engel v. Vitale (1963) did not take prayer out of schools. Instead it ruled that teacher led school prayer is unconstitutional. The Court has since ruled that sectarian prayers at school events are unconstitutional. But the right of the individual to pray or lead other like-minded individuals in prayer is still allowed. To obfuscate this point is to pull the wool over people’s eyes. Barton also misinterprets the US Constitution. He says at one point that Art. VII of the Constitution incorporates the Declaration of Independence. Art. VII actually says, “The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.” I am sure Mr. Barton has a reason for saying that a one sentence article of the Constitution that makes no mention of the Declaration of Independence somehow incorporates that document, but he gave no further explanation.

Gingrich misinterpreted the historical understanding of Thomas Jefferson. Gingrich said that historians say that Jefferson didn’t believe in God, except that no reputable historian would say that. The truth is that Jefferson was a Deist who believed in the concept of God, but not in the supernatural elements of Christianity. People like Barton, Gingrich, Bill Dallas, and others have a historical problem. The US Constitution makes no mention of God or Christianity, and has some explicit anti-religious statements (i.e., the Establishment Clause and the prohibition on religious tests for holding office). Therefore, in order to make their argument, they have to connect the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution, and that’s a hard sell unless you’re willing to stretch the facts.

The speakers on the One Nation Under God DVD also engage in some interesting and fallacious logic. Most of it is found in the assumptions that they make. Barton for example, makes two very dangerous assumptions. First, he assumes that nothing has changed in the 235 years since the Declaration of Independence. So the vastly different context of today has no effect on how he views what our nation should do and what the Constitution should allow. The great strength of the Constitution in my opinion is that the Founders were smart enough to build in flexibility so that the document could adjust to fit the times. Barton, Gingrich, Dobson, Rodriguez, and the other speakers on this DVD seek to bring America back to an era where it was more homogenous. Gingrich in fact quoted a statistic that 80% of Americans believe in “classical America.” I do not know what that means, but that description is scary to me. Dr. Timothy Johnson, the head of the Frederick Douglass Foundation, an African-American conservative group, also used specious logic in order to attack liberal Christians. Dr. Johnson said that he did not understand how people could say they are pro-life themselves and then vote for pro-choice candidates. Dr. Johnson seems not to be able to understand that there are some people who believe in their personal morality, and yet do not want to impose that morality on others.

Mr. Barton makes the same illogical leap in his discussion of Christians in the voting booth. He assumes that all Christians feel the same way he does, and that if those Christians vote pro-choice or pro- gay marriage, then they are not voting their values. This type of rhetoric is disingenuous and does not help to win people to their cause.

Finally, there are just some shocking cases of bad theology. David Barton cites several texts that he claims stand for certain propositions. We checked each of the ones we could manage to write down, and all of them were misinterpreted. For example, Barton cites Is. 33:22 as support for the separation of powers. While that verse does mention the 3 branches of government (king, lawgiver, and judge) the verse says that the Lord is all those things. Therefore, a government that followed Isaiah’s words there would vest all those powers in one position, because that is what the Bible says in that verse. Reverend Samuel Rodriguez states that there is a biblical and moral imperative for Christians to vote a certain way, but cites no biblical support. Dr. James Dobson makes 2 egregious theological errors. When asked about whether Christians should be involved in politics, Dr. Dobson quotes Abraham Lincoln not the Bible. Dr. Dobson goes on to say that when a country forgets who they are, then they are destroyed. He implies that if America forgets their Christian heritage and begins to allow abortion and gay marriage then they will be destroyed. This statement is not just bad theology, but it is also offensive to every group of people who have been oppressed in the history of America. So God’s destruction will not fall because America enslaved Africans, destroyed their families, raped and killed them, but it will fall because of the unborn and gay people? America did not forget who they were when they were oppressing women or Asians or Catholics or any other group, but now is the time America is moving away from its Judeo-Christian principles. As with Gingrich’s statement about longing for a “classical America,” this statement bothered me. Dr. Dobson is using his theology to whitewash history, and to ignore the fact that America has never been the Christian nation that these people envision it to have been.

Dr. Dobson is using his theology to whitewash history, and to ignore the fact that America has never been the Christian nation that these people envision it to have been.

As I think about the events of the day and the content of the DVD, two final points jump out to me. One, Newt Gingrich said what the goal of this DVD really is. At one point he states that it is time for people of faith to take back power from the minority elite. That is the real issue. It is not truly about having this nation be Christian. It is not truly about feeling persecuted for their majority faith. Rather, this is about wanting to be in control of others. To compel people to follow their will (not even the will of God).

Two, my wife and I noticed something interesting as we sat amongst the members of the Old West Cowboy Church. The pastor provided note paper for us and encouraged us to take notes for our own edification. As we looked around room, we realized that we were the only people attempting to take detailed notes. Most people did not write anything down at all. Some only wrote down a sentence here or there. My wife and I were the only people who attempted to record all the major points being made by all the speakers. This lack of critical thought was the most appalling thing to me. These people were being sold on all kinds of historical, logical, and biblical inaccuracies, and they were more than willing to accept it without inspection.

—–

Jason Hines is Associate Editor for ReligiousLiberty.TV an independent religious liberty website. A Harvard Law graduate, Jason practiced commercial litigation in Philadelphia for five years and conducted seminars on religious liberty in his spare time. This gave him the opportunity to discuss issues of religious freedom with Adventists in churches all over the United States. In 2008, Jason decided to devote his life to work in religious liberty. To that end, he enrolled at the Seminary at Andrews University, where he is pursuing a Master’s Degree in Religion. He is also a PhD candidate in the Religion, Politics, and Society at the J.M. Dawson Institute for Church-State Studies at Baylor University. Jason blogs about religious liberty and other religious issues at thehinesight.blogspot.com

For more: http://www.katc.com/mobile/news/court-affirms-prisoner-religious-right

History professor and author Eric Foner answers the question: Getting to the American Revolution, what was the impact of the Revolution on religious freedom and the separation of church and state? Click on the video for links to more parts of the Norton interview.

http://www.radiovaticana.org/EN1/Articolo.asp?c=531752

While the Vatican document focused on financial issues, it envisioned a much wider potential role for the global political authority. The agenda also includes peace and security, disarmament and arms control, protection of human rights, and management of migration flows and food security, it said.

Establishing such an authority will be a delicate project and will no doubt come at a cost of “anguish and suffering” as countries give up particular powers, the document said. The authority should be set up gradually, on the basis of wide consultation and international agreements, and never imposed by force or coercion, it said.

The authority should operate on the principle of subsidiarity, intervening “only when individual, social or financial actors are intrinsically deficient in capacity, or cannot manage by themselves to do what is required of them,” it said. Countries’ specific identities would be fully respected, it said.

The authority should transcend special interests, and its decisions “should not be the result of the more developed countries’ excessive power over the weaker countries” or the result of lobbying by nations or groups, it said.

“A long road still needs to be traveled before arriving at the creation of a public authority with universal jurisdiction. It would seem logical for the reform process to proceed with the United Nations as its reference,” it said.

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1104173.htm

VATICAN CITY,Oct 24 (Reuters) – - The Vatican called on Monday for the establishment of a “global public authority” and a “central world bank” to rule over financial institutions that have become outdated and often ineffective in dealing fairly with crises.

http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKL5E7LO1LS20111024?irpc=932

From the Vatican document:

“Of course, this transformation will be made at the cost of a gradual, balanced transfer of a part of each nation’s powers to a world authority and to regional authorities, but this is necessary at a time when the dynamism of human society and the economy and the progress of technology are transcending borders, which are in fact already very eroded in a globalizes world.”

“Presidential candidates feel no shame in asserting divine purpose in U.S. policies and actions. In this ubiquitous view of American exceptionalism, the nation is not bound by rules to which others must submit.”

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-bacevich-american-exceptionalism-20111016,0,3240927.story