Like "Today's Illusion" once said, I also have an unaccountable aversion to revealing too much of myself. However, in posting this article, it is only fair and honest to admit up front that I have strong, related prejudices. The basis for these prejudices are described in the following paragraphs.
Even before I was baptized into the First Congregational Church of Wellesley Hills, Massachusetts, at the age of twelve, I was beginning to have doubts. My mother - a very active member of the church - was, to put it bluntly, someone who acted in a most unchristian-like manner, in my young view. Brought up as a strict Nova Scotia Baptist who couldn't dance or play cards and who was subjected to two hours of bible reading every day, it seemed as though the principle messages of the bible just didn't get through to her. Without getting into a lot of detail, suffice it to say that hypocrisy and specific hate were the main areas where she appeared to stray from the "good book."
When I started dating a Catholic girl she became upset beyond reason and told me that it would be either her or the girl, but not both. I would have to decide. My relationship with the Catholic girl continued.
When I was in the Far East during the Korean War, a missionary cousin (on my mother's side) invited me to his rural home for a couple of days. Upon arriving, it soon became apparent that the sole purpose was to dissuade me from continuing my relationship. At one point he said "You would be better off marrying an Asian girl than a Catholic," which seemed to convey a double dose of bigotry.
One month after I got out of the service I married the Catholic girl and three weeks later my mother was being given shock treatments at a hospital in Boston.
As my life went on, I began to see that the problems that I thought were limited to my mother were actually prevalent throughout the Protestant community and beyond, in the world of religion.
As a history major, a course on the writings of Arnold Toynbee revealed that Christianity was no more special than the religions of any of the more than thirty other civilizations in world history. And through other history courses, it became clear that the track record of Christianity and other religions was hardly anything to brag about.
Eventually I went from simply ignoring organized religion to harboring a feeling of actually being against it.
Today, Catholics seem to be off the hook, so to speak. The vitriolic hatred that was directed towards them, in my youth, seems to have been redirected at the gay community.
Any organized religion can be, underneath it all, an insidious movement that flourishes on the fact that some people receive personal benefit from their exposure to it. And it is absolutely true that many, many people do literally owe their lives to their religion. As an entity, however, if a religion is not limited in some way, it will grow and consume all in its path, regardless of the consequences, be they deaths from wars, the corruption of a democratic system, or whatever.
Consequently, the concept that is referred to as separation of church and state is, arguably, one of the more important building blocks in the structure of our government. In order for it to prevail, however, it must be constantly protected from the attacks of the expansion-minded religious movements.
And so with that preamble - which turned out to be much longer than intended (but it felt good to say) - the real purpose of this post arises - the announcement yesterday that the IRS is stepping up its probe of allegedly improper political campaigning by churches.
The fact that the first church being required to turn over its records to the IRS - the All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, California - is a church that promoted an anti-war stance on the eve of an election, bothers me not one whit. Maintaining the integrity of the system supersedes personal feelings.
In July, the IRS warned 15,000 tax exempt groups across the nation, including churches and non profit organizations, to stay neutral on politics, or lose their tax exempt status.
In addition to All Saints, the IRS currently has 40 church investigations pending.
This is long overdue, in my admitedly biased opinion, and should be welcome news to all who treasure the concept of separation.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 36
As a former IRS agent, I can tell you in absolute truth that the agency will only go so far as the dictators in Washington DC allow it. This means it's a good bet that the right wing activities of the Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwells which are clearly violative of the non-political rules will continue unabated.
How do you propose to insure fairness and equity in the agency's actions?
I agree with you both.
Divisive politics and religion.
Bad subjects both.
What happened to the Sierra club some time back and the IRS when the Sierra decided to not stop their political actives is what should be looked into.
Same thing?
Not quite, as the Sierra club gives funds to political campaigns not the members. Now the churches request that their members fund political campaigns.
People giving money to political campaigns is not illegal, where it is illegal is the organization of the church funding a political campaign.
At least I think that's the difference. The Sierra club is still a for profit organization and gives money to whomever they want to.
1966 - Sierra Club's full-page newspaper ads urging protection of the Grand Canyon prompt Internal Revenue Service to rule that donations to the Club are no longer tax-deductible.
Donations to the Sierra Club are not tax deductible.
This is an excellent and thoughtful essay.
I keep telling the Christians I know that though they might be the majority for now in the U.S.A., there are already large numbers of registered voters from other religions who are voting citizens.
The only way for any religious group to continue to be able to worship according to their beliefs is to work very hard to keep religious beliefs out of our laws.
Luckky, you make an excellent point, and - given your background - you know of which you speak.
Richard's and Today's Illusions' comments regarding the Sierra Club seem to offer further validity to Luckky's point.
Too bad...This may not be as encouraging as it sounded.
Let's not forget that recently "U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris told a religious journal that separation of church and state is "a lie" and God and the nation's founding fathers did not intend the country be "a nation of secular laws."
The Republican candidate for U.S. Senate also said that "if Christians are not elected, politicians will "legislate sin," including abortion and gay marriage.
"If you're not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin," Harris said.
As someone on Yahoo noted, "Didn't she get the GOP memo that they're not supposed to talk about the game plan openly?"
We need to start putting the churches in their place and keeping them out of politics. If it takes the IRS to do so, then let me be the first to say, "Amen!"
By the way David, I grew up in Natick, just down the road from you.
I have noticed that few people attack Christians directly. They first label them, and then attack them. I personally would prefer that people attacked Christ directly. If you believe he is evil, say so. If you believe his influence is detrimental. say it. If you think it best to send IRs agents after him, do it.
These kinds of articles are not, kind or tolerant. They are abusive and intolerant, and I resent them! Now, I wonder to what group I will be assigned.
I profess to be a Christian. My 'Men's Book Group' is reading "A Generous Orthodoxy" in which the second chapter is 'Would Jesus be a Christian?'. Makes me wonder.
Yes religions breed bigotry and zealotry but that is not religions fault. My community has a large Jewish community and whenever I hear someone talk about prayer in school I shudder. Whose prayer?
As a conservative I don't like some of the politics that comes home with my teenage girls, please don't teach my children religion!
Their beliefs will be molded at home and if my wife and I lead by example and instill in them the love I feel in my religion, hopefully they will find peace and solace in it also.
David, I often see the same hippocrasy in my mother you saw in yours. Whenever she spouts about the downfall of American morals correlating to the ban on school prayer I tell her "No, it actually correlates to putting flouride in the drinking water."
Another thing I love is when someone sends me the picture of the American flag illuminated by a rising/setting sun that shows the sun light thru the flag in the shape of the cross. This is clearly evidence that God blesses the United States. I've gotten this picture 4 or 5 times. Stop sending it. When God blesses the U.S. we will finally have competent leadership in Washington.
I've been waiting for 20 years.
This is officially featured in the Humiliated Conservative, because the abuse of religion for political ends is one of the reasons I left the Republican party, and took my conservatism with me.
If the Christian right would do whatever it does on Sunday in the privacy of its own world, and refrain from trying to turn the country into a theocracy I think it would have an altogether different and more positive image.
And, Don, this has nothing to do with Christ, as you well know....By suggesting so you are reverting to the typical bait and switch tactics we have seen so often.
This post has to do with those who lead the flock known as the Christian right and yes - they are potentially very detrimental to this country.
Sure, the system is at fault for allowing itself to be manipulated, but we might agree that the politicians who financially benefit from such a system are not about to do anything about it.....
So the emphasis has to be put on controlling religion's voracious appetite for power, in my view.
In Pakistan, our religiously controlled ally(?), a woman can only bring a successful rape charge to bear if she has four witnesses.....I'm not sure about the camels...
You wrote:"The super-active Christian right, given it's 'druthers, would have EVERYONE required to be Christian."
Can you elborate on this? I'm not famaliar with any Christian organization or movement wanting to REQUIRE all to be Christians. I do believe that Christians would like everyone to believe as they do. But isn't that the case with everyone? Christians aren't the only ones who want people to believe they way they do. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the USA. Muslims want everyone to convert to Islam. Don't you wish everyone believed what you believe? Seems to me what is being said is that if you believe in a Supreme Being (God) you are disqualifed from being able to contribute to politics and government. Isn't that what the ACLU wants? Seems like every time I turn around they are trying to remove any reference of God from everything government related. Does the fact that a person or organization does not believe in a "god" mean they are not religious? I don't think so. If religion is defined as "a system of beliefs" even the ACLU is a religion. Why should people who don't believe in a "god" be the only ones to influence government?
Where did this idea of "separation of church and state" come from? I can't find it in the constitution. If it is in some government document and our founding fathers actually meant by it that people who have faith in a supreme being should have no influence in government why are references to "God" found on government documents, buildings, and legal tender?
Jesus Christ did NOT come to be a political leader. There were some Jews who were hoping he would lead them to over throw the Roman government. Instead he allowed himself to be cruicified so that he could save all. He wanted people to believe in him. I know of no current Christian movement that wants complete control of the US government. Christians do want a say in our government for the same reasons non-Christians do. We believe our ideas and values will make the United States a better country.
Lee
Does anyone remember what Christ did to the moneylenders' tables at the temple? What might Jesus say about this subject?
Thanks for the respectful response. I am doing my best to understand your beliefs and reasoning.
There are a lot of things that government does that is contrary to my beliefs as well. Have you noticed on the one dollar bill there is an "all seeing eye" on the top of the pyramid? This is a symbol of the occult. I am not "offended" by it but I certainly wish the government would not use my tax dollars printing it on legal tender. I don't believe that the occult is being "forced" on me. In the same way printing "In God We Trust" on legal can in no way "force" anyone to trust in a "god" they don't believe in. Although some would like to change history, our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. In my opinion it is unfortunate that "We the people" are not doing a good job of upholding those principles.
You wrote:"...we now have politicians and political candidates who are saying that the Bible trumps the Constitution as the supreme law of the land in secular government." Please help me out here on this one. Can you be more specific on who is saying the Bible trumps the Constitution? Personally, I can't think of anything in the US Constitution that conflicts with what the Bible teaches.
The US is the greatest Republic in the world that is based on democratic principles. We have more freedoms here than any other country. However, we have given up some of our personal liberties to protect society as a whole. "We the people" have decided to make it illegal to drink and drive. Most people think this a good law. A few don't. Most people believe rape is wrong. A few don't. Most people think bestiality and pedophilia is wrong. Some don't. I am going to make the assumption that you believe murder, robbery, and extortion is wrong. Obviously, some people think these things are okay otherwise our prisons would not be overcrowded. I would venture to guess there are a lot of things we would agree that are wrong and should be illegal and yet someone else thinks it's ok. In this context, are not Christians, non-Christians, and atheist alike "forcing" their beliefs on others? However, there are some things I think are wrong that you don't. I will stick my neck out here and make the assumption that you believe abortion is ok (Please forgive me if I am wrong). Not all Christians believe that abortion is murder of a human life but I do. Laws passed by "We the people" against abortion on demand were declared unconstitutional by a few activist judges on the pretence of a woman's right to privacy. This is what I call forcing beliefs on everyone else. I still can't find a woman's or man's right to privacy in the Constitution.
Whose beliefs will rule the day? Mine? Yours? Someone else's?
Most likely a combination. Are Christians trying to "force" their beliefs on others?
If you consider voting a method of force, then I would have to answer yes.
Lee, perhaps you had better take another look at the constitution and maybe have someone explain it to you if you cannot see the basis for the "separation" injunction, or privacy. Moreover, you need to understand the issue of favoring one religion over others that is a root issue in the separation doctrine. If you really mean that you cannot see the privacy or separation doctrines in the constitution, what constitution are you reading? These are not subtle; they are not arguable; and every constitutional lawyer and political scientist can find the bases for these doctrines in the constitution.
In all seriousness, perhaps you should consult any professor of government, law, political science, or history. Maybe reading nearly any of the published supreme court decisions regarding these cases would be instructive. Your naive statements regarding the constitutional bases, or lack thereof, for these doctrines make it easy to ignore your other arguments. Oh, and if you want one (out of many) example of politicians who brazenly state that the Christian bible "trumps" the constitution, perhaps you should look up the recently deposed chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, Roy Moore, who was removed from office for not only stating this absurdity but acting on that misguided belief. There are many other examples of this. You might want to be more careful about declaring what does and doesn't exist. Your being unaware of doctrines, events, or facts does not quite mean they don't exist. Educate yourself before you try to educate others. And if this is not as "respectful" a response as David's, I have accorded your statements all the respect they deserve. David is far more diplomatic than I. I'm too old (and disgusted) to be diplomatic.
What an incredibly insightful article.. I myself am also an Athiest so I agree totally with Jackie's comments..In all reality, and I know this is an incredibly simplistic approach to an age old disscussion, BUT, Just think is all of the disagreements, arguements, and intolerance of each others beliefs were put to the side, we didn't call it religion, we didn't seperate the different religions, and we all just hung a plaque on the wall that was titled "The Ten Commandents" I think our lives would be much easier to define...So much for Gov't interference...I know, way to easy, Huh.. Oh well, just my opinion....Great article..!!!!!
To be bluntly honest, if you cannot understand by now that all supreme court decisions regarding these two issues refer to the intent of these clauses, then I don't imagine further education will dent your refractory comprehension. The alternative must be that you are correct and the Supreme Court, in its entire history, simply doesn't understand the constitution.
Pick up ANY law book on the constitutional basis for these doctrines. Read the collected decisions (all are published) of any of the previous justices--ANY! You may need to go back a few years because these have been established and formed precedent a long time ago. Even this incredibly stacked and half incompetent Supreme Court has never questioned this basis.
Is your problem one of interpretation? Do you require the exact phrase to understand the meaning of a passage? Apparently you do. Therefore, simply fond the constitutional law books. They spell it out in simple terms using those very words.
Now let's look at another consitutional basis and its discussion:
"Article VI, Section III
"but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
Joseph Story comments:
"The remaining part of the clause declares, that 'no religious test shall ever be required, as a qualification to any office or public trust, under the United States.' This clause is not introduced merely for the purpose of satisfying the scruples of many respectable persons, who feel an invincible repugnance to any test or affirmation. It had a higher object: to cut off forever every pretence of any alliance between church and state in the national government. The framers of the constitution were fully sensible of the dangers from this source, marked out in history of other ages and countries; and not wholly unknown to our own. They knew, that bigotry was unceasingly vigilant in its own stratagems, to secure to itself an exclusive ascendancy over the human mind; and that intolerance was ever ready to arm itself with all the terrors of civil power to exterminate those, who doubted its dogmas, or resisted its infallibility."
Source of Material:
Commentaries on The Constitution of The United States by Joseph Story Vol. III, Page 705-709. De Capo Press Reprints in American Constitutional And Legal History series, Da Capo Press NY 1970 (Joseph Story's Commentaries were originally published in 1833."
Also, see Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist's in Jan 1802, which contained the famous "wall of separation" phrase, directly attributing this to the constitution. But you know better so I shall stop dredging my memory for citations.
Privacy: In addition to the implied limitation in the first amendment, the ninth and tenth amendments were included to make absolutely sure there was no misunderstanding about the limited powers the Constitution grants to the federal government.
Amendment IX:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Now, where's the right to privacy?
It is clearly in those two amendments.
The government has no power to tell people what to do except in areas specifically authorized in the Constitution.
That means it has no right to tell people whether or not they can engage in homosexual acts; no right to invade our privacy; no right to manage our health-care system; no right to tell us what a marriage is; no right to run our lives; no right to do anything that wasn't specifically authorized in the Constitution.
The right to private behaviors not allocated to the government is absolute and covers privacy as well as all other non-regulated behaviors. Justice Brandeis interpreted the constitutional basis of the right to privacy in a broad opinion that has acheived 'stare decisus' status since that time.
"...a broader right of privacy has been inferred in the Constitution. Although not explicity stated in the text of the Constitution, in 1890 then to be Justice Louis Brandeis extolled 'a right to be left alone.' This right has developed into a liberty of personal autonomy protected by the 14th amendment. The 1st (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmenti), 4th (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentiv), and 5th (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentv) Amendments also provide some protection of privacy, although in all cases the right is narrowly defined. The Constitutional right of privacy has developed alongside a statutory right of privacy which limits access to personal information. The Federal Trade Commission overwhelmingly enforces this statutory right of privacy, and the rise of privacy policies and privacy statements are evidence of its work. In all of its forms, however, the right of privacy must be balanced against the state's compelling interests. Such compelling interests include the promotion of public morality, protection of the individual's psychological health, and improving the quality of life."
I have no desire to continue this discussion. Jefferson, Brandeis, the Cornell Law School's discussion of the constitutional basis for the right to privacy should be enough. Your shopworn argument that it's not in the constitution has been answered again and again. Anyone without the ability to form abstract concepts and supercede the exact literal will have trouble interpreting any law, any instruction. It is ludicrous to believe that every right or situation can be specified when the general statement, oft repeated that all other rights are reserved to the individual is enough, particularly when there is specific reference to the issue.
I believe in a literal interpretation of the constitution. Unfortunately, there are activist judges who in the last few decades have suddenly discovered the so-called "intent of these clauses." I see no need to add phrases or labels such as the "separation or privacy doctrine." The phrase "Wall of Separation between Church and State" has been used so often by those who want to remove any reference to God from government and public life that most people believe it IS in the constitution. Let the words of the constitution speak for themselves.
The First Amendment protects our God given right of religious liberty and keeps the government from establishing a state required religion. It does not say that religion can have no influence on the government and that the government cannot aid or benefit religion. This was the common interpretation of the First Amendment until 1947 when Justice Hugo Black claimed, "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach." This is when the phrase "The Wall between Church and State" became the liberal's battle cry. When I read both the letter to Thomas Jefferson from the Danbury Baptist Association and the letter of reply from Jefferson, I can only conclude that the intent of the "wall" the President spoke of was to keep the government from over extending its "legitimate powers" and depriving the people of religious freedom. I see no evidence that Jefferson thought the government should be secular or anti-religion. If Jefferson believed that religion should have no influence on government why did he regularly attend church services held in the House of Representatives? If the original intent of the first amendment was to keep our government completely secular why did the authors of the constitution allow prayer in congress? How is it that most of the early government documents including the Declaration of Independence make reference to our God and Creator?
If there is a "Wall of Separation between Church and State" as liberals interpret it why does the IRS threaten to tax the churches that promote a particular political candidate? According to this "doctrine" there is suppose to be a complete separation. It seems to me that the people who claim there should be a separation want the separation to be a one way street. In essence what they are saying is that it's ok for the government to tell churches what they can preach, but no church can have any influence on government or public life.
Concerning the privacy issue... this is scary. A judge who claims that the 9th and 10th amendment gives people a "constitutional right to privacy" can make the constitution say anything. With this logic activist judges can pretty much add any "right" to the constitution at their own discretion. Don't get me wrong, I believe privacy is a good thing and I support most laws upholding privacy. But claiming that state laws banning abortion on demand are unconstitutional on the pretense of a "constitutional right to privacy" is totally bogus. I will admit here that I am biased on the abortion issue. I believe that human life begins in the womb and these individuals have the same unalienable rights endowed by our Creator as the rest of us including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. My beef here is how activist judges claim a "right to privacy" trumps abortion on demand laws passed by the people of individual states. The constitution does not prohibit laws concerning abortion and the 10th amendment reserves power to "We the People" in each state to pass our own laws. If the people want to make "abortion rights" the law of the land then LET US VOTE ON IT.
I am sorry that you have no desire to discuss this further.
I sincerely wish God's Blessing upon you.
I get a kick out of the insistence upon a "literal" interpretation VS the "essence" of ... be that the Bible or the Law ... the difference between a right-wing conservative and a left-wing liberal I suspect ... just human nature ... one "fears" more and one "loves" more ... distrust vs trust (Loving God Universe VS Satan ruled world) ... IMnsHO.
I believe no one should try to incorporate religion into law, especially due to the fact, that we are a very diverse nation. It would cause more hovac than good. It should be one's personal choice to practice and worship as they please. But some wants to enforce their religious beliefs on others, which more then not has the opposite affect, turning one away from their religion and God.
For one, who really believes in the God and studies his work, they would know to bring another to God is more likely by example, of love, peace, goodness and respect.
One trying to forcifully comform another to their doctrine. they only need go back and read the scriptures, for they have sadly stepped over the line.
I was reading an article before finding your post, written about a preacher, who is willing to break the law to preach McCain from the pulpit. Knowing full well it is against the law, what example is this for not only his, but his congregations children. He readily teaches the children it is O.K. to break the law, what kind of spiritual teaching is this.
I also believe if this man breaks the law, he should as any American be punished to the fullest extent as the law decrees.
Christianity (or any subset of believes that relate to Christianity and the "Holy Bible"), is no longer the religion that the masses need.
Hence forth the sprouts of Wicca and whatnot.
I don't think they need to endorse politicians, nor that they should. If I was going to church, I'd be going to hear about the bible and how it applies to every day life and to have it read to me.
I vehemently stand up for religious freedom and rights. I also believe that politics and religion don't mix. One can practice and have their religious freedoms and not include them in on their political agenda's.
Great article.