Church / State

Captains Quarters has an interesting piece out on the latest chapter in the legal squabbling over the Mount Soledad Cross in San Diego, CA.

For those of you unfamiliar with the cross, it was erected in 1954, at the height of the U.S.’s scare over those “godless Communists”. A war memorial grew up around it shortly after some folks started opposing the idea of a government-erected religious symbol (although the cause-and-effect relationship of those two developments is apparently up for some debate).

Quoting Captains Quarters:

The struggle to keep a landmark San Diego cross on public land took a new turn on Monday, as George Bush signed a bill making the land under the monument federal territory. That removes one particular legal threat to the 29-foot-tall cross, long visible for miles to Southern Californians, but brings up new challenges on the federal level[....]

The order brings an end to the pursuit of [atheist cross-critic] Paulson’s efforts in California courts. State jurists no longer have jurisdiction on the property, and with Congress making its intent known in the legislation, portends a difficult path for opponents of the landmark. It might make the case come to a conclusion more quickly, however, as federal issues have always been in play in this controversy. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy issued a stay against the destruction of the cross recently, and the court will likely have its say soon.

Although I do have to salute cross-supporters’ creativity in finding ways to defend the cross, I’ll admit that I too am uncomfortable with the idea of a government-erected religious symbol. I am not fond of the idea of government expressing a preference for any one particular religion (or religion over non-religion).

But the “governmentness” of this particular religious display isn’t what bothers me about this story.

It just seems like a tremendous amount of resources are being spent squabbling over this cross and other religious or quasi-religious displays on public property / at public expense. Just the other day, I posted an article referencing the unfunded future obligations of the federal government as a multiple of our GDP. In a rational world, that larger problem would draw more attention and energy than this.

From the Los Angeles Times:

The conservative school board last year passed the standards, which recommend teaching alternative theories to evolution, by a 6-4 vote. Moderates challenged three of the conservatives in the Republican primary but were unable to oust two. In western Kansas though, challenger Sally Cauble appeared to have defeated incumbent Connie Morris.

For the two GOP-ers who survived the primary, I can easily imagine what their opponents will be campaigning about.

Two articles touching on Christian evangelism have caught my eye recently.

First, from his Livejournal, Cahwyguy points to an article at jewsonfirst.org on a couple of lawsuits against the Indian River, DE schools for a bit too much co-mingling of Christianity and public education. The entire article is worth a read.

Many of the church-and-state lawsuits against municipal entities which I’ve been aware of previously have seemed to me to be best resolved by the plaintiff growing a thicker skin. However, some of the allegations in this suit, if true, are clearly beyond the thick-skinned expectation. For example:

When Jane Doe complained that her non-Christian son “Jordan Doe” was left alone when his classmates went to Bible Club meetings, district staff insisted that Jordan should attend the club regardless of his religion.[.]

I’m not an advocate of “keeping religion out of schools”, mind you. I just have a problem with government employees advocating a particular religion (or a particular flavor of a religion) over other faiths/agnosticism/atheism.

Also seen while surfing: a New York Times article on the erection of an adaptation of the Statue of Liberty in Memphis:

As the congregation of the World Overcomers Outreach Ministries Church looked on and its pastor, Apostle Alton R. Williams, presided, a brown shroud much like a burqa was pulled away to reveal a giant statue of [Lady Liberty], but with the Ten Commandments under one arm and “Jehovah” inscribed on her crown.

And in place of a torch, she held aloft a large gold cross, as if to ward off the pawnshops, the car dealerships and the discount furniture outlets at the busy corner of Kirby Parkway and Winchester that is her home. A single tear graced her cheek.

I’ve seen many folks online comment on the ostentatiousness of the display and the ethics of blending nationalism with religion. However, a different pair of thoughts strike me:

• How much did that 72 foot statue cost?
• While the congregation is certainly within its rights to spend money to make such a dramatic expression of faith and opinion.I wonder if there wouldn’t have been a better use for those resources, like combating poverty and illness.

This just isn’t right:

At the Veterans Memorial Cemetery in the small town of Fernley, Nev., there is a wall of brass plaques for local heroes. But one space is blank. There is no memorial for Sgt. Patrick D. Stewart.

That’s because Stewart was a Wiccan, and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs has refused to allow a symbol of the Wicca religion — a five-pointed star within a circle, called a pentacle — to be inscribed on U.S. military memorials or grave markers.

The department has approved the symbols of 38 other faiths; about half are versions of the Christian cross. It also allows the Jewish Star of David, the Muslim crescent, the Buddhist wheel, the Mormon angel, the nine-pointed star of Baha’i and something that looks like an atomic symbol for atheists.

It seems to me that if you are going to have a government that is obliged to be neutral when it comes to the standing of different religions or a lack of religion acknowledge the faith on memorials to those who have died for the country, that acknowledgement should be done regardless of the deceased’s faith.

If you’re curious about which faiths’ symbols are currently permitted, the official list is available at the VA’s website.

This Alternet article is
oddly interesting:

The Food and Drug Administration advisory panel approved a
vaccine for the human papilloma virus (HPV) last week. The vaccine appears
to be 100 percent effective at protecting against the most prevalent viruses
that cause cervical cancer. While public health professionals view the
vaccine as miraculous, many conservative organizations oppose it on the
grounds that it might encourage promiscuity among adolescent girls. Now that
the FDA has approved the vaccine, conservatives are already working
feverishly to limit or
even prevent its use.

That snippet got my hackles up. However, reading on, an interesting
question emerges:

Although children are required to have various vaccinations
before attending public schools, conservatives are against the ACIP
recommending such a practice for the HPV vaccine. The Christian Medical &
Dental Associations is an organization that “exists to glorify God by
advancing Biblical principles in bioethics and health to the Church and
society.” The group’s executive director, Dr. Gene Rudd, has stated, “While
accepting HPV vaccine is morally acceptable, it should not be
mandatory.

The idea of blocking availability — either by withholding FDA acceptance,
or interfering with insurers’ willingness to provide coverage — of a drug
that prevents disease on religious grounds bothers me.

However, on the debate of whether HPV vaccinations should be made mandatory

As seen in the Washington
Post:

The House passed a $513 billion defense authorization bill yesterday that includes language intended to allow
chaplains to pray in the name of Jesus at public military ceremonies, undercutting new Air Force and Navy guidelines on
religion.[...]

Before the bill reached the House floor, Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee added the provision on military
chaplains. It says each chaplain “shall have the prerogative to pray according to the dictates of the chaplain’s own conscience,
except as must be limited by military necessity, with any such limitation being imposed in the least restrictive manner
feasible.”

Air Force and Navy rules issued in recent months allow chaplains to pray as they wish in voluntary worship services. But the
rules call for nonsectarian prayers, or a moment of silence, at public meetings or ceremonies, especially when attendance is
mandatory for service members of all faiths.

If I’m not mistaken, the Air Force rules were influenced by recent complaints at the Air Force Academy made by non-Christians and
non-evangelical Christians who had issues with the degree of proselytization engaged by others at the academy seemingly with
official blessing.

Yesterday, when the online news sites were all aflutter of a jury verdict coming back on the Moussaoui sentencing, I switched on the
audio to…I forget whether it was Fox News or CNN…via the XM receiver I run at work.

The outcome was, as you probably know by now, Moussaoui got life rather than the death penalty.

I don’t have too much to say on that outcome. From the little that I’ve paid attention to his case, he seems a particularly
reprehensible guy, and the 9/11 attacks certainly rise above the threshold below which I’m morally uncomfortable with capital
punishment…but I can’t help but wonder if the feds made the guy to be more than he actually was — someone who wanted to do
Americans harm, who wanted attention and glory for himself, but was probably too nutty to be useful in any plots.

However, something that did catch my attention was a description of what life will be like for Moussaoui at the Supermax prison in
Colorado — 23 hours of solitary confinement per day, and essentially no contact with the outside world but for access to a TV
airing religious and educational programming approved by the warden.

It seems kind of insignificant in the face of a would-be terrorist being sent away for life….but I can’t help but wonder what sort
of religious television programming my tax dollars will be used to deliver to Moussaoui.

Also…why the heck are my tax dollars being used to pay for and to operate televisions in a prison in the first place?!

(Via Donklephant) American Baptist Press has this interesting article on a Baptist pastor running for office:

Pastor and politician Kerry Horn has been called an agent of Satan. He has faced country farmers trembling with rage. And his faith has been questioned by members of his own congregation. And that’s just the reaction of his “Christian” constituents.[...]

Horn’s situation is interesting, to say the least. Horn, 48, is running for a seat in the Texas House of Representatives in the fall 2006 election. The fact he also is pastor of First Baptist Church of Covington, Texas, makes potential voters perk up their ears. The fact he is running as a Democrat in the deeply Republican region leaves some voters confused and others downright distressed.

After Horn’s announcement that he’d run on a Democratic ticket, he said, several locals at a community meeting got worried — and mad. One burly fellow couldn’t see any reason why a self-respecting Baptist pastor would ever associate with Democrats, let alone join the party. “I thought he was going to hit me,” Horn said.[...]

[T]he race between Horn and Pitts is shaping up as a David-versus-Goliath clash, with Horn playing David against a party he used to promote. No matter, Horn said. Back then, he considered himself a “Rockefeller Republican,” in a time when “a conservative Democrat was more conservative than a Republican.”

“When I was there, we took great pride in our independence,” Horn said. “Washington didn’t call the shots. We took great pride in our ability to pull together for the good of Texas.”

Horn said he eventually left Austin in 1990, when he could no longer “emotionally support the issues.”

“The attitude then became very negative,” Horn said. “The Moral Majority was neither moral nor a majority. No political party can claim moral superiority over the other as long as it’s made up of the same fallen people.”[...]

More challenging, at least in the minds of some critics, is how Horn reconciles his position as a pastor with some parts of the Democratic platform traditionally shunned by Baptists, such as abortion rights. Horn said he is not bound to all parts of the national Democratic agenda.

“It’s very simple,” he said. “I’ve learned that I care more about people than I do about catering to powerbrokers. As a pastor, I try to make sure the opportunity for the choice of abortion to be moot; I preach that sex outside of the bonds of marriage is wrong, no matter if you’re gay or straight.”[...]

He has little patience for Christians whose political opinions are focused on certain hot-button moral issues. “Here you get enraged about abortion and homosexual action, but you wink and nod at adultery,” Horn said. “Don’t give me this holier-than-thou business when you dismiss other sins.”

While I wouldn’t be at all surprised to find that I disagree with the guy on certain social issues, this seems like the kind of politician I could respect. It’s quite a bit easier to accept the leadership of someone whom you disagree with when they’re at least not a hypocrite.

From BBC News:

Mr Rahman was arrested last month after his estranged family - with whom he was in dispute over the custody of his two children - denounced him as a convert.

Mr Rahman, who is 41, was found to be carrying a Bible and was charged with rejecting Islam.[...]

The prosecutor, Abdul Wasi, said he had offered to drop the charges if Mr Rahman would convert back to Islam, but he had refused to do so.

Mr Wasi said therefore that Mr Rahman must get the death penalty.

Ah, it’s so good to see religious tolerance being spread around the world, isn’t it?

This morning, DailyKos saw the posting of another anti-Intelligent Design rant.

Normally, I wouldn’t make note of it here, on the grounds that it’s beyond the scope of my already too-unfocused blog. However, part of the rant struck a chord with me. Arguing why officials shouldn’t keep trying to mandate Intelligent Design be taught in public schools in the wake of a court ruling that such a practice violates separation of church-and-state:

But here’s an even better reason to avoid it: Kitzmiller ended up costing the Dover ISD a million bucks and it cost the pro-creationism board members their posts. And in that case, the winning legal team went easy on Dover out of concern for the innocent taxpayers. They cut the bill in half. Next time it could be full damages, every dime, nickel, and penny of expense incurred, dumped on to you, the taxpayer. And with Dover as a precedent, and given the devastating language and tone in Judge Jones’s decision in Kitzmiller, odds are higher than ever that that’s exactly what will happen.

Writing as someone whose already obscene property tax bill is likely to rise 6% this year in part because of some idiotic litigation the town found itself involved in, the “don’t do it because it’s going to be expensive and futile” argument sounds pretty good to me.

After all, shouldn’t that money be going towards supplies, textbooks, and teachers’ salaries…or staying in taxpayers’ bank accounts… rather than going into attorneys’ wallets?