The Death of the Religious Right

As I was finishing up a paper, I came across this article which I found to be both witty and relevant to the topics of this blog. Despite the sardonic humor, I think it's an interesting read on the current state of the Religious Right. Did anyone else notice the marked absence of religion in the 2008 election?

From Worldnetdaily.com:

No matter who becomes the next president of the United States, the American people have already won a great victory – with the total disintegration of the once all-powerful religious right.

Starting in 1979, when Jerry Falwell founded the Moral Majority, Christian conservatives have been the most powerful voting bloc in the Republican Party. Ironically, they began by casting out of the White House a born-again Christian who continued, as president, his life-long practice of teaching Sunday school, and replacing him with a divorced and remarried man who seldom stepped inside a church.

But of course, Jimmy Carter was a Democrat and Ronald Reagan was a Republican. And by staying united, the religious right has been able ever since to exercise its veto power over Republican candidates and dictate the issues – abortion, same-sex marriage, stem cell research and school prayer – they would campaign on. Until, that is, the presidential campaign
of 2008.

Today, the religious right has splintered into as many different factions as O.J. Simpson has alibis. Unable to find one candidate who fits the bill of being both true-blue on the issues and electable, America's ayatollahs have divided their loyalties. Indeed, in some cases, they've even declared war against each other.

The National Right to Life Committee has endorsed Fred Thompson, even though he opposes a constitutional amendment to ban Roe v. Wade and admits he only goes to church when visiting his mother – while James Dobson says he's not even sure Thompson qualifies as a Christian. Sam Brownback has endorsed John McCain, who once called Jerry Falwell an "agent of intolerance." And Bob Jones III and Moral Majority co-founder Paul Weyrich have even endorsed a Mormon, because they think Mitt Romney is the only one who can beat Hillary Clinton.

Meanwhile, Mike Huckabee, the only ordained Baptist minister in the race, is almost totally ignored by his fellow Christians because, even though Huckabee scores 100 percent on the issues, they don't think he has a snowball's chance in hell of winning. Huckabee's only evangelical endorsement comes from Tim LaHaye, co-author of the "Left Behind" novels – which may be the appropriate title for Huckabee's campaign.

And, in one of the most bizarre pairings in politics
, Pat Robertson, who blamed gays for Sept. 11 and prayed for a meteor to strike Disney World's gay pride parade, has endorsed Rudy Giuliani – perhaps because he's counting on Giuliani to assassinate Hugo Chavez. James Dobson has said he will never vote for Giuliani, even if it means staying home. But the fact remains that, with Robertson's help, the Republican Party could very well nominate for president a candidate who is twice-divorced, thrice-married, pro-choice, pro-gay rights and an occasional cross-dresser.

Merely entertaining Giuliani as a candidate demonstrates that, for many conservatives, political power counts more than Christian values. The religious right is dead. It will never again exercise the political clout it once had – which is bad news for Republicans, but good news for the republic.

While in the long term, some moderate Republicans might welcome relief from having to genuflect in front of the pro-life movement and Terri Schiavo, the short-term political impact for the Republican Party is a disaster. Christian conservatives probably won't vote for a Democrat. They're more likely just to stay home. But the result is the same: Overnight, Republicans have lost their biggest and most loyal bloc of support. It's the political equivalent of Democrats losing support of the unions.

But for Americans generally, the demise of the religious right is good news. It means tolerance is back. It means we don't have to worry so much about efforts to turn the United States into a Christian nation. It means "secular" is no longer a dirty word. It means politicians will be judged by more important issues than how many times they utter the God word in one sentence. It means the list of moral issues will expand from abortion and gay marriage to include health care, a living wage, global warming, pre-emptive war and torture.

In short, the dying influence of Christian conservatives means that people of all faiths, or no faith at all, will feel comfortable participating in the political process – and not just those who subscribe to the narrow-minded, intolerant, mean-spirited brand of religion espoused by Dobson and Robertson. And for that we collectively pray: Thank you, Jesus.

Give us Barabbas?

Stanley Fish is a man I have great respect for. He is a social critique of a different kind, in my eyes. I try to stop by and read what he thinks on his blog for the New York Times when I can. On October 26, he had a very interesting blog about the electioneering going on between the two candidates. He related Obama to the Messiah, but in a different way than what many others have done. He starts by commenting on the stark differences in campaigns run by Republicans and Democrats in 2000 and 2004. He says that Democrats seemed to have been simply out campaigned. This year was different, though. Democrats did not simply attack and aggressively go after voters. Obama decided to run a more passive campaign where the strategy was to simply discuss the issues rather than character. Fish relates this to the temptation of Jesus. He claims that much like the devil, McCain tries to tempt Obama, the messiah, out into the more dirty politics we know and sometimes love. However, Obama would not bite. This tempered strategy not only upsets Republicans but also makes them down right angry. Reflecting upon the election the day afterwards makes me think about what many pundits are saying. We want a clear and smooth transition and that Obama will quickly and decisively move towards that end. Furthermore, as we look to yesterday’s results as a major historical event, we must understand the future implications as we move into that transition. Obama has promised change, something that Jesus seemed to bring, at least a little bit. Fish’s observation seems to suggest that change is in our future based on the change in Democratic strategies. With a larger majority in the house and senate and with the presidency, Democrats now have the opportunity to show true leadership and to take power for a generation. They can do this by following Obama’s tempered response to Republican attacks. Pundits on the right swear Obama will now swing hard to the left and abandon his “nice-guy” façade. He is now tempted with the power to unleash the liberal agenda Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reed have been foaming at the mouth to implement. Change means a change in the old politics as Fish has pointed out. McCain tried to bring his supporters to respect the decision of voters, often times to boo’s of the crowd. This is a problem that our country must face. We must now unite behind the new president. Furthermore, if Obama does as he has promised, Democrats will continue to gain control in our government, winning over moderate Republicans and independents. If he goes dramatically to the left, though, as some say he will, he will leave some screaming for Barabbas.

http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/

Pat's Predictions

Young people who tune in at random to the Christian Broadcasting Network’s flagship television program, The 700 Club, might think Pat Robertson nothing more than an old, white guy who has spent most of his life with his nose stuck down in a Bible and the rest praying for the souls of a world filled mostly with sinners. They would, of course, be phenomenally in the wrong. Robertson was a candidate for the Republican Party’s nomination for President in 1988. Though his bid was unsuccessful, he did defeat George Bush, who would become America’s next president-elect a few months later, in the Iowa caucuses. Despite forgoing his aspirations to hold a public office, he has remained active in American politics throughout the years, founding the Christian Coalition which currently supports conservative politicians and has over 1.7 million members. Now 78 years old, he does seem to have adopted a gentler television persona, but he remains an icon for fundamentalist evangelicals.

Recently, Robertson issued a press release on the Russian aggression in Georgia. As a spiritual figurehead, his call to prayer makes sense. As a man with experience in politics, his worry over Russia’s growing boldness and Iran’s inflammatory rhetoric are totally understandable. But that’s not all the insight he gives us. He goes on to suggest that the threat of Russia and Iran as allied enemies is so great that Israel should enter Iranian airspace and strike its nuclear reactors. Madness, you say? Robertson is aware of the danger Hezbollah poses on Israel’s northern border and Hamas to the south. He even thinks Israeli military action would be the impetus for Russia to act on their greed for oil and enter the conflict in the Middle East. Telling this side-by-side with biblical prophecy, his tone is concerned but expectant. Economic disaster, a game of “nuclear chicken,” another attempted Jewish genocide. England and the USA, he surmises from the Book of Ezekiel, will speak against the chaos but fail to take action. “It will all conclude when God has rained fire on the islands of the sea and on the invading force coming against Israel.”

Robertson certainly does not look forward to the violence and evil he sees ahead. Yet, for him, “what is clear is this: the Israeli strike against Iran will be the trigger.” And while even Robertson might hope that most of these predictions never come to pass, he sees the strike on Iran as necessary, claiming the “time for talk will be over.” I, personally, will cling to a hope that our time for diplomacy does not expire. Robertson, however, whose opinions reach millions of Americans each day, stated at the time of writing that “we have between 75 and 120 days before the Middle East starts spinning out of control.” And today is day 76. Robertson believes Israel should, or will, strike during Bush’s lame duck period. He seems to believe that Obama, without God’s direct intervention, will enter office and continue to do nothing about the situation, possibly resulting in nuclear attacks on our coastal cities. We may not all respect Robertson’s political opinions, or his prophetic ones. But it is important to remember that in today’s America, though millions are singing hope and freedom in the streets of our cities, a strong representative of what many of us call “the base” of last night’s losing party is envisioning and calling for drastic and dangerous action.

Religion Impacting Custody Cases

The article I chose was “Religion Joins Custody Cases, to Judges’ Unease”. This article looks at some issues of religion when involved in child-custody cases. The article tells us that all over the nation the number of child-custody disputes where religion is a main concern are increasing, just as there are more custody conflicts overall in the past few decades. According to one family lawyer, Ronald William Nelson, “there has definitely been an increase in conflict over religious issues. Part of that is there has been an increase of conflicts across the board, and also parents are looking for reasons to justify their own actions.” According to many lawyers, judges are not any more likely to rule on the side of a religious parent or a non-religious parent. Judges find it difficult to rule primarily on religious preference, for how could they say that one religion is better than another or non-religion? Another possible source for the rise in conflicts is when interfaith marriages split-up or one parent converts. There have been many efforts to encourage parents to settle disputes outside of court, and even when they do end up in court in many cases they are only minimally resolved. In the case of Libby Mashburn, her custody was changed at age 6 from her mother to her father. Some believed reasons for this were that her mother, Mrs. Snider’s, strict religious beliefs may have been “damaging her.” According to Libby, who is now 11, “I’m more of my mom’s religion, and my dad sometimes talks bad about my mom. He called it a cult, and it’s definitely not a cult. It kind of makes me mad sometimes. Maybe he thinks her religion may be bad for me, but I think mainly he doesn’t like my mom and is using that as an excuse.” According to legal experts, if a judge tried to choose which religion a child should be brought up in, they would risk creating Establishment Clause issues. In some cases a child’s upbringing can be influenced by religion, but this does not always need to be the main factor when determining custody. While I agree that religion can and does play an important part in most children’s lives, I do not feel in needs to be a determining factor in custody. While we all learn our basics and background in religion from our parents, there can be multiple views. Just as in the cases of a married couple practicing both Jewish and Christian beliefs, why can’t parents who are divorced both teach their separate religions? This would just give the child a wider basis, and present them with different views and someday they could choose for themselves. We all have options, so what is the problem with exposing them to different views? Parents also need to keep the best interest of the child at heart, and while they may feel their religious beliefs are best, arguing about it and bashing the other parent only ends up affecting the child negatively. When a judge is hearing a custody case, they need to at least attempt to lay religion aside, if they did favor one over the other this would be a violation of the Establishment Clause. Judges are not allowed to pick one religion over the other, and should not take differences of religion into account. So unless there is overwhelming evidence that a certain religion may cause serious harm to a child, religion should not be a deciding factor. Even though the parents may be upset with each other, they should not use the other's religion as an excuse to fight for custody. Just because one may have a different religion does not mean they are an unfit parent. Having some experience in a Children’s Court, I know that there are many more important factors in determining custody. In most cases it is in the best interest of the child to have both parents play an active and supportive role in their upbringing, as long as both of them are fit and willing. It is also a great and positive example when parents can cooperate and show respect to one another at least in matters that concern the child, even if they dislike each other. And if they can't do that, I agree that religious factors should be ignored or at least minimized when the court makes its decision.

link for article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/us/13custody.html?scp=14&sq=religion%20law&st=cse

The More Things Change, The More They Stay The Same

In an October 26th article in the New York Times, Laurie Goodstein details the fight in California over Proposition Eight. Proposition Eight would define marriage as between two heterosexual individuals and would ban Gay Marriage. The campaigns both for and against the measure have been hard fought and very expensive. An alliance of conservative evangelicals, Roman Catholics, and black and Latino voters have raised millions of dollars in support of Proposition Eight, and Civil Rights groups, unions and Businesses and Hollywood have rallied to protect gay marriage and have raised nearly as much money. What is interesting about this article, and the campaign in general is the similarity to campaigns for family values in the seventies and eighties.

It is very easy to hear the echoes of Jerry Falwell when confronted with the logic of Proposition eight supporter and prominent evangelical, Charles W. Colson: “This vote on whether we stop gay marriage in California is Armageddon.” Tony Perkins, the president of the family research council, felt the same way saying, “We have elected bad presidents before and survived as a nation, but we will not survive if we lose the institution of marriage.”

As I am writing this America has just elected a black president, in a landslide no less, but before we get to caught up patting ourselves on the back we need to look at the fight over proposition eight, and similar measures on the ballot in Arizona and Florida. It is unbelievable that the right wing evangelical argument that public sin will destroy the nation still holds water. How do people not see that conservative leaders have been claiming this for decades and that America is still going strong. These fear mongerers are trying to force their religious values on others in a way that simply shouldn’t be possible in the 21st century. I am not arguing for or against gay marriage, but against for equal rights for everyone, and against religious scare tactics that pervert both democracy and religion

Cultural Crusaders: A Vanishing Species?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/02/AR2008110201718.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Cultural crusaders fervently denouncing America’s sins may soon be on the endangered species list. Writing for the Washington Post, Peter Beinart argues that a poor economy has weakened the ability of crusaders like Sarah Palin to sway voters by denouncing immorality. History supports the argument that concern about the moral state of the union is a luxury voters cannot afford at a time when they are worried about jobs, mortgages and healthcare.

The 1920s battles over immigration, prohibition and evolution indicate that cultural wars thrive during good times. In his book Hellfire Nation, James Morone explains that while the 1920’s economic boom seemed to indicate that the reformers had indeed improved society, the resulting stock market crash of the 1930s abruptly changed the nation’s focus. In place of the moral crusades, the poverty of the Depression gave rise to the Social Gospel where, according to Morone, “the community shares responsibility for vice and virtue, for wealth and poverty.” By the 1932 election, notes Beinart, a focus on “identity politics…was a luxury America’s leaders could no longer afford.”

The communal responsibility emphasized in the Social Gospel lasted as America fought through the Depression and World War II. In the post-war boom of the 1950s and 1960s, however, America’s economic prosperity allowed various groups to challenge what Beinart calls “the conformity of American life.” In response, the ideas of the Social Gospel were lost, as according to Morone, “a new generation of moralists blamed bad behavior for every manner of social problem.” The stability and strength of America allowed people the luxury of arguing about gay marriage, abortion and gun control laws for the next several decades.

Today as the economy again spirals out of control, Beinart argues that Americans cannot afford to choose a candidate based on their stance on abortion and other “value” issues. Obama’s economic policies, an updated version of the Depression-era Social Gospel, have much more resonance with Americans frightened by an unstable economy than do Sarah Palin’s denunciations of immorality.

Beinart titles his article “Last of the Cultural Warriors.” However, his analysis seems to indicate that the economic situation has merely rendered them dormant for a time. Is Beinart’s analysis of the situation correct? Are we witnessing the complete extinction of the cultural crusader, or not? What would Morone’s opinion be of Beinart’s argument? Can “values voting” be tied so closely to economic ups and downs? Do religious values really only matter when the economy is doing well? Beinart’s assertion that Palin is the “last” cultural crusader seems to be a stretch; however, his theory provides an interesting contribution to our understanding of the intersection between religion and politics.

The only Western Democracy in which Chrisitian fundamentalism is vast and growing

George Monbiot , writing for The Guardian of the UK, asks the question "How did the US come to be dominated by people who make a virtue out of ignorance?" He is referring to, of course, the Sarah Palins, Dan Quayles, and Ronald Reagans of our recent political generations, and wonders why it seems (or did seem) that "learning is a grave political disadvantage [in the States]."

Monbiot lends a foreign point of view on our political paradox by positing religion as key to the recently debunked notion that having an education meant you couldn't represent the American people. I mention recently debunked considering the recent election of a well educated man with academics for parents.

As Monbiot points out "it wasn't always like this. The founding fathers of the republic...were among the greatest thinkers of their age. They felt no need to make a secret of it. How did the project they launched degenerate into George W Bush and Sarah Palin?" Firstly, Monbiot pushes the obvious, "Ignorant politicians are elected by ignorant people." He then goes on to give some interesting 'facts' about the US in general:
1) one in five adults believes the sun revolves round the earth
2) only 26% accept that evolution takes place by means of natural selection
3) two-thirds of young adults are unable to find Iraq on a map
4) two-thirds of the US voters cannot name the three branches of government
5) the math skills of 15-year-olds in the US are ranked 24th out of the 29 countries of the OECD

Monbiot juxtaposes these woeful details with, "the US has the world's best universities and attracts the world's finest minds. It dominates discoveries in science and medicine." After identifying this inconsistency he refers to a book written by Susan Jacoby, The Age of American Unreason, which argues in America's defense...sort of. Jacoby, as described by Monbiot, justifies America's anti-rationalism, with the example of the rejection of The Origin of Species within the first few decades of its publication. Jacoby explains how Darwin's theory was misconstrued by the likes of Herbert Spencer, who sought to promote a doctrine of social Darwinism. Spencer, with aid from Andrew Carnegie, John D Rockefeller and Thomas Edison, asserted "millionaires stood at the top of the scala natura established by evolution," and that government was weakening the nation by disallowing natural selection to weed out the unfit. "Darwinism, in other words, became indistinguishable from the most bestial form of laissez-faire economics." Christian-Americans, as most would, reacted disdainfully. Moreover, a general disgust consumed the pious American's relationship with natural sciences. Monbiot is quick to point to William Jennings Bryan, who now is central to the economic thinking of the Christian right, and WJB's proposition of "rejecting the science of Darwinian evolution and accept[ing] the pseudoscience of social Darwinism."

Jacoby goes on to describe a "intellectual isolation of the fundamentalists" in the US, especially in the southern states where "what can only be described as an intellectual blockade was imposed in order to keep out any ideas that might threaten the social order." SJ expains how the largest denomination in the US, the Southern Baptist Convention, "was to slavery what the Dutch Reformed Church was to apartheid in South Africa. It has done more than any other force to keep the south stupid." Indeed, refuting Jacoby becomes quite difficult considering that , "a survey by researchers at the University of Texas in 1998 found that one in four of the state's state school biology teachers believed humans and dinosaurs lived on the earth at the same time."

Mobiot ends unsurprisingly on the negative note that, "Obama has a lot to offer the US, but none of this will stop if he wins. Until the great failures of the US education system are reversed or religious fundamentalism withers, there will be political opportunities for people, like Bush and Palin, who flaunt their ignorance."


As Americans, we can now look our European liberal democratic siblings in the eye with confidence, and possibly discredit Monbiot's acerbic over generalizations and speculations about the consequences of being the only Western Democracy "in which Christian fundamentalism is vast and growing." Hopefully "the age of American unreason" has come to an end with the elections and with the realization that, "One theme [which is] both familiar and clear: religion--in particular fundamentalist religion--makes you stupid"

Evolution in classrooms

Article

As I do more research into the topic of my project, creationism and evolution in the early 20th century, I'm increasingly coming to believe that religious fundamentalists are framing evolution as the cause of an imagined problem, and are struggling to invent ways to combat it. In In the Beginning the author, Michael Lienesch, describes a problem fundamentalists faced in the early 20th century: the low levels of religiosity in schools, especially universities. By the 1910's, fundamentalists had identified evolution as the problem and began efforts to attack it.

But as the article points out, evolution doesn't even directly contradict religion. Evolution doesn't say how life began, nor does it require the absence of a god at any stage. But nonetheless, the crusade against evolution hasn't weakened in the hundred years since it began. In fact, Kathy Cox, the superindendent of public schools in my home state of Georgia, claimed in 2004 that "evolution" was a "buzzword" and proposed replacing it in schools in favor of the phrase "biological changes over time." The proposal has since been killed, but not before staying alive long enough for some of my teachers to begin satirically referring to star lifecycles as "stellar biological changes over time."

Today, fundamentalists seem to have identified creationism as their chamipon to the evolution problem and have shifted their strategy accordingly, but are finding the establishment clause and the separation of church and state to be major obstacles to their goals. The article mentions a federal ruling against Cobb County schools (in metro Atlanta), requiring the schools to remove the now-infamous evolution stickers that were stuck on every science textbook in the county:

This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.

It seems pretty clear to me (and most others) that the sticker is just a weak attempt to follow the letter of the law but at the same time indirectly advancing the creationists' cause. Despite overwhelming evidence for evolution, creationists insist on keeping their conjecture afloat and, at best, are advocating a theory in search of facts rather than facts that have formed a theory.

To me, intelligent design is nearly indistinguishable from creationism aside from rhetorical changes, but the article suggests that the public would disagree. I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on the topic. Is ID merely a "public relations success" as the article states, or does it offer some additional merits above creationism?

More importantly, why do creationists impose a false dichotomy on religion and evolution, when they could make everybody's lives, including their own, much easier by accepting the scientific method? Even the Pope thinks this debate is absurd. Surely his words must carry some weight? It almost seems to me that creationism has evolved (or was designed) into an entity that lives and breathes apart from religion, so that even though religion and evolution might be able to coexist, creationists still are unsatisfied that their beliefs take the back seat to evolution.

(Not really related: In my search for an article, I found a funny opinion letter.)

Two Cheers for John McCain

In his article, "Two Cheers for John McCain: How the Democrats Lost My Vote," David Carlin presents us with an interesting take on why he will—and other Catholics should—vote for John McCain come election day. A self-proclaimed "lifelong Democrat," (Carlin, par. 2), Carlin cites issues such as the Iraq war, abortion, and patriotism as reasons for his switch to the other side of the isle. While his article provides much useful analysis of McCain and Obama policies, Carlin’s very credibility is undermined—and thus too, is his argument—by the fact that he once considered himself a Democrat and will now vote for a Republican based on social and moral values.

While the meat of Carlin’s article concerns itself with the Iraq war (from invasion to surge), the part most worthy of discussion is the section dealing with abortion. He states that, “...the single biggest issue is, and has been for many years, abortion” (Carlin, par. 5). He follows this by revealing his Catholic faith and the Church’s stance that abortion is “unjustifiable homicide” (Carlin, par. 5). Furthermore, Carlin says essentially that as the Democratic Party is (primarily) comprised of pro-choice Senators and Representatives, a Catholic cannot in good conscious vote outside of the Republican Party.

How can a lifelong Democrat who feels that abortion is the most important issue to be considered when voting for a candidate be, well, a Democrat? Of course, the Democratic Party has not always been labeled as the “pro-choice” party, but it has been associated with the pro-choice message for at least two election cycles now. By jumping ship and voting Republican this time around, Carlin comes off as a bit of a hypocrite, and his underlying argument in the piece suffers. He offers no explanation for his seemingly sudden realization that abortion is a serious issue, nor does he provide any background concerning when the Democratic Party became associated (in his mind) with a pro-choice message.

“Two Cheers for John McCain: How the Democrats Lost My Vote,” gives us some very interesting material to mull over. How can a voter decide which party to support? Is it simply a numbers game, or can one really apply a “level-of-importance” meter to the various issues that crop up in an election? This article, unfortunately doesn’t answer these questions, but does help bring them to light and gives us a nice starting place for discussion. Carlin may have convinced a few Catholics to vote for McCain on November 4th, but his hypocritical jump across the isle makes it very unlikely that he has convinced anyone outside of his intended, religiously-minded audience.

The "Race Race"

In his editorial “The Obama Dilemma,” Wilfred M. McClay argues that, in the event of a McCain victory on Tuesday, the evangelical Christian community will face harsher accusations of racism than any other group. He acknowledges that some white evangelicals are quiet about their positions against Obama “because they know that their motives cannot bear scrutiny” (McClay par. 1) but also alleges that the assumption of widespread racism is unfounded and unquestionably false. He points to the fact that many white evangelicals are voting for Obama “because of the color of his skin, rather than the content of his character or his policies” (McClay par. 2). McClay finds it ludicrous that, in today’s supposedly post-racial society, white evangelicals would be accused of racism simply based on the fact that they do not agree with the Democratic presidential candidate’s platform. A group’s (or even one person’s) opposition to a platform cannot in any way be translated to mean that that group or person is opposed to an entire race. Obviously (and regrettably), there will always be some exceptions on both sides of the race issue.

But McClay seems to think that the larger issue is that many are “motivated [to vote for Obama] by a desire to demonstrate their goodwill” (McClay par. 2). He implies that this small group of people is the “evangelical left,” who have sought to emphasize economic equity, social justice, environmental stewardship, and a more irenic foreign policy” (McClay par. 4). The evangelical left, according to McClay, is the natural continuation of the original evangelical movement that professed “social reform as the necessary expression of spiritual regeneration” and used its power to propagate such movements as abolitionism. However, he also argues that the evangelical right, which has centered its political involvement on abortion (an issue of social reform if ever there was one!), is just as much a natural continuation of the movement as the leftist evangelical push.

The idea of this need to express “goodwill” to atone for the past sins of slavery, segregation, and racism actually demonstrates that we still have not bridged the gap between races. The underlying thought of the Civil Rights movement was that race did not define a person, and yet we still have people voting for Obama simply because he is black. Isn’t that just as racist as not voting for Obama because he is black, or voting for McCain because he is white, or even not voting for McCain because he is white?

I hate to think that I am being judged a racist because I happen to support more conservative ideals than those that Obama supports. I happen to think that the fact that we have a black candidate is a great thing in that it shows that equal opportunity is available to all in the United States. But in order to maintain that equality, we must consider the candidates as equals. The fact that John McCain is white does not make him any better than Barack Obama… and the fact that Barack Obama is black does not make him any better than John McCain. The most important aspects of a political candidate are their policies and their characters—which, incidentally, have nothing to do with their race.

What we all need to take into account on Election Day—whether we’re evangelicals or not—is that we can’t look at the candidates as black or white. Politics by nature has never been black and white, whether in the context of skin color or in the context of actual policies. Obama and McCain are more than their skin color, so show them both a little respect and find out where they stand on the issues. Don’t make this race about race.

Christian Specialization

The state of South Carolina has begun to receive orders for new license plates approved by the state legislature. The plates are not exactly ones traditionally thought of when the words specialty plates are introduced, such as those supporting state schools. These new plates are what many believe to be a promotion of the Christian religion. This is because the words “I Believe” will be printed on the new license plates, along with a stained-glass window with a cross. Because the South Carolina Legislature proposed the tags, the legislature mandated that at least four hundred prepaid orders for the new specialty license plates have to be made before production will commence.

Those individuals and groups against the new specialty license plates argue that the state is inherently endorsing the Christian religion through the state sponsoring of these license plates. The group called Americans United for Separation of Church and State has filed a lawsuit on the behalf of two Christian pastors, a humanist pastor, a rabbi pastor, and the Hindu American Foundation. The group contests it would not be opposed to the license plates if a purely private organization had made the request and the standard procedures involved in such a private request would have been followed.

This news story is exceptionally important to the study of religion and American law because the American legal system and a particular religious establishment are clearly becoming enjoined through the state legislature. This article is a valid representation of the way in which the government at any level and religion should not produce entanglement between them. Even though the specialty license plates have yet to be produced, the state’s endorsement of the license plates is particularly unsettling to the scholarly wall of separation of church and state. If the argument of the founder’s intent is not convincing to cease the production of the specialty Christian license plates, then the Constitution is the answer to the prayers of constitutional textualists.

Because the state of South Carolina has admittedly aided in the production of the specialty license plates in the theme of Christianity, the state has therefore endorsed and respected a particular establishment of religion. I, like the group suing the state of South Carolina, would have no problem with the specialty Christian license plates if a private group had requested the production of the license plates. Here, the state government is overstepping the bounds of a government supposedly representative of everyone, not just the majority population of a state, or country.

Article Source

*Image courtesy of The Huffington Post

White Liberals

In his article Guess Whos Coming To Dinner, Frank Rich makes a witty comparison of the 1967 film “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner” to the candidacy of Barack Obama. Rich claims that the film is “inadvertently contemporary” (Rich, par. 3) and proceeds to convince his reader of this. He argues that although the liberals have been focusing on the racism of every “unreconstructed bigot” (Rich, par. 4) in America, they have their own preconceived notions and prejudices concerning Senator Obama. Liberals, as well as the media, have underestimated Obama numerous times, according to Rich; because they view him through the same lens audiences viewed Sydney Poitier’s character in the film more than forty years ago. Just as Poitier’s character was seen as “too perfect, and too white,” (Rich, par. 2) Obama has been looked at as “too lofty” or “too ethereal” (Rich, par. 5) to have a serious chance at winning the presidency. But despite their underestimations or subconscious prejudice against him, Obama’s candidacy, from the very beginning, has been dependent on the white liberal.
Rich investigates specific events of Obama’s journey to presidential nominee and examines how these events prove that the “take-no-prisoners political insurgency” of the Obama camp differs from white liberal conceptions concerning his candidacy. Despite the media’s initial portrayal of the senator as being too idealistic and abstract, Obama defeated Clinton first in Iowa. He then made an impressive showing on Super Tuesday, and by “surpassing her in organization, cash and black votes” (Rich, par. 7) went on to snatch the nomination from his opponent. Still distracted by what they felt to be his optimistic excesses, the media was recently shocked by leads Obama developed among women and Hispanics (Rich, par. 7). Rich’s documentation of Obama’s path from a freshman senator to a potentially historic president from the day of his inauguration is accurate, but incomplete.
Although the white liberal perhaps misunderstood the senator, or underestimated him due to his or her own stereotypes and bias; without these same individuals Obama’s victories would never have occurred. The population of Iowa is predominantly white. But Obama won there first. Blacks alone do not make up a large enough percentage of the Democratic Party to elect a candidate. But Clinton did indeed lose. Furthermore, if Obama does eventually win the presidency, he will do so with millions of white liberal votes. The lesson here; Obama’s accomplishments must be viewed in light of, rather than despite of, the white liberal. The necessity for white liberals to fully and objectively understand Obama in order to support him is debatable. The fact that Obama’s presidency, much like the marriage of Hepburn and Poitier in the film, will ultimately depend on the white liberal, is not.

Jewish Geography (Electoral College Edition)

As Joel Millman points out in his Wall Street Journal article, “Bush Aide Fleischer Courts Jewish Vote for McCain,” evangelicals don’t comprise the only voting bloc that can sway an election. In fact, with Election Day fast approaching, the real religious group for Obama and McCain to court is the Jews. According to Millman, McCain is desperate to make gains among typically Democratic Jewish voters in Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Nevada. Emphasizing McCain’s dedication to Israel (and questioning Obama’s), playing up the Lieberman connection, and letting the minority that is Jewish Republicans know, for instance, that “Jews…can save…votes in a state once considered reliably Republican, but now rated by political handicappers as a tossup,”(Millman, par.4) the McCain camp has tried to empower the American Jewish demographic—and, more specifically, give them the strength to move to the right.

Millman seems doubtful, however, that such efforts will work. He emphasizes that in spite of Republican efforts, Gallup national poll results and even numbers in Florida, where Jewish support for Obama has been especially soft in light of the elderly, pro-Hillary population there, have shown dramatic increases for in Jewish support for Obama, each giving him a lead of over fifty points. This shouldn’t be too surprising. As Millman explains, the only Democrat in most of the 20th century to win less than 60% of the Jewish vote was Jimmy Carter, who only grabbed 45% in 1980 (the other 55% was divided between the Republican and Independent candidate,) and it may be necessary to put Carter’s loss in the context of his incredibly unpopular first term—even the Camp David Accords, in light of his economic failures, could not save him. Still, Millman notes that Republican campaign aide Fleischer still holds out hope for a Jewish upset. He claims, “‘Barack Obama is the 21st century version of Jimmy Carter.’” (Millman, par.18)

Associating Obama with Carter is about more than numbers. In fact, it may be a rhetorical move used to undermine Obama’s support for Israel. Jimmy Carter’s recent 2007 book, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, accuses Israelis of maltreating the Palestinians, and his recent meetings with both the leader of Hamas and the president of Syria haven’t helped the former President’s standing with Jews. In fact, a link between Obama and Carter may be loaded with dire implications regarding Obama’s protection of Israel from terrorism and holocaustic threats from Iran. Recently, such concerns were voiced by an email circulating in Pennsylvania warning Jews not to provoke a second Holocaust by voting for Obama. The McCain campaign made sure to emphasize its distance from the inflammatory note, but Millman credits its authorship to a Paul Rudnick who, recently fired from the campaign, claims to have had authorization from party officials.

As politicians, campaign aides, and PACs from both sides of the fence make a play for Jews, they should be careful with the material they use to do so. As a half-Jew with many fully Jewish relatives, I have begun to tire of rhetoric turning Israel into a buzzword meant to reel in the demographic. Meanwhile, to evoke the Holocaust—whether in a campaign unaffiliated email or during the Presidential debates during discussion of Iran—to reach self-interested political ends is shameful. It is no wonder that such efforts to capture the Jewish vote are failing. Politicians are no longer treating the religious group like a valuable part of society. Instead, it seems that Jews, who have endured a campaign filled with rhetoric emphasizing each candidate’s Christianity, are now just another pawn in the blue and red board game of the Electoral College.

Loaded "I do."

If Proposition 8 on the California General Election ballot passes, the California Constitution will be amended to its former state, eliminating the right to same-sex marriages. Barack Obama has taken a stance against Prop 8, encouraging his supporters to vote "no" on November 4.

While this Democratic support appears promising, Patrick Healey demonstrates how Obama supporters could in fact cause the proposition to pass. His argument lies in the "socially conservative blacks and Hispanics [who support Obama...] but oppose same-sex marriage." Simply, greater Obama-voter turnout is unlikely to translate favorably for the opponents of Prop 8, who had been otherwise eager for Obama’s endorsement.

The Obama-voters of California are likely confused by his position, they may even feel like he is contradicting himself. After all, Obama IS opposed to same-sex marriage, but he stands against an amendment that would ban such marriages? It is easy to miss, but Healey clarifies “Mr. Obama opposes amending state constitutions to define marriage as a heterosexual institution, describing such proposals as discriminatory.” Drawing on his own parents’ biracial marriage, which was illegal in many southern states, he speaks to the same-sex marriage debate in legal terms.

What can be said for Obama’s legal defense, when he has cited religion as the root of his opposition? Unlike McCain, who draws on cultural norms to explain his own opposition, Obama wavers in conviction, is it church or state? He expresses his distress in The Audacity of Hope when he says “no matter how much Christians who oppose homosexuality may claim that they hate the sin but love the sinner, such a judgment inflicts pain on good people.”

Truth behold, his judgment is loaded; it may in fact be more offensive to use God as his witness.

URGENT! Please read.

We are only days away from the upcoming election. It is imperative for all Americans to understand what is at stake on Tuesday, November 4. To those who caution me and others against being single-issue voters, I would like to say this: You are right, there are many issues at stake, and we should educate ourselves on these issues as much as possible when we choose a candidate. There are times, however, when certain issues become of primary concern because of the emergence of grave threats to the dignity of the human life. Obama has in effect made this a single-issue election because of his extreme pro-choice stance. Human life in its most innocent and vulnerable stage is greatly endangered. If Obama were moderate, it might be possible for a Catholic, or a pro-life person of any religion, to rationalize a vote for Obama. In the document Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, the U.S. Catholic bishops have stated, “A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference and inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidates’ unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil” (paragraphs 34 and 35). Given Obama’s stance on abortion, it is difficult to find a “grave moral reason” to support him. What “grave moral reason” can a Catholic voter in good conscience present in support of Obama? What issue “trumps” the issue of the most basic human right, the right to be born? Is it the economy? To be honest, while both candidates have different viewpoints, I think that either one could come up with some ways to pull us out of this economic crisis. Is it the war in Iraq? True, McCain has committed to keeping troops there for an undetermined length of time, but Obama, while pulling out sooner, still plans to keep “residual forces” in Iraq. In addition, Obama has expressed support on multiple occasions for the risky move of crossing the Pakistan border in search of Afghani insurgents, with or without the authorization of the Pakistani government. Is healthcare the concern? Let’s not put the cart before the horse. How about allowing people to be born in the first place? I would say that the fact that millions of Americans are being murdered in their mother’s womb is a pretty serious health crisis. Let us not fail to acknowledge that there is a genocide taking place right here in the U.S., every day, in the wombs of women who are deceived into thinking that killing their children will lead to liberation.

Please humor me for a moment and imagine a hypothetical election. It is 2008, and we can choose between 2 candidates whom for now we will call “A” and “B.” Let’s suppose that both candidates have relatively the same stance on abortion, yet they diverge on other issues and tend to follow their respective party’s typical stances. Now say that one of the candidates (candidate “B”) is openly racist and has even supported legislation to protect the rights of the KKK over the years (I choose racism as an issue because it is mentioned by the U.S. Catholic bishops along with abortion as an “intrinsic evil” in Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship). If elected, candidate “B” plans to sign off on laws that will virtually wipe away all the gains the Civil Rights Movement has made over the past few decades and use taxpayer’s dollars to support KKK activities. Candidate “A,” on the other hand, has openly condemned racism and would overturn any discriminatory legislation that still exists. Consider now that you are preparing to vote, and you have decided that “B’s” racist stance compels you to reject him/her and vote for “A.” Would you expect to be criticized for focusing only on the racism issue? It would be very strange if someone were to say to you, “Listen, you can’t just look at one issue. Yeah, ‘B’s’ racist, but you have to look at the big picture. Besides, what difference is “A” really going to make?” Such a person may even argue that despite “B’s” history of endorsement of racist legislation, his or her economic policies would lead to more integration and greater financial stability for families of all races. This would in turn result in an increase in understanding between races and a decrease in tensions caused by economic strain that often bring out the worst in us. Would these argument justify voting for a racist candidate? I think not. Now just replace “A” with McCain, “B” with “Obama,” “racism” with “abortion,” and “KKK” with “Planned Parenthood.” Does this give you a different perspective on this year’s election?

This past week in our Faith and Politics class, we examined several very powerful arguments expressed in Robert George’s Public Discourse article “Obama’s Abortion Extremism” and George Weigel’s op-ed Newsweek piece “Pro-Life Catholics for Obama.” Both men have an impressive history of experience in matters of faith, politics, and ethics. Both Weigel and George write about Obama’s opposition to the “Born Alive Infant Protection Act,” his unwavering support of Roe v. Wade, and his commitment to FOCA, the Freedom of Choice Act. Robert George quotes Obama as saying, “the first thing I would do as president would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act. ” Weigel does a good job of summing up this act as well as describing significant policies that Obama opposes, so I would like to quote Weigel here:

“According to his own Web site, Obama supports the federal Freedom of Choice Act [FOCA], which would eliminate all state and federal regulation of abortion (such as informed consent and parental notification in the case of minors seeking an abortion); these regulations have demonstrably reduced the absolute number of abortions in the jurisdictions in which they are in effect. FOCA would also eliminate, by federal statute, state laws providing "conscience clause" protection for pro-life doctors who decline to provide abortions. Obama (along with the Democratic Party platform) supports federal funding for abortion, opposes the Hyde amendment (which restricts the use of taxpayer monies for abortion) and has pledged to repeal the "Mexico City policy" (initiated by Ronald Reagan and reinstated by George W. Bush, which bans federal foreign-aid funding for organizations that perform and promote abortion as a means of family planning). According to the pro-choice Web site RHRealityCheck.org, Obama also opposes continued federal funding for crisis pregnancy centers.” Thus, FOCA really is not about choice at all. It is about eliminating the freedom of pro-life taxpayers and healthcare professionals to choose not to cooperate with murder. It is about continuing to deny helpless babies their right to be born.

In response to those who argue that Obama’s policies on other issues would lead to a decrease in abortion by improving socioeconomic status, Weigel offers the following statistics: “Sweden, with a much thicker social safety net than the United States, has precisely the same rate (25 percent) of abortions per pregnancy as America,” and “according to a survey conducted by the research arm of Planned Parenthood, the Guttmacher Institute, a mere 23 percent of abortions in the United States are performed primarily because of alleged financial need.”

If Obama’s endorsement of FOCA is not enough to cause concern, Robert George describes the various legislative acts supported by Obama that would allow for the creation and destruction of human embryos for stem cell research. Besides the fact that this is extremely unethical, it is completely unnecessary due to the fact that there are a number of successful alternative ways to acquire non-embryonic stem cells. It is incomprehensible why Obama would support such acts. George also notes that Obama has shown a record of opposition to pro-life bills, even those proposed by his own Democratic Party.

George goes on to remind us that we have 5 to 6 Supreme Court justices who are likely to retire within the next four to eight years. While we will have to deal with a President for 8 years at the most, we will have to contend with the Supreme Court justices he appoints until they have reached an age or a health condition at which they are no longer able to effectively perform their duties. The impact of an appointment of a Supreme Court justice will extend far beyond the termination of a presidency. George points out that Obama has “made it clear that he would apply a litmus test for Supreme Court nominations: jurists who do not support Roe will not be considered for appointment by Obama.” McCain, on the other hand, has stated that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. He would likely appoint judges who feel the same way.

There are some who argue that simply overturning Roe v. Wade would make little difference in decreasing the number of abortions. I would like to echo George’s argument, however, and affirm that turning the issue over to the states would allow for greater dialogue on the issue and more pro-life legislative gains than a national blanket-statement from federal Supreme Court justices legislating from the bench. Furthermore, McCain recognizes that overturning Roe v. Wade and handing the issue to the states is not the only thing that must be done. He explicitly states on his website (under the section “Human Dignity and the Sanctity of Life”) that a reversal of Roe v. Wade must be accompanied by continued support of “faith-based, community, and neighborhood organizations that provide critical services to mothers in need” as well as greater encouragement of adoption.

To see a video confirming what has been presented in this blog, please visit this link: http://americaschoicenow.com/

On November 4th, 2008, may we choose life, and may we continue to embrace God’s indescribable gift of life every day of our lives.

I leave you with this verse: “I call heaven and earth today to witness against you: I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. Choose life, then, that you and your descendants may live” Deuteronomy 30:19

School Board to Pay in Jesus Prayer Suit

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/28delaware.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=school%20prayer&st=cse&oref=slogin

I stumbled upon an article in The New York Times about a lawsuit that was settled in February of this year. The lawsuit was issued by two Orthodox Jewish families in Georgetown, Delaware who objected to Christian prayers being recited in the local public school and at school-related events such as sporting events, graduation and school assemblies/meetings. The two families, one of which talks to The New York Times, are two of the only Jewish members of the community and experienced a heavy backlash from the Christian community. Eventually the two families won the case and were rewarded an unspecified financial settlement.
This case is clearly a violation of the first amendment, specifically the establishment clause, and therefore the case was rightly decided. Complaints from the community included claims from many local Christians that saw the lawsuit as an effort to limit the free exercise of religion. Indeed, the decision by the court is restricting exercise of religion…in public schools.
The reason this particular article struck me was not because of the decision of the court, as it was the right decision. What startles me is the apparent basic lack of understanding on the part of Americans, regarding the First Amendment. Americans, on the whole, seem to appreciate and emphatically support the free-exercise clause, but do not understand the constraints of that clause, imposed by the legal force of the establishment clause. If American society gave equal weight to the two clauses then we would never see (save for a few anomalies) any sort of prayer or traditional religious activities (for religious purpose) in public schools. In this case, and after the settlement, the school districts attorney “…did not concede that it had violated the First Amendment through its practices.” How can this possibly be?
As mentioned earlier, the two families who brought this case to the court have faced serious anger from the local Christian community. Hate mail, protests (which have included signs like “Praise Jesus”) and other forms of retaliation even forced one of the families to leave Georgetown, Delaware. In the process of moving, the family faced financial ruin and even had to pull their eldest daughter out of Columbia University because they could no longer afford it. Because members of a community complained about a violation of the First Amendment they were forced out of their home. Those who retaliated against these families’ complaint, in “defense” of their “right to exercise,” are actually themselves defending the violation of the Constitution.
Why is it that our country does not seem to understand that the First Amendment protects both the free exercise of religion and the de-establishment of religion. There must be a separation of Church and State and Americans must come to understand the importance of this vision, as outlined by James Madison. Just as with Creationism-in-public-schools debate, because a group of people (or even 100% of the local community) very strongly believe in a certain faith, it does not mean that it should have a place in the public sphere (and by this refer to federally funded or operated places). At the end of the article, one of the families discuss their attempt to move their son back into the community to attend school. They realized that this would not be possible after their son was playing in the yard and a few passing children yelled, “There’s that boy who’s suing Jesus.” No, his family wasn’t “suing Jesus,” his family was suing the district to keep Jesus out of public schools.

Lemon in Legislative Prayer

http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2008/10/11th-circuit-upholds-county-legislative.html

The above blog is about the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upholding a county planning commission's practice of opening their meetings with a prayer in Pelphrey v. Cobb County, Georgia. The majority of the court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Marsh v. Chambers (1983). I agree with the ciruit court's decision because they simply followed the decision of a case in the Supreme Court that was very similar. However, I do not agree with the outcome.

Since I do not agree with this ruling, I will have to argue that the Supreme Court was wrong in their ruling in Marsh v. Chambers. Marsh was about the Nebraska legislature opening each daily session with a prayer by a chaplain who was paid for with public funds. The Supreme Court used historical reasoning in their decision. They argued that the men who wrote the First Amendment Religion Clauses did not view paid legislative chaplains and opening prayers as a violation of that Amendment because they did the very same thing back then. This type of reasoning can be very problematic to our understanding of the Constitution. Using this same logic, I could just as easily claim that slavery should still be legal because many of the founders of the Constitution owned slaves.

The Supreme Court, in order to achieve their desired result, chose to ignore the Lemon test in determining whether Marsh violated the Establishment Clause. The Lemon Test, formulated in the 1971 Lemon v. Kurtzman decision, has three parts, addressing purpose, effect, and involvement. To pass the test, government action must be: (1) only for secular purposes;(2) not to promote or prohibit a specific religion; and (3) not to "excessively entangle," meaning substantially involve, government in religious matters. Failure on any one of the three parts indicates a violation of the Establishment Clause. Since the Supreme Court failed to apply Lemon to this case, I will do it. (1) There is no way that prayer can be only for secular purposes. (2) The prayer was promoting a specific religion because they used the same chaplain for more than 16 years. (3) The government was substantially involved in religious matters because it was in a public (law-making) building, the prayer was during their time of work, and they were paying the chaplain with public funds. There was definite excessive entanglement. Failing one of these three tests was necessary for there to a violation of the Establishment Clause, and in my opinion, Marsh v. Chambers failed all three.

If Marsh v. Chambers would have been decided correctly, then Pelphrey v. Cobb County, Georgia would have been decided differently. The Circuit Court would have had to apply the Lemon test in their decision. Once again, since they didn't, I will. (1) The purpose was not for secular purposes, it promoted religion over non-religion. (2) Since they used various religions and people, albeit not often, I could be convinced that they were not promoting or prohibiting a specific religion. (3) There was excessive entanglement because the commisions' sponsorship of prayer substantially involved government into religious matters. Since failing one test is all it takes to determine a violation of the Establishment Clause, there is little doubt that Pelphrey v. Cobb County would have been decided differently if they used the Lemon test that the Supreme Court should have used in Marsh v. Chambers.

Nativity? Does it bother you?

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20081023/GPG0101/810230656/1207/GPG01

On October 23, 2008, Corinthia McCoy wrote the article “Green Bay committee votes to keep holiday displays nonreligious” which instantly made a connection in my mind to Lynch v. Donnelly (465 U.S. 668). The Green Bay City Council Advisory Committee voted 5 to 1 to keep holiday displays secular after a complaint last year. Apparently in 2007 the council had a lawsuit after a nativity scene was put up on the Green Bay City Hall. The U.S. District Court Judge dismissed the case because the decorations were taken down on December 26th. The City Council will vote on this decision on November 5th and it has people in the community talking. Taku Ronsman, a resident of Green Bay, stated that “…I think they’re going to find a backdoor to put up a Christian display and state that ‘well they’re secularizing it,’ which kind of defeats the purpose”. In the Lynch v. Donnelly case the court ruled that it was not unconstitutional to display a crèche on public grounds. Chief Justice Burger claimed that the display did have a secular purpose, especially when it was accompanied by other holiday symbols, such as candy canes, reindeer, and Santa. Some people in the town of Green Bay know that this is constitutional however some people do not want it to be displayed nonetheless. I do not know the religious population of Green Bay but I think that would be interesting to know, because by the way the article was written, it seems as though the City Council is facing a lot of opposition. I feel that the nativity scene is an establishment of religion and that it should only be displayed on private property. By the courts making it a secular symbol they are degrading the holiday for those who celebrate for religious reasons. With the holidays fast approaching what are your opinions?

A New "Religious" strategy?

Last year, the Connecticut legislature debated whether to pass a bill to legalize same-sex marriage. Unfortunately for opponents of the bill, the Connecticut Supreme Court made the decision first: same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.

According to a NYT article, dissenters of the Court decision have conveyed their concern by invoking biology as the rationale behind the threat that same-sex marriage poses on society. Justice Peter T. Zarella explains in his dissenting opinion:

“The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has its basis in biology, not bigotry. As many courts have recognized, the primary societal good advanced by this ancient institution is responsible procreation.”

Christians like Patricia and Wesley Galloway also hold this perspective. According to them, using religion to defend their view of marriage complicates matters. Instead, they invoke biology to advocate their views that “it takes a man and a woman to create children and thus create a family.”

Although Christians like the Galloways and Justice Zarella cite nature, not religion or morality, as the source of authority to “protect the foundation of society” from same-sex marriage, the strategy of the Religious Right seems to be at the center of their campaign. In order to discuss this further, a brief history of the Religious Right is necessary.

The 1970s saw the rise of the Moral Majority in politics and with it the growth of the Religious Right. The formation of advantageous political alliances with Catholics and the framing of controversial issues in terms that would appeal to a broad cross-section of potential voters made the Religious Right influential and effective. Religious conservatives like Jerry Falwell were quick to “transform biblical issues into ‘pro-moral’ or ‘pro-family’ issues” (Dowland, 34). By extension, threats were conceptualized as anti-moral and anti-family issues. For instance, homosexuality was seen as a “threat to families” and a “sign of America’s downfall”(Dowland, 32). By de-emphasizing Christian rationale and by focusing on the family, the Religious Right was politically successful because they appealed to a broader audience beyond religious conservatives.

In the above-mentioned New York Times article, a subset of conservatives and the religious is using “family values” rhetoric but this time under the banner of nature. These conservatives still argue that they are trying to “protect the foundation of society,” but now they are vocalizing a secular source of authority. Previously, when confronting a diverse audience, religious conservatives were relatively silent about the Bible’s authority on controversial issues. Now, they seem to flaunt the undeniable scientific principles of human reproduction to advocate their views. Moreover, these conservatives are more than happy to explain their reasoning by pointing out sociological studies that support their perspective. This is in direct contrast to the religious conservatives of the 1970s who used misleading logic to promote the idea that homosexuals had a propensity for pedophilia and for child abuse.


By using nature as their source of authority and “family values” as their rhetoric, are these conservatives “piggy-backing” on Religious Right strategy? And if so, would this new strategy renew and broaden their base to include individuals who may not be religious? Or would this strategy “backfire” because of the growing evidence that the quality of parenting is far more important than the gender of the parents?

According to Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, only a “renewed energy” in the fight against gay marriage can help push for constitutional amendments. Could this new strategy be it?

Appeal to Religious Voters

It would seem that the Republican party is not the only party trying to use religion and faith to appeal to voters; the Democratic Party is also putting forth an effort to appeal to "moderate protestant Christians and Catholics." This is being accomplished by framing certain mainstream issues in a religious context, in an attempt to make religious voters feel a moral obligation to vote for Barack Obama. For example, Mara Vanderslice, who is employed by the Obama campaign, has organized a political action committee called Matthew 25. This committee uses this passage in the Bible, a passage which implores Christians to "help the least of these" meaning the poor, in order to provide Christians for a moral reason to vote for Obama. Vanderslice describes how her role in the democratic campaign has changed drastically in four years - on the Kerry campaign she had only one staffer, while the Obama campaign has given her six staff members who are devoted entirely to religious issues, and organizing Obama's "Faith and Family Tours." It would seem that religion and faith are playing an increasingly larger and larger role in our public elections.
The question then becomes: are campaign tactics like this appropriate? Should we allow are candidates to incorporate religion into their campaigns this way? Do campaign tactics like this constitute violations of the separation between church and state? My response would be that, from a legal standpoint, there isn't anything wrong with these campaign tactics, because there is no violation of either religion clause of our Constitution.
The express purpose of both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause is to protect citizens from government actions and legislation. The Establishment Clause seeks to eliminate law that respect an establishment of religion, or laws that show an unfair preference toward one or more religions over others. The Free Exercise Clause exists to prevent laws that would prohibit citizens from fulfilling the duties of their religion and practicing their religion. The important aspect of both clauses that one must recognize is that they are only applicable to laws, or government actions, not to the actions of private citizens. When candidates are campaigning, they are not acting as agents of the state, thus nothing that they say or do can be construed as the actions of the state, and certainly does not qualify as law. As such, even if the candidates do show a preference toward Christianity, there is nothing legally problematic with such appeals to the Christian faith.
A logical counter argument to these types of campaign tactics would be at a practical level. Sure, it may be for the candidates to use religious appeals during the campaign, but once a candidate gets elected he or she cannot enact policies that are expressly religious in nature, since he or she would now be acting as an agent of the state. One could make the argument that candidates ought not campaign on religious grounds, since they would essentially be making promises that they cannot necessarily keep. However, I would respond to this counter argument by once again drawing the argument back into the legal realm. Legally speaking, agents of the state can enact policies that have religious motivations, so long as the effect of the legislation is secular. In order to be appropriate public policy or legislation in terms of the Establishment Clause, it need only pass the Lemon Test, meaning that 1. it must serve a secular purpose 2. it must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion and 3. it must not cause excessive government entanglement with religion. There is nothing in this precedent that dictates that the law or policy cannot be motivated by religion. Thus, candidates are not necessarily making promises that they cannot keep; if Barack Obama is elected, he can pursue policies to aid the poor, and so long as they actually help the poor, he can cite whatever motivations he wishes, religious or otherwise.
Simply put, there is nothing legally problematic with the current campaign tactics that appeal to religious voters.