Church / State

To opponents of California Proposition 8, it seems that quite a bit of blame for passage of the Proposition is being placed on the efforts of the Church of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons) in campaigning against the measure.

Thus, there is some backlash.

Seen on the newswires:

Utah’s growing tourism industry and the star-studded Sundance Film Festival are being targeted for a boycott by bloggers, gay rights activists and others seeking to punish the Mormon church for its aggressive promotion of California’s ban on gay marriage.[…]

The church encouraged its members to work to pass California’s Proposition 8 by volunteering their time and money for the campaign. Thousands of Mormons worked as grassroots volunteers and gave tens of millions of dollars to the campaign.[…]

The backlash against the church — and by extension Utah — has been immediate. Protests erupted outside Mormon temples, Facebook groups formed telling people to boycott Utah, and Web sites such as mormonsstoleourrights.com began popping up, calling for an end to the church’s tax-exempt status.

I personally wouldn’t support a boycott on the state of Utah in general.  I think such a stance would be rather silly since the State of Utah and the LDS are two separate entities.  Yes, the LDS has quite a bit of political influence in Utah…but Utah isn’t a theocracy.

However, the notion of a campaign against the Church’s tax-exempt status is more intriguing.  I’m not sure that I’d actually want to see tax-exempt status revoked, but the subject of to what extent religious organizations and other tax-exempt entities are permitted to engage in political activity is interesting. 

The question of balancing the value of separating church and state, and protecting free speech is a fascinating one to consider, I think.

Anyway, if one were interested in helping the challenge of the LDS’s tax-exempt status, there is a website dedicated to explaining how to submit a complaint with the IRS.

In honor of the season, the Wall Street Journal on Friday ran a commentary by John Steele Gordon (subscriber link) discussing how Christmas came to be the confusing amalgam of religious and secular celebration that provides such fodder for religious debate at this time of year.

In addition to the oft-repeated reminder that the Gospels describe Jesus’ birth as occurring in spring, and the official date as being chosen to capitalize on Roman/European tradition of having truly debauched celebrations around the time of the winter solstice, Gordon offers a bit of history on medieval and modern Christmas celebrations:

By the high Middle Ages, Christmas was a rowdy, bawdy time, often inside the church as well as outside it. In France, many parishes celebrated the Feast of the Ass, supposedly honoring the donkey that had brought Mary to Bethlehem. Donkeys were brought into the church and the mass ended with priests and parishioners alike making donkey noises. In the so-called Feast of Fools, the lower clergy would elect a “bishop of fools” to temporarily run the diocese and make fun of church ceremonial and discipline. With this sort of thing going on inside the church to celebrate the Nativity, one can easily imagine the drunken and sexual revelries going on outside it to celebrate what was in all but name the Saturnalia.

With the Reformation, Protestants tried to rid the church of practices unknown in its earliest days and get back to Christian roots. Most Protestant sects abolished priestly celibacy (and often the priesthood itself), the cult of the Virgin Mary, relics, confession and . . . Christmas.[...]

It was New York and its early 19th century literary establishment that created the modern American form of the old Saturnalia. It was a much more family—and especially child—centered holiday than the community-wide celebrations of earlier times.

St. Nicolas is the patron saint of New York (the first church built in the city was named for him), and Washington Irving wrote in his “Diedrich Knickerbocker’s History of New York” how Sinterklaes, soon anglicized to Santa Claus, rode through the sky in a horse and wagon and went down chimneys to deliver presents to children.[...]

In the 1860s, the great American cartoonist Thomas Nast set the modern image of Santa Claus as a jolly, bearded fat man in a fur-trimmed cap. (The color red became standard only in the 20th century, thanks to Coca-Cola ads showing Santa Claus that way.)

Merchants began to emphasize Christmas, decorating stores and pushing the idea of Christmas presents for reasons having nothing whatever to do with religion, except, perhaps, the worship of mammon.

With the increased mobility provided by railroads and increasing immigration from Europe, people who celebrated Christmas began settling near those who did not. It was not long before the children of the latter began putting pressure on their parents to celebrate Christmas as well. “The O’Reilly kids down the street are getting presents, why aren’t we?!” is not an argument parents have much defense against.

By the middle of the 19th century, most Protestant churches were, once again, celebrating Christmas as a religious holiday. The reason, again, had more to do with marketing than theology: They were afraid of losing congregants to other Christmas-celebrating denominations.

In 1870, President Ulysses S. Grant signed into law a bill making the secular Christmas a civil holiday because its celebration had become universal in this country. It is now celebrated in countries all over the world, including many where Christians are few, such as Japan.

And, I’ll take this opportunity to wish you a Happy/Merry/Blessed [insert name of your preferred midwinter holiday here].

I’ve stated several times in the past my belief that the government should get out of the marriage business, due to the religious connotations of the union, as well as the social turmoil over what constitutes “marriage”. The the law package up certain rights, privileges, and responsibilities for family units, and leave the question of “what is marriage” to religious institutions and/or society at large.

Based on a WCCO story I encountered via Midtopia, a few American churches have started taking a similar stance:

The small, liberal church in south Minneapolis was the first of several Twin Cities congregations last year to stop performing civil marriage ceremonies as long as gay marriage is illegal. These churches, and a handful of others around the country that took the same step, will still hold a religious ceremony to bless the unions of straight and gay couples—but straight couples must go separately to a judge or justice of the peace for the marriage license.

“If you feel that gay and lesbian people are loved and credited by God, then how can we continue to discriminate against our brothers and sisters?” asked Rev. Don Portwood, the reserved Nebraska native who’s been lead pastor at the 120-member Lyndale United Church of Christ for 27 years.[...]

“I think both the civil and the conventional aspects of marriage are important, but they both have their place,” Campbell said. “It’s just gotten mixed up where they’re not clearly separated. I would say it’s only a matter of time before we move to what they’ve done in Canada, South Africa, Europe—separating out those two aspects.”

Runnion-Bareford, whose group led the opposition to UCC’s declaration on gay marriage in 2005, said that might not be as difficult to achieve as some might imagine. If gay marriage becomes legal in states other than Massachusetts, Runnion-Bareford predicted, then churches like Lyndale and Mayflower could find unlikely allies.

“I know there are clusters of conservative pastors in Massachusetts who have discussed refusing civil ceremonies so as not to be under pressure to perform same-gender ceremonies,” said Runnion-Bareford, who himself believes that government and the church have a joint interest in promoting traditional marriage as a societal good.

With a majority or near-majority of Americans supporting the idea of civil unions, but resisting actual “gay marriage”, heading down the path of unlinking the civil and religious/societal unions would likely be the fastest, least divisive way to achieve the end of this form of discrimination, I think.

So, after defending and then partially de-defending Governor Perdue’s prayer service to combat the drought, I suppose I should close the loop by pointing to this post at the Atlanta Water Shortage blog:

Lanier got 0.11 inches of rain yesterday (while the lake fell about 3 more inches) and has seen a total of 0.92 inches today. Sadly, despite the rain, the lake is down 0.05 feet for the day — about 1/2 inch.

A liberal religious person would note that if three clergy members from one corner of one religion could trigger almost an inch of rain, just imagine what could have been accomplished if a wider spectrum of religious folks had been invited to participate.

A cynical person would instead wonder if a lot of hot air being generated, either by public prayer, or the debate surrounding public prayer…or both…can have local weather impacts.

With that part of the country being as dry as it has been, an inch of rain isn’t going to help terribly much. But at least it’s something, if only to rinse some dust off cars in an area where car-washing is all but verboten.

Also, I should point out that another post at Atlanta Water Shortage directs readers to an article at the Lawrenceville Weather Blog that discusses the drought in the context of longer-term weather cycles:

There are also longer term ocean temperature trends, ones that my last from 30 to 70 years. One trend is the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, or AMO, that reflects ocean temperatures in the Atlantic. Another is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, or PDO, that represents Pacific Ocean temperatures. These two long term trends tend to have some effect on the amount of rainfall seen in different parts of the country, including the Southeast.[...]

The bottom line is that we may be about a third of the way through a drought cycle that could last for the next 20 years. If we get any relief during that time, it’s likely to be because tropical weather brings the remnants of a hurricane through North Georgia. We might also benefit if the PDO moves into its cool cycle, and there is some evidence that that might be the case. Either way, we need to be thinking that the drought is a long-term problem, and not something that will be gone next spring.

The concept of multi-decade weather cycles is one that, depending on the viewpoint, is either ignored or abused in some discussions on climate change. It’s nice to see weather cycles reviewed in a global-warming-neutral sense…even if the resulting picture isn’t particularly pleasant for the Southeast.

I’ve taken a little heat, via comments and email, from a post I made Monday on the public prayer service in Georgia in response to the regional drought.

In that post, I sought to argue that such an event shouldn’t be viewed too negatively—assuming that the event was non-compulsory, didn’t consume significant state resources, and was interfaith/nondenominational—and that folks protesting the event might be viewed as too mean-spirited, and might actually damage their cause.

After all, under the circumstances, what harm could occur with holding such event…again, assuming that it is non-compulsory, multifaith/nondenominational, and not a significant expenditure of state resources.

While I stand by my assessment, I should point out that the event doesn’t seem to have met the criteria I described. For example, from the AJC I see:

A church choir belted out “What a Mighty God We Serve” and “Amazing Grace” as a keyboardist swayed to the rhythm. While preachers spoke, worshippers chanted “amen,” and some stood with eyes closed and arms outstretched.

“God, we need you,” Perdue said. “We need rain.”

The hourlong event was billed as an interfaith ceremony but only three Protestant ministers joined Perdue, who is a Baptist, and Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle.

Some of the video I saw online last night reminded me of church services of a couple of particular flavors of conservative Christianity….and it seems that the benefit of the doubt I sought to extend to the event may have been naïve.

If I were a government official wishing to invoke the power of prayer, due to the direness of the situation, and a lack of anything else tangible that could be done, I’d try to make sure that all the bases were covered. In addition to a couple of bible-thumpers, let’s bring in some liberal Christian priests, a few rabbis, an Orthodox patriarch, a shaman, an imam, etc. (is the Dalai Lama still on campus at Emory?) … even an atheist or a secularist to exhort attendees to be more aggressive in their conservation measures and perhaps to plead for some cloud-seeding.

Sadly, it seems (from afar, at least) that Perdue’s prayer service was probably over-the-line in favoring one group of denominations of one religion over all others. And, while I’m not sure that attempting to hold an active protest is a response I’d choose to such semi-official bias… I think it’s also understandable for folks to express concern about a particular religious preference being semi-officially placed above others.

A silver lining in the black cloud of catastrophe or crisis is that trying times form a powerful basis to foster collaboration and a sense of community. It’s a shame to see a Governor wasting that potential by hosting an event that is inherently divisive and exclusive.

Some of you may be aware of Senator Grassley’s inquiries into the alleged excesses of a half-dozen megachurches. Quoting an AP article:

“I’m following up on complaints from the public and news coverage regarding certain practices at six ministries,” Grassley said in a statement. “The allegations involve governing boards that aren’t independent and allow generous salaries and housing allowances and amenities such as private jets and Rolls Royces.

“I don’t want to conclude that there’s a problem, but I have an obligation to donors and the taxpayers to find out more,” Grassley said.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, in an article reporting on one televangelist’s “voluntary” disclosure of the desired financial information includes a bit of discussion on the prosperity ministry that attracts the attention:

The six religious broadcast empires under the gun all preach and teach forms of a gospel that justifies the accumulation of money and material goods as one sign of God’s blessing. It includes benefits like health, a good family life and benevolence toward others.

It is an American-born faith that mixes Christianity with capitalism, individualism and materialism, said Shayne Lee, a Tulane University sociologist who studies megachurches and religion.[...]

“Without a doubt, my life is not average,” [Rev. Creflo Dollar of the World Changers Church International] said. “But I’d like to say, just because it is excessive doesn’t necessarily mean it’s wrong.”

I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that everything is at least nominally on the up-and-up as regards federal tax laws. And it’s certainly not my place to accuse anyone or any entity of heresy.

However, I am reminded of a disturbing sensation I had when in high school. I spent some time playing in the orchestra at Bellevue Baptist Church, recruited by my junior high band director who was helping secure musicians to fill out the ranks of an orchestra of biblical proportions for the groundbreaking of Bellevue’s new campus on the east side of Memphis.

Millions of dollars were being pledged and spent to build a mighty island of fundamentalist Christianity…and to assist the congregation in escaping a particularly destitute neighborhood in Memphis’ inner city.

It just reeked of hypocrisy.

I don’t want to begrudge anyone their success, and there is something to be said for matters of faith being an uplifting experience. There are definitely times where community-building and support can have an inward-focused nature.

However, isn’t much of the justification for giving religious institutions tax-exempt status driven by the concept that they, like other tax-free, non-profit entities, tend to have an expectation that they will benefit society at large, and therefore merit tax-advantaged status, as individuals’ contributions to such organizations could be interpreted as “directed support” rather than just relying on the state to allocate tax dollars in support of society appropriately?

In that regard, perhaps inquiring about certain alleged excesses at some megachurches might be appropriate.

In my evening reading I came across a an AP report  that has me thinking that a few folks really need to get a life.

As Georgia descends deeper into drought, Gov. Sonny Perdue has ordered water restrictions, launched a legal battle and asked President Bush for help. On Tuesday, the governor will call on a higher power.[...]

The loudest opposition to Perdue’s move has come from the Atlanta Freethought Society, a secular group that is expecting about a dozen of its 125 members to protest at the vigil.

“The governor can pray when he wants to,” said Ed Buckner, who is organizing the protest. “What he can’t do is lead prayers in the name of the people of Georgia.”

While I am all for separation in Church and State, and I am definitely uncomfortable with the idea of my tax dollars supporting religious practices (or worse, an implicit picking-and-choosing of which religious practices to support)…there are some occasions in which you have to ask, “what harm could it do?”

I’d think that a severe drought that, combined with incredibly poor resource planning, has lead to a major metropolitan area coming dangerously close to being out of water, is one of those occasions.

I’d be troubled if Governor Perdue’s prayer service were denominational (both due to the idea of government favoring one faith over another, as well as the practical concern of wanting to make sure that all the bases are covered), but the AJC reports:

Teilhet said the governor’s office has invited spiritual leaders from several faiths and dominations to participate in the service.

To the Freethought folks, I have to say: Get a life!  This is one of those times where making a point probably does your message more harm than good.

(Via Blue Mass Group) The Boston Globe reports that Winchester, MA parents aren’t happy over the calendar for the upcoming school year:

After weeks of debate, the Winchester School Committee has decided to open school for classes on Good Friday next year—a move that is not sitting well with some residents and area Catholics.[...]

Superintendent of Schools James Marini said the decision was made after the School Committee wrestled with the idea of incorporating other religious holidays into the school calendar. He said a growing number of parents had asked that school be suspended on Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur and at the beginning of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

Adding days off for Jewish and Muslim holidays would lengthen the school year—a problem because of a lack of air conditioning in the buildings and a tangle of issues with teachers’ contracts—so a majority of the board thought it was only fair to observe none. Christmas will remain because it is a national holiday and falls within a week-long winter break.

The article mentions that on major religious holidays for the major faiths in the community, no homework will be due, no tests given, and no field trips given… and that there will be no penalty for being absent those days.

Personally, I think the right call has been made by the school board. Of course, I’m someone who grew up in an area where there weren’t that many days off during the school year to begin with. Aside from that, I agree that it isn’t the place for any government entity to decide for its subjects which religious holidays are or aren’t deserving of observance.

Of course, if it turns out that absences on Good Friday are so high that a quorum cannot be reached in the classroom… well, perhaps school officials could “cheat” by using the same tactic that my high school did—scheduling spring break to coincide with Holy Week.

The question of same gender marriage has re-ignited in the wake of this week’s New Jersey Supreme Court ruling that state laws require the legislature to change the law to permit gay & lesbian couples to marry, or to create a legal construct equivalent to marriage (i.e., civil unions).

I hold the position that the government ought to get out of the marriage business. Leave the definition of “marriage” to churches and social institutions, and simply package up the legal rights afforded to families under the heading of “civil unions”. A religion-based argument for this is as follows:

• Marriage comes from God
   
• The state cannot legislate whom God can or cannot join together in marriage. Any attempt to do so is at best silly, and at worst constitutes an attempt to give official preference to one set of religious views over others.
   
• There is however a societal benefit to having a civil package of rights and privileges associated with the creation of families.
   
• Therefore maintain that package of rights/privileges, but avoid the inherently religious question of who can/can’t get married by calling it something other than “marriage”.

According to Father Jake, the Episcopal diocese of Massachusetts seems to be approaching the question from the other direction, by considering a resolution to require marriages to be officiated by an agent of the state, and simply be blessed by Episcopal clergy.

Father Jake quotes the Boston Globe in providing an explanation of the proposed measure:

Episcopal priests in Massachusetts have been particularly engaged in the issue of gay marriage, because the diocese here has been strongly supportive of gay rights, but the national church’s regulations define marriage as a heterosexual institution. The local bishop, M. Thomas Shaw , a supporter of same-sex marriage, has decreed that local Episcopal priests cannot sign the marriage licenses of same-sex couples, but can bless those couples after they are legally married by clergy of another denomination or by a civil official.

“I feel this is a way to equalize an inequity in what Episcopal clergy can do for gay folks and straight folks,” said the Rev. Margaret (Mally) E. Lloyd , rector of Christ Church in Plymouth.

It’s an interesting idea, but I think the resolution ought to be re-worded.

It’s understandable that Massachusetts Episcopal priests feel bound to offer the sacrament of marriage only to opposite-gender couples, but OK to bless the unions of same-gender couples. (I disagree with that position, but I understand it and will accept it as a “given” for this post.)

Therefore, I think a better approach would be to rephrase the resolution to exhort priests to not sign government marriage certificates…at least not as agents of the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts.

That provides essentially the same distinction between “church marriage” and “state marriage” that I seek by proposing that the government get out of the marriage business.

In case you weren’t already aware, the New York Times has been running a series on the exemptions from taxation and regulation being granted to religious organizations in the country today. Today’s installment, on tax breaks, is available here.

The series of articles has been rather thought-provoking, touching upon questions such as:

• the appropriateness of granting property tax breaks to a church-run retirement community / country club;
   
• the fairness of granting religious organizations exemptions from certain otherwise mandatory protections granted to employees; and
   
• the wisdom of granting church-run day care centers exemptions from state licensing requirements.

I feel like I should wax eloquently on the subject…but to be honest, I’m still mulling it over. It’s a challenging concept.

On the one hand, even though I may disagree with the doctrines endorsed, I can see that in general, religious organizations provide a benefit to society and therefore should be worthy of not being unnecessarily burdened with taxes. Providing assistance to the needy, providing comfort and a form of counseling to members, and fostering community spirit are all generally commendable activities that probably should be supported, or at least not hindered.

On the other hand, isn’t there a point where some religious entities pass beyond the scope of charity service to the public and parishoners, and grow into entities seeking to protect their own financial interests and to compete with entities encumbered by regulation and taxation?

Growing up in Memphis, I was familiar with the construction and relocation of Bellevue Baptist church. It outgrew its (large, but somewhat dated) campus in the heart of the city, and moved into a multi-million dollar glittering campus on the east side of the city.

To this day, I cannot understand why that move made sense in light of the Church’s mission. Wouldn’t it have made more sense to spawn a new church if the existing one couldn’t serve its members. Was it really necessary to spend that much money for the new campus; wouldn’t it have been more Christian to work to aid the hundreds of homeless and needy folks in the metro area?

How much of that move was about improving that church’s ability to carry out the mission it saw for itself — to spread God’s Word…and how much of it was to provide a way for the congregation to avoid having to sully themselves with the troubles of the community around it?

While there are many religious organizations I can respect…there are also quite a few that reek of being essentially for-profit businesses in the guise of religious entities.

It seems to me that there is a line somewhere dividing religion-as-charitable-organization from religion-as-business. Tax waivers and exemptions from some regulations should exist only on one side of that line, not both.

The challenge, of course, is in trying to reach some consensus on an appropriate definition of that line.