Op-Ed: What is a Christian Nation?

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.

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.

John F. Kennedy’s Speech Affirming Separation of Church and State

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.

Paradoxical Christian? I’m a Bible-believing Christian Who Passionately Supports Church State Separation

By Steve Allred -

I have some friends who tell me that I don’t make sense when it comes to my position on separation of church and state. You see, some would call me a “fundamentalist” Christian. For example, I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God and try to live my life by its teachings. I believe that God created the world in seven, literal, twenty-four hour days and rested on the seventh day. I believe in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ and that He is the divine Son of God. I also believe that marriage between a man and a woman is the biblical ideal and that any extra-martial sexual relationship is called sin in the Bible. Ultimately, I believe that the lifestyle that God describes in the Bible is the best and happiest way for me to live.

But here’s the rub: I also believe in keeping church and state separate. Some of my friends can’t understand why. To them, it’s a contradiction of my other beliefs. “If you believe that the Bible teaches that extra-marital sex is wrong, why don’t you believe that it should be outlawed in America?” they ask.

Because not every teaching of the Bible should necessarily be the law of the land. And because even though I may believe that living by God’s principles is the best way to live I shouldn’t want to force that lifestyle on others around me.

True, there was a time when laws of the Bible were the law of the land. In the Old Testament, the laws of God were enforced on the nation of Israel. But that was in a time when God ruled directly through kings and prophets in what we call a theocracy. By the time Jesus arrived, however, He made it clear that the theocracy was over: “My kingdom is not of this world.”, He said, “if it were, my servants would fight… but now my kingdom is not from here.” (John 18:36).

How much clearer could He be? He did make it even clearer, however, when He told us that Caesar’s (the secular government) realm and God’s (the church) realm on earth were explicitly separate: “Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s.” (Matthew 22:21-22). In other words, God doesn’t need Caesar’s help to do His work.

And so, while I’m a fundamentalist, I’m also a separatist. I believe that church and state ought to be separate, because Jesus told us so, in so many words.

But why?

Way back in the Garden of Eden God gave us a clue. In a perfect world, where God ruled and where there was no sin, God gave us a choice – the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Why the tree? Because God is love; love cannot exist without freedom to not love, therefore God must allow choice.

But just because God doesn’t want His religion forced on society doesn’t mean that there is no place for promoting morality and faith in the public marketplace. Far from it. In fact, the whole purpose of the church’s existence is to be the light of the world, the body of Christ, the salt of the earth. (Which is one reason I wholeheartedly support freedom of speech right along with separation of church and state. Yay for the First Amendment!). We are to be the voice calling out to individuals to experience a new way of life by accepting the principles of the kingdom of God. The church is the voice in the world upholding the Ten Commandments in our teachings and living them out in our own lives. We are the voice in society that teaches the truth boldly and unapologetically. And when the church fails in its job to promote obedience to God’s law in society, society begins to fall apart and the inevitable result is the reign of secularism and immorality (see, for example, The Great Controversy, p. 585-586). What should the church do then? We should repent for failing to do our divinely ordained job and pray for a revival within our midst so that we can be the light of the world once again.

Sadly, our response throughout history has been just the opposite. Instead of repenting and seeking God when society is experiencing moral decay, the church has turned to the secular government to enforce its dogmas and to “revive” society. But can laws legislating morality and religion really bring about revival? No. History tells us that laws never have brought about revival, and they never will. Only the power of the Holy Spirit, working through the church can truly bring revival. And one thing is clear: the Spirit doesn’t need the government’s help to make the church the light of the world! (In fact, it seems that in places where the government is persecuting God’s church the church shines brighter than ever).

Unfortunately, even though some Christians understand the church’s role, they still think that it is the government’s job to also be the moral conscience of society. Or they believe that the government should be just another “arm” of the church. But they’ve got it wrong. It’s the church’s job – and the church’s alone – to be Christ’s body on this earth. And the church should do its job without whining that it needs the government’s help or that it needs to use the government to do its job. In fact, the less help the government gives the church, the more glory is given to God when society is actually changed one person at a time. Because ultimately spiritual and moral change come from within – not from outward conformity to certain laws. Only God – not legislation – can transform the heart.

As I talk with my friends, I realize that my explanations still leave some unanswered questions: what kind of relationship should the church have with the government – any at all? When should the government step in and enforce “morals” on society – should it ever? The answers to these and other related questions are complex and anything but “hard and fast” and are for another discussion. Ultimately, though, we as Christians can thank God that He has made one thing exceedingly clear: our commission is to “preach the gospel to every creature.” One other thing He made clear is that the gospel of the kingdom is not to be preached by His servants fighting with the sword (earthly government) but rather, as the old Hymn “Lead on, O King Eternal” says, it is “with deeds of love and mercy” that the heavenly kingdom comes.

——————–

Steve Allred is an associate pastor at the Sacramento Central Seventh-day Adventist Church and law student at University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law.  This article originally appeared at Pastor Allred’s blog and is reprinted here with the permission of the author.

Blue Laws and Sunday Legislation-why do they exist? CNN Video

A video describing some of the religious and secular rationale behind American Sunday blue laws.

Religious-freedom groups mourn Kennedy, cite church-state views (ABP)

EXCERPT:

. . .

The late senator “was a great champion of church-state separation,” said Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, in a preparedstatement. “It’s not just that he consistently voted to support that principle — he really got it. He deeply understood that only a high and firm wall of separation between church and state could protect our liberties. He knew the reasons why our Founders established church-state separation and why we need to preserve it. He got how church-state separation protects the rights of both religious and non-religious people.”

Lynn cited Kennedy’s fierce opposition to a famous attempt by his former colleague, the late Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), to push through the Senate a constitutional amendment enabling government-sanctioned school prayer. He also noted Kennedy’s crucial opposition to failed Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, who was opposed by many religious-freedom activists because of his support for government endorsements of religion.

. . .

“The separation of church and state can sometimes be frustrating for women and men of religious faith,” he continued. “They may be tempted to misuse government in order to impose a value which they cannot persuade others to accept. But once we succumb to that temptation, we step onto a slippery slope where everyone’s freedom is at risk. Those who favor censorship should recall that one of the first books ever burned was the first English translation of the Bible…. Let us never forget: Today’s Moral Majority could become tomorrow’s persecuted minority.”

The vision Kennedy held out was of an “America where the power of faith will always burn brightly, but where no modern Inquisition of any kind will ever light the fires of fear, coercion or angry division.”

Read the full article at: http://www.abpnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4348&Itemid=53

The Politics of Obama’s Faith and the Evangelical Left – Stephen Manfield

[amazonify]1595552502[/amazonify]

Thomas Nelson Publishers has published a new book objectively presenting Barack’s faith. This video introduces the book. Many voters question Obama’s authenticity and beliefs, both religious and political, and how the two intertwine. According to Stephen Mansfield, the author of this book, Barack is “raising the banner of what he hopes will be the faith-based politics of a new generation . . . and he will carry that banner to whatever heights of power his God and the American people allow.”

A portion of the proceeds of the sales of this book from the above link will go to support ReligiousLiberty.TV.

Martin Sheen on Church / State Separation

Television president, Martin Sheen, narrates this video, produced by People For the American Way, about the history of separation of church & state and efforts by the Religious Right to undermine it. It was produced some years back.

VIDEO: VP Candidate Joe Biden on Religion, Government, and the Presidency (Fora.TV)

Recorded in May 2007, Delaware Senator and Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden discusses the role of religion in American society, and gives his thoughts on the separation between church and state.

Could Chet Edwards be Obama’s Running Mate? Edwards speaks on Religious Liberty

Today, Friday, August 22, 2008, the country is waiting to hear who Barack Obama has chosen as his running mate.  One of the names that is surfacing is Rep. Chet Edwards.

Editor

————-

 

 

 

Rep. Chet Edwards represents President George Bush’s home district (including Crawford, Texas) in the United States House of Representatives. A moderate who considers himself a bridge-builder between left and right, and a Methodist who attends the Calvary Baptist Church in Waco, Texas, Rep. Edwards is a staunch supporter of the separation of church and state.

 

The following is text from a speech Rep. Edwards gave on November 19, 2003.

Edwards’ Floor Speech on Religious Freedom Mr. Speaker: I rise in support of H.Res.423, which recognizes the 5th anniversary of the signing of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. Religious freedom should be a fundamental right for every citizen of the world. This resolution urges a “renewed commitment to eliminating violations of the internationally recognized right to freedom of religion”. I strongly agree that we should make that renewed commitment, and I imagine this resolution will pass unanimously in the House today. Earlier this morning a number of House Members rightfully criticized religious bigotry and discrimination in Viet Nam and Cambodia, as well as in other parts of the world. I applaud my colleagues for saying the world should not tolerate torture, imprisonment and murder of people simply because of their personal religious faith. I am also deeply grateful to live in the United States, where we do not imprison citizens, because their religious faith is different from others. I believe perhaps America’s greatest single contribution to the world from our experiment in democracy is our model of religious freedom and tolerance. The foundation of that religious freedom is the principle of separation of church and state, imbedded in the first 16 words of our Bill of Rights: “Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” In his letter to the Danbury Baptists of Connecticut in 1802, Thomas Jefferson expressed his belief that the principle of church-state separation is one of the most sacred of our founding principles. Unfortunately, many Americans today have come to perceive that separation of church and state implies disrespect for religion. Nothing could be further from the truth as Jefferson stated over a century ago. Separation of church and state does not mean keeping people of faith out of government. Rather, it means keeping government out of our faith. By passing language saying “Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion”, known as the Establishment Clause, our founding fathers were putting religion on a pedestal so high that the hands of government and politicians could not reach it. Our founding fathers were right. Separation of church and state in America has led to more religious freedom, vitality and tolerance than in any other nation in the world, perhaps throughout the history of the world. Most nations have gotten it wrong, because they have tried to use the power of government to fund religion. With that funding has come regulation of religion and, ultimately, the result has been intolerance against the rights of religious minorities. While I am deeply grateful for our religious freedom in America, I am also deeply disturbed by recent Bush Administration regulations and proposed laws that would limit the religious freedom of American citizens. It would be ironic and tragic for Members of Congress to be pushing for more religious freedom abroad while allowing religious freedom to be denied here at home. Let me be specific. This resolution says, and I quote, “Whereas the right to freedom of religion is expressed in the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief” Instead of eliminating all forms of intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief, the Bush Administration actually supports using federal tax dollars to subsidize religious discrimination. This is known as their so-called Charitable Choice proposals. Under Bush Administration proposals, an American citizen can be fired from a federally funded job solely because of his or her religious faith. Let me repeat that. Under Bush Administration proposals, an American citizen can be fired from a federally funded job solely because of his or her religious faith. The Administration, for example, would allow a group associated with Bob Jones University to accept $1 million in federal funds to run a jobs training program, and with part our taxpayers’ money, they could print a sign saying, No Jews or Catholics need apply here for a federally funded job. To allow and to actually subsidize such religious discrimination when using Americans’ tax dollars is offensive. It is wrong and it is unconstitutional. We all know why, for example, a Baptist Church can hire a Baptist minister with their own money to carry out that church’s spiritual mission. However, long-standing federal policy has been that when organizations receive tax dollars, they cannot discriminate in job hiring based simply on a person’s religious faith. President Bush’s Administration wants to change that policy for billions of tax dollars and for potentially hundreds of federally funded jobs. I believe the Administration’s position flies in the face of this resolution, the Bill of Rights and Americans’ personal religious freedom. No American citizen should have to pass someone else’s religious test to qualify for a federally funded job. Not one American. Mr. Speaker, it is right for House Members to stand up for religious freedom in other nations, but I would suggest we should more carefully examine how Bush administration policies will lead to religious discrimination here at home. If Americans are denied the right to a federally funded job, the chance to feed their families, simply because someone doesn’t like their religious faith, then they are being denied the exercise of their religious freedom. Perhaps most Americans to date have not been concerned about these so-called Charitable Choice proposals for two reasons. First, they are not aware of these proposals. Second, most Americans consider religious freedom to be a right protected by our 1st Amendment. But, in the years ahead, when dozens, then hundreds, and ultimately thousands of Americans are denied a job simply because of their personal religious faith, Americans will be outraged and ask how did this type of religious discrimination occur here, in the land of the free. In my religious faith, it is said that we should take the log out of our own eye before pointing out the speck in someone else’s eye. That leads me to believe that, while we are right today to condemn religious discrimination in other nations, we should stop subsidizing religious discrimination here in America. When we say in this resolution, “Whereas all governments should provide and protect religious liberty” perhaps it would be good for us to practice what we preach. Religious freedom is a cherished right of American citizens. We should stop Bush Administration proposals that would put that sacred right at risk.

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

Next Page »