Archive for the ‘The Lighter Side’ Category

Who thinks the Republicans have become a “religious party”?

Monday, April 20th, 2009

The race for the White House may have ended months ago, but the campaign is still reverberating. See for example this story from the Huffington Post about John McCain’s campaign manager:

Speaking publicly for one of the first times since the end of the presidential campaign, John McCain’s campaign manager Steve Schmidt painted a dire portrait of the state of the Republican Party, arguing that the GOP has largely been co-opted by its religious elements.

“If you put public policy issues to a religious test, you risk becoming a religious party,” Schmidt declared. “And in a free country, a political party cannot be viable in the long term if it is seen as a sectarian party.”

We agree. Sectarian parties (whether liberal or conservative in ideology) are harmful to the sanctity of religion and the integrity of government. And it’s refreshing to hear that some Republicans feel the same way.

But at the same time, I can’t help but notice that Mr. Schmidt used religion as a campaign tactic, much like past political campaigns. Remember the campaign commercial called The One? But to be fair, President Obama’s campaign also used religion as a political tool as well. He printed campaign brochure describing himself as a Committed Christian, as if that were a constitutional requirement for someone running for the White House.

There is plenty of blame to go around. I just hope that the next campaign that Steve Schmidt works on he makes a genuine commitment to changing the way religion is used (or abused) in the political process. But we can’t change the political process without frank admissions of uncomfortable truths such as what Schmidt just said. This is a great first step.

Concerning presidents and privacy

Monday, April 13th, 2009

After getting up very early yesterday for Easter services, I was a little groggy on my Metro ride into work today. As I flipped through my Washington Post, I found this headline in the Metro Section:

For Easter, Obamas Pick A Safe Bet

That’s right, the Obama family went to St. John’s Episcopal Church (located across the street from the White House) for services yesterday. It’s a sad reflection on American society that even a president’s choice of a church should be calculated in terms of political risk, but President Obama made his faith an issue during the campaign, a tactic we at the Interfaith Alliance warned against. So I don’t disparage the Washington Post for writing this story. For better or worse, it has some news value.

Where I do take issue with the Washington Post was covering one detail of the Obama’s visit to St. John’s:

All four family members took communion at the Episcopal church yesterday.

I have a number of problems with this revelation.

  1. It is irrelevant information for the public because it has no bearing over the president’s ability to do his job.
  2. It makes the Washington Post look more like People Magazine when they report on what food Angelina Jolie orders at a L.A. restaurant.
  3. It is a violation of privacy for the Obama family.

Look I know presidents and their families have to sacrifice some privacy in order to live at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. It comes with the territory. But the decision to take communion is a very personal choice. I know first-hand: I have helped serve communion at a local church for the past five years. Many of the people I served were taking communion for the very first time. In the Christian tradition, this is one the most important sacraments that Christians partake in to feel more connected with God. So I asked myself how I would feel if my communion habits were printed in the Washington Post. I would be outraged.

Look, I realize that communion has been used as a political weapon in the past. I understand why the Washington Post printed that detail – the president’s religion is a political issue. I am merely arguing that the private religious expression of the president and his family ought not to be a political issue. If the Post had not printed the communion choices made by the First Family, they still would be able to cover the story fully, but still leave the Obamas a modicum of privacy. That would have been a better outcome.

Easter and the Religious Right

Wednesday, April 8th, 2009

Have you ever wondered where the term Easter comes from? I’m a Christian, and I honestly did not know. It comes from a Anglo-Saxon goddess called Eostra with roots going all the way back possibly to Bablyonia and ancient Egypt. Eostra is a pagan goddess of fertility whose festival is to be celebrated near the vernal equinox. Hence the Easter eggs. Eostra is also the “dawn goddess” which may explain why many Christian Easter services begin at sunrise. Legend has it Eostra turned a bird into a rabbit, and voila – the Easter bunny.

These facts are interesting cultural and historical footnotes for this time of year. But to the Religious Right, they portend of the coming of the anti-Christ. Richard Reves over at the far-right website WorldNetDaily writes: “Easter has nothing to do with Jesus and everything to do with pagan abominations condemned by the Bible.” He concludes: “Theologians are well aware of the pagan nature of Easter. So are modern day anti-Christs. Non-biblical aspects of traditional Christianity are now being legitimately challenged by those who would turn us away from Christ, and many are falling for their deception.”

So now there is a War on Easter (a la the War on Christmas)? This is just ridiculous. Pagans did not co-opt Easter away from Christians. Christians co-opted Easter away from the pagans.

And it is the Religious Right who have attempted to secularize Christianity in order get more Christian symbols and text to be publicly displayed. Many Religious Right organizations told the Supreme Court that the Ten Commandments could be constitutionally displayed on public land because of the secular meaning behind that religious text. By making this argument, the Religious Right was actually attempting to strip the Ten Commandments of their religious meaning. And the Supreme Court bought that argument, but Justice Antonin Scalia called it a “Pyrrhic victory.”

Now the Religious Right is complaining about the non-Christian influences of Easter. That is a little ironic.

Time Well Spent

Wednesday, April 8th, 2009

No matter how much I dislike them, sometimes clichés just say it best. For example, time really does fly: today is my last day as an intern for (the) Interfaith Alliance. I started interning here at the Washington, DC headquarters back in September, and the experience has been as encouraging as it has been eye-opening.

I arrived in the midst of the 2008 campaign cycle and got a firsthand view of the religion-related shenanigans that ensued: Sarah Palin’s proclamations, FOX News’ ‘Obama the Muslim’ accusations, Elizabeth Dole’s “Godless” attack ad and all the other examples of the unholy alliance of religion and politics. But through it all, I was encouraged by the actions and comments of Interfaith Alliance members and supporters, a well-informed, motivated national network of Americans who understand the risk of the growing entanglement of religion and government. They responded to the challenge and, as an organization, we were able to effectively shed light on the many sins of the campaign season.

During the past seven months I have also had the honor of sitting in on meetings with foreign delegations interested in the American approach to religious liberty. These State Department-sponsored groups from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Thailand, Azerbaijan and Iraq included educators, religious leaders, scholars and community leaders who visited the Interfaith Alliance to meet with our National Field Director and learn how issues of faith and freedom are handled in America. Their questions and perspectives were quite insightful, and I left each meeting struck by how much I took for granted my personal liberties as an American. 

Looking back at my time as an intern here, I certainly learned a lot. I know my time spent here will serve me well in the future, particularly next year. I will be spending the year studying political science, religion and international relations in Marseille. I’m especially curious about the stringent French system of secularism called laïcité and how French society handles issues of religious pluralism vis-à-vis the American approach.

Dunkin’ Donuts disappoints

Friday, April 3rd, 2009

First off, it’s a sad day when you have to read the Manchester Guardian in the UK to find out what is happening to religious liberty in the U.S. The Guardian reports:

An Arab-American owner of a Chicago-area Dunkin’ Donuts store has to give up his franchise after he lost his long-running legal battle with the restaurant chain over his religious objections to selling pork products.

The dietary restrictions of Elkhatib’s Muslim faith forbid him from eating or handling pork. When he decided to go into the restaurant business, his faith was one of the reasons he invested in Dunkin’ Donuts in 1979. The chain did not introduce breakfast sandwiches until 1984.

For nearly 20 years, Dunkin’ Donuts accommodated his religious beliefs, even providing him signs for his store that said, “No meat products available,” Elkhatib asserted in court documents. But in 2002, the company reversed course and told him it would not renew his franchise agreement if he did not sell its full line of products.

It’s too bad that Dunkin’ Donuts would rather drive a business owner away rather than continue a reasonable accommodation of American religious diversity. There is a bit of good news, though:

Elkhatib’s lawyer, Robert Habib, said his client will end his association with Dunkin’ Donuts, but he has a 10-year lease on the property and owns the equipment.

Hopefully folks in the Chicago area will still be able to pick up a tasty breakfast treat.

Obama’s New Church

Friday, January 30th, 2009

As always, the Daily Show’s coverage of religion and politics is outstanding. In case you missed it from Wednesday’s episode, here is the video of the decisions facing President Obama about where to attend church.

President Obama’s First Official Interview

Tuesday, January 27th, 2009

After climbing onto an elliptical at the gym this morning and tuning the TV to CNN, I did a double-take: why was there a video of President Obama with headlines in Arabic where the CNN Morning News team should be? Once I put in my headphones, I realized it was a transmission of President Obama’s Monday night conversation with Al-Arabiya – his first sit-down interview with a news agency since taking office.

I have to say, I’m pretty pleased: my president used his first official interview to offer the potential for peace and friendship between the United States and the “Muslim world,” and to highlight some of the similarities that exist between the U.S. and Arab nations – particularly the universal hope of parents that their children’s lives will be better than their own.

Watch the interview for yourself below, or read the International Herald Tribune’s summary.

My favorite quote? “[T]he language we use matters. We cannot paint with a broad brush a faith as a consequence of the violence that is done in that faith’s name.” Indeed, Mr. President, one sect’s actions are not necessarily supported by the religion as a whole. We need to strike a careful balance between dealing with one and dealing with the other, and it looks like you’re on your way to doing just that!

Headline of the Day

Tuesday, September 9th, 2008

Goes to the Associated Press for this story: “Group dangles $50K for Jews who move to Ala. town“  Don’t adjust your computer monitors, you read that correctly.

Larry Blumberg is looking for a few good Jews to move to his corner of the Bible Belt. Blumberg is chairman of an organization offering Jewish families as much as $50,000 to relocate to Dothan, an overwhelmingly Christian town of 58,000 that calls itself the Peanut Capital of the World. Get involved at Temple Emanu-El and stay at least five years, the group’s leaders say, and the money doesn’t have to be repaid.

Wow – talk about promoting religious diversity. It looks like Larry Blumberg is willing to put his money where his mouth is.

I sympathize with Temple Emanu-El, their membership is declining.  I’ve read stories about churches recruiting new congregants by offering $10 to attend a service, but this is a much larger scale investment.

What do you think of this idea?  Would you ever consider moving to a new part of the country if your house of worship made a similar offer?  Leave us a comment.

Are you ready for some football?

Thursday, September 4th, 2008

Tonight marks the beginning of the football regular season, when my beloved Washington Redskins will lose in an embarrassing fashion to the New York Giants.  Why am I mentioning this?  Because the start of the football season gives me an excuse to post this picture:

The Dreaded 666

Wednesday, July 30th, 2008

Howard Friedman, who writes the excellent blog Religion Clause, brings us this bizarre story. A divorced dad has refused to pay his child support through his state’s Central Child Support Receipting Unit. He would rather pay the money directly to his wife because this processing unit violates his First Amendment rights.

What does child support have to do with religious freedom? Well, each state’s Central Child Support Receipting Unit is established under a federal statute codified at 42 USC Sec. 666. That’s right – he believes his payment would be processed by a “Satanic entity.”

He brought a case before the Tennessee Court of Appeals which rejected his claim. As Professor Friedman writes:

He argued that he would pay directly to his former wife, or to the court, but that because the central state agency was set up under a federal statute codified at 42 USC Sec. 666, payment through that entity would involve him in transmitting funds to a “Satanic entity” in violation of his religious beliefs.

The court, however, held that the state’s statute is uniformly applicable and facially neutral as to religion. Therefore it is valid so long as it reasonably promotes a legitimate public purpose. The court found that standard to be satisfied.

The decision was unanimous. In fact, I am surprised that it was even heard by an appellate court. Religious beliefs should be treated with respect, but as a legal argument, this case is pretty frivolous. Even a little funny.

Listen Now