The question to the Washington Post On Faith panel this week asks about the “religious freedom vs. wisdom” of building an Islamic community center near Ground Zero and questions the impact of public opinion polling.  The following is my response, cross-posted from the Washington Post On Faith forum:

As a proponent of religious freedom who early on stated my support for the construction of Cordoba House, I was proud to see President Obama’s strong endorsement of religious freedom last Friday – and was quite disappointed when, on Saturday, he seemed to walk back his comments. That disappointment deepened as I saw a statement from Senate Majority Leader Reid’s office saying he respects religious freedom but that the mosque should be built somewhere else.

It has been disheartening to see Members of Congress and other national leaders cite public opinion polling as a reason to stop the project. Anyone with a basic knowledge of the history of the First Amendment knows that religious freedom exists in part to protect the rights of the minority from the whim of the majority. In fact, it would not be a stretch to say that if the Founding Fathers had relied on polling data, the First Amendment might not exist at all. On issues of religious freedom – and let me be clear, this is one of those issues – Congress and the President should not be wavering.  In my experience, any sentence that begins “We recognize that this is a religious freedom issue, but…” is usually followed by an attempt to circumvent the guarantee of religious freedom on the basis of discomfort and bigotry. Arguing that we should overlook religious freedom in favor of taking the road less controversial is, in essence, an argument for not taking action on any significant religious freedom issue in this country; most all of them have been controversial.

Cordoba House is a project that shows the American Muslim community’s commitment to democratic values, interfaith dialogue, and civic engagement and is, in many ways, a slap in the face to the extremists who sought to destroy those values with the September 11th attacks. Please understand that Hamas’ recent statement of approval of Cordoba House is not an endorsement the initiative’s founders sought – or, I suspect, want. Imam Feisal Rauf, a voice of progressive and peaceful Islam, has long been respected as a leader in interfaith issues; he and his wife Daisy Khan have repeatedly condemned radical Islam and have taken pains to disassociate themselves from extremists. Opponents must stop intentionally mischaracterizing the motives of those behind the Cordoba Initiative, conflating them with the impure motives of extremists who defile the religion of Islam by committing acts of violence in the name of their faith.

To oppose this project because Islam is involved and Muslims are sponsors of it is a violation of the religious freedom guaranteed and protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution – period. Whether the construction of such a building is “appropriate” is not for us to decide (though I do think an institution dedicated to education, fostering mutual understanding, and facilitating reconciliation is appropriate); rather, it is for us to recognize that the founding documents of our nation permit this project to move forward as a presence whose purposes include healing. The president and Congress should remember that they have sworn to defend the Constitution. Neither now nor ever is there a time to waver from that commitment.

Share on Facebook

Rev. Gaddy joined Rabbi Brad Hirschfield on Blogginheads.tv for a discussion about Cordoba House, islamaphobia, and the role of faith in the United States.

Share on Facebook

On July 30th 2010 Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas introduced a Sense of Congress resolution asserting the House’s firm support for “academically based social studies curriculum standards.” That what our children learn should be based in fact sounds pretty obvious right? Sadly, to some it is not. Rep. Johnson’s resolution is in direct response to the Texas State Board of Education’s changes to their state’s curriculum. These changes included removing Thomas Jefferson from a list of Enlightenment thinkers and striking down an amendment that would have required students to explore the Founders’ reasons for protecting religious freedom by separating institutions of religion and government. This resolution expresses Congress’ disapproval of these decisions themselves, and the process through which they were made (by politicians, not by scholars).

As frequent readers of the State of Belief blog know, Interfaith Alliance cares deeply about this issue and wants to make sure that children across America learn about our nation’s long history of religious diversity and pluralism. We have been involved in trying to correct the Board of Education’s decision since March, and played a large role in pushing for this recent resolution. And of course, Rev. Gaddy, discussed this topic on the most recent episode of his weekly radio show, State of Belief. In the coming weeks we will continue working to gain support to pass this resolution, so that the Texas State Board of Education understands that all children in America should learn about our nation’s history in an accurate and unbiased way – stay tuned and we’ll let you know what you can do to encourage your Representative to support this resolution!

Share on Facebook

Today, the Anti-Defamation League issued a statement weighing in on the controversial Cordoba House Islamic community center.  The position they took was, in a word, disappointing.  In response to the ADL’s opposition of the center being built at Ground Zero, Interfaith Alliance President and State of Belief Host Rev. Welton Gaddy had this to say:

“It was with a great deal of sorrow that I read the carefully constructed statement from the Anti-Defamation League…those who claim to defend religious freedom can not turn their back on it when faced with controversy…We agree with the ADL that there is a need for transparency about who is funding the effort to build this Islamic center. At the same time, we should also ask who is funding the attacks against the construction of the center.”

For more on the debate and bigotry surrounding the Cordoba House, check out this earlier post on the blog and for more on Rev. Gaddy’s perspective, check out his post on the Washington Post’s On Faith blog from earlier this week.

Share on Facebook

In an election season that has already seen Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle proclaim her decision to run for office as a divine “calling” and South Carolina Gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley’s struggle to prove that she is “Christian enough,” it just might be time for America to brush up on its own history.

Just as many candidates have utilized the legacy of the Founding Fathers for varying political agendas, the Founders themselves were wildly diverse in their viewpoints, especially concerning religion; to generalize the “Founding Fathers” as having one unified vision for the country is revisionist and over-simplified.

In a recent interview with Bill O’Reilly, Sarah Palin supported her declaration of the United States as a “Christian nation.”  Palin repeatedly referenced America’s Founding Fathers and documents as proof that the American political system is rooted in Christianity and the King James Bible.

I wonder, then, if Sarah Palin has ever come across the Treaty of Tripoli, written in 1797 and unanimously passed by the United States Senate.  In Article 11, this treaty signed by President John Adams, says:

The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion

In terms of Nikki Haley, it may also be prudent to remind the American public (and Mrs. Haley herself) that the United States Constitution specifically states in Article VI, Section III that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

Lastly, the First Amendment, America’s quintessential protection of religious freedom, was supported by a comically diverse group of men.  James Madison of Virginia and Fisher Ames of Massachusetts were two of the Amendment’s biggest supporters and could not have had more opposite beliefs on faith.  James Madison believed that in order for both government and religion to flourish that they had to be kept strictly separate; Fisher Ames thought that the Christian Bible should be taught in public schools.

This is not an issue that applies solely to Republicans.  Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi once referred to President Obama’s Healthcare plan as “honoring the vows of our fathers” in a speech to the House of Representatives.  The chances are, “our fathers” would be just as divided on universal healthcare had that issue presented itself in the 18th Century.

If the “Founding Fathers” themselves did not agree, how can the politicians of today claim to speak for them as a cohesive group?  Generalizations are dangerous and often incorrect; perhaps more candidates should remember this.

Share on Facebook

I recently read Jimi Jobin’s articulate and impassioned plea to Pastor H. Wayne Williams to stop his endorsements of political candidates from his pulpit.  Jobin appealed to Williams as a fellow Christian pastor on the basis of the importance of keeping Christianity and Jesus Christ above the triviality of modern politics. I, as a student of religious history, appeal to Williams on the basis that he is challenging, not continuing, the Baptist tradition in America—and that he is breaking the law.

A number of recent blogs have been written about this issue by prominent Baptists, namely Holly Hollman and J. Brent Walker, our friends at the Baptist Joint Committee on Religious Liberty.  Hollman, argues that “every historic Baptist [should] oppose those (even if it is a fellow church member) who would act as ’king’ over the consciences of others by using the state to promote a favored faith.”  Using a federally tax-exempt Church to endorse a political candidate surely fits the standard of this claim.  Walker, in a lecture entitled, “Answering the Top 10 Lies About Church and State,” gave an excellent background to current arguments over barriers between religion and government including why the BJC continues to support strict separation.

H. Wayne Williams has been quoted saying that he “would welcome the history of [his] Baptist forefathers in going to jail over these issues.”  This, in my opinion, is a perversion of the legacy of these forefathers.  Baptists were a driving force in the fight for religious liberty in America—not, as Williams claims, for the liberty to use the state to endorse religion, but to ensure that all religious denominations are free from the unfair influence of the state or each other.  I have to wonder if Isaac Backus or Roger Williams (who did routinely go to jail for voicing these ideas) would support H. Wayne William’s use of his publicly-subsidized pulpit to endorse a particular gubernatorial candidate, in this case, Gordon Howie.  My guess? They would not.

What is at stake is not Pastor Williams right to endorse Gordon Howie; undoubtedly he can support whomever he pleases.  What is at stake is how and where he can voice this support.  As Reverend Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, has said: “We have a dazzling amount of freedom to express the most controversial viewpoints imaginable from American pulpits. We just can’t have sermons converted into political advertisements for candidates.”

This is all due to the Johnson Amendment which was passed in 1954 and states that charities and churches defined as 501(c)(3) organizations cannot engage in partisan political activity.  This amendment was revisited in 1987, and then again upheld in 2000 by a District of Columbia District Court Judge who upheld the IRS’s revocation of the 501(c)(3) status from Branch Ministries, Inc. that had publicly opposed Bill Clinton in his 1992 presidential campaign.

If Pastor Williams is interested in preserving tradition, why disregard 56 years of legal precedent and 374 years of Roger William’s legacy?  I defend Pastor Williams’ right to speak his mind whether or not I share the same opinion—I cannot, however, allow him to distort the legacy of religious freedom in the United States of America.  If Williams wishes to engage in more political discourse from his pulpit, I invite him to relinquish the tax-exempt status guaranteed to all 501(c)(3) organizations and do it in peace.

As Interfaith Alliance President and Baptist Minister, Rev. Welton Gaddy has said:

“If a sectarian entity feels that compliance with civil rights laws or other government policies violates its rights or morals, that organization can exist without government money and continue its efforts to persuade others of its moral perspective and policy preferences.”

Share on Facebook

Last week I attended an event put on by the 20,000 Dialogues Initiative, a group which works to use film to facilitate a dialogue on Islam and the Muslim people. The event included a viewing of the film Cities of Light and a subsequent discussion of how to apply its content to current inter-religious concerns.  It drew participants from very diverse backgrounds.  My own small discussion group consisted of two Muslims, a Presbyterian Minister, a Jew, a woman who ascribes to all religions, and two people who considered themselves “unsure.”

I thought the event was a wonderful step towards fostering interfaith dialogue in America.  Cities of Light ended with the reminder that although the Abrahamic religions have diverged in history, at the heart of each one is the teaching to “treat thy neighbor as thyself.”

The film also highlighted the fact that world history has shown the greatest progress in times of tolerance and peace.  This remains an important lesson in today’s society.  As George Santayana once said, “those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

The next event in the series will be in late July and will follow the story of a West African prince captured and sold into American slavery. I would encourage any and all to check to see if there is a viewing in your area.  You can find information here (http://www.20000dialogues.org/films.aspx)

Praise for Cities of Light
“Called “fascinating” by the Wall Street Journal, this historical documentary utilizes feature-film style re-enactments to bring to life the 700 year long history of the European Islamic civilization of Muslim Spain.  It tells of the triumphs and shortcomings, achievements and ultimate failures of a centuries-long period when Muslims, Christians, and Jews inhabited the same far corner of Western Europe and built a society that lit the Dark Ages.”
The 20,000 Dialogues Initiative is funded by the Unity Productions Foundation.

Share on Facebook

Over the last several days the Senate Judiciary Committee held confirmation hearings on Solicitor General Elena Kagan, President Obama’s nominee to replace John Paul Stevens as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, only two senators took the time to ask Solicitor General Kagan about the crucially important issue of religious freedom.

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) asked Kagan about the tension between the Establishment and Free Exercises Clauses of the First Amendment. Kagan’s answers demonstrated her thorough understanding of the way these clauses can conflict with one another, and of the judicial tests (like the Lemon Test and the Endorsement Test) that can be used to resolve such conflicts. Senator Feinstein also asked about taxpayers’ ability to bring lawsuits (“standing”) challenging presidential programs like the faith-based initiative. Kagan explained the Court precedent allowing taxpayers to bring Establishment Clause suits against legislative branch action but not against executive branch action, but she could not say mush since the Court has agreed to take a case that will deal with this issue next term.

Later in the hearings Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD) followed up on this Q&A by asking Kagan about whether students should receive special protections under the Establishment Clause. Kagan’s answer showed that she understood the Coercion Test, which is usually applied by the courts in these cases, saying that this test is applied more easily to children, but that this is a very “contentious area in the law.”

While we are thankful for the questions asked by Senators Feinstein and Cardin, we had hoped that Solicitor General Kagan would be questioned about religious freedom more thoroughly than she was

Share on Facebook