Archive for the ‘public policy issues’ Category

« Older Entries

A Conversation on International LGBT Rights

Monday, June 21st, 2010

Recently, the Center for American Progress held a fantastic event entitled The Global Fight for LGBT Rights, about trends and developments around the world and particularly in Uganda—many of which are, unfortunately grim with the criminalization of and attempts to execute people who are LGBT in many nation.  The event brought together Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire and Bishop Christopher Senyonjo of Uganda for an hour-long, moving, inspiring conversation.  Video of the event in full is available online and I cannot recommend watching it more highly, but keep reading for one particular point which stood out to me.

Bishop Robinson asked whether the United States’ (and other nations’) involvement in trying to stop Ugandan legislation that would put LGBT people to death is interference or if it is helpful.  In response, Bishop Senyonjo expressed gratitude for those who have spoken out around the world and asked an important question: why is it that everyone in the world can help when there is an earthquake in Haiti or China, but if there are human rights abuses, or even genocide, people say “oh it’s a domestic issue, we can’t interfere?”

Posted in public policy issues | No Comments »

Religious Freedom in Prison

Monday, June 14th, 2010

I recently read an article about British prisoners who converted to Islam in order to receive protection from powerful Muslim gangs within the prison system. This reminded me of a panel that I attended at my college last year about the role that religion plays in prisons. The panelists—a priest, a pastor, and an imam who worked in the local prison system—explained that prisoners sometimes had opportunistic motives behind conversion. Prisoners of a specific faith are given certain privileges on their religious holidays, for example, and some prisoners converted from religion to religion in order to receive these perks (although the prison system, attempting to stymie this behavior, has changed its rules so that prisoners can now convert only once every two years). However, the panelists also pointed out that other prisoners have, throughout their incarceration, been brought new awareness of religion. They spoke of the discipline and sense of human dignity that religion gave to incarcerated persons. Malcolm X, for example, famously converted to the Nation of Islam while in prison, saying that “In the hectic pace of the world today, there is no time for meditation, or for deep thought. A prisoner has time that he can put to good use…If he’s motivated, in prison he can change his life” (The Autobiography of Malcolm X, with Alex Haley).

Prisoners are, in theory, entitled to the same religious protections that any other United States citizen is entitled to. At a recent Interfaith Alliance event, Rabbi Israel Drazin pointed out that in prison, unlike in the military, compelling state interest is the only reason for prohibiting an individual’s religious practices. However, there are often restrictions placed upon prisoners’ ability to worship for security reasons. Sometimes prisoners are proselytized to, or pressured into conversion in order to receive superior counseling or vocational services. And now some British prisoners convert to Islam out of fear, or because of intimidation.

Policymakers, as well as those in charge of individual prison facilities, should work to ensure that prisoners’ religious liberty is not violated. Prisoners have very few freedoms; their freedom of religion is one that should remain intact.

Posted in public policy issues | No Comments »

Pray Diem: National Day of Prayer Found Unconstitutional

Friday, April 16th, 2010

Yesterday, federal district court struck down the National Day of Prayer as unconstitutional.  The opinion authored by Judge Barbara Crabb is a thoughtfully written, thorough explanation of the  many reasons why a congressionally-implemented, presidentially-proclaimed day of prayer violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Judge Crabb was also clear that her decision should not in any way minimize the value that prayer can have for many people, simply that the separation of religion and government is best for both parties—a fact often noted by Interfaith Alliance President Rev. Welton Gaddy. In her conclusion, Judge Crabb said:

“I understand that many may disagree with that conclusion and some may even view it as a criticism of prayer or those who pray. That is unfortunate. A determination that the government may not endorse a religious message is not a determination that the message itself is harmful, unimportant or undeserving of dissemination. Rather, it is part of the effort to ‘carry out the Founders’ plan of preserving religious liberty to the fullest extent possible in a pluralistic society.’”

While this ruling won’t stop this year’s National Day of Prayer because the Administration will likely appeal and the injunction doesn’t go into effect until the appeals process is complete, I sincerely hope that Judge Crabb’s ruling will be upheld.

Posted in Daily News, First Amendment, public policy issues | No Comments »

Something is Rotten in the State of Texas

Thursday, March 11th, 2010

You just can’t make this stuff up.  Today, the Texas State Board of Education voted on a variety of amendments to the state social studies and U.S. government curricula.  Get ready to be appalled at the outcomes.  As reported by the Texas Freedom Network, the Board voted to

1)      remove Thomas Jefferson from world history curriculum on the impact of Enlightenment thinkers

2)      include discussion of the right to bear arms in curriculum on First Amendment rights and free expression

3)      strike down an amendment that would have required students to “examine the reasons the Founding Fathers protected religious freedom in America by barring government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion over all others.”

What is most unbelievable and emblematic of the Board’s far-right majority’s (lack of) understanding of the separation between religion and government in America is the third item in this litany of woes.  According to Cynthia Dunbar (one of the more prominent conservatives on the Board), the separation of religion and government wasn’t actually the Founders’ intent— they wanted to promote religion.  Therefore, said Dunbar, the proposed amendment was “not historically accurate.”

While (luckily), Thomas Jefferson isn’t out of Texas education curricula as a whole, there is no doubt that he is one of the preeminent American scholars of the Enlightenment era and it is a shame students will not learn that.  Also, last time I checked, the right to bear arms had its own section of the Bill of Rights, you know, the Second Amendment.

What’s more unfortunate is that such a narrow minded group of individuals have such power over what children learn across the country, that these are “guidelines that will affect students around the country, from kindergarten to 12th grade, for the next 10 years.”  Why? Because the state of Texas buys or distributes “a staggering 48 million textbooks annually,” which leads “educational publishers to tailor their products to fit the standards dictated by the Lone Star State.”

To quote our friends at the Texas Freedom Network: “Let the word go out here: The Texas State Board of Education today refused to require that students learn that the Constitution prevents the U.S. government from promoting one religion over all others. They voted to lie to students by omission.”

Posted in First Amendment, public policy issues | 4 Comments »

Citizens worry that separation of religion and government is for show

Wednesday, February 3rd, 2010

When I read the headline “Religious leaders worry that Obama’s faith council is for show” in The Washington Post this morning, I imagined the story might have something to do with how concerned people are that the faith council may not be able to convince Josh DuBois to rein in the activities of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Partnerships, an office with both a title and an agenda tweaked only slightly from the disastrous Bush Administration office of similar name.

Upon reading the full text, however, I discovered that the article’s focus was, instead, on those who think the faith-based partnership isn’t doing enough to entwine our domestic agenda and our country’s religious organizations.

Apparently, “critics” are concerned about the fact that the council hasn’t been allowed to weigh in on issues like religious hiring and abortion. They’d really like the council to be able to tackle those, because they want religious organizations that receive federal funding to be able to turn away job applicants on the basis of their religious beliefs, and because they want to influence the president’s reproductive health agenda with their religious views on abortion.

That’s all well and good, but the article all but skipped over the other half of the “critics,” whose concern stems from a very different point of view.

Faith plays a very important role in our country and is a large part of the diversity that makes us so unique, but it often plays a disproportionate role in public debate. People of faith have every right to speak out on the issues that are important to them, but a line is crossed when we put religious concerns about political issues before all else.

It may be impolitic to say so, but my concern with the role of faith in the Obama Administration is not whether or not faith leaders are being listened to. It’s the fact that the faith-based office is still operating under the rules of the Bush Administration, which are deeply flawed and of questionable constitutionality. We all need to keep in mind that, since the government accepts taxes from and represents every person in the country, whatever their beliefs, it is not free to create policies or pass laws that favor any one, or several, belief system or systems. That would be the establishment of religion, prohibited by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Which, guess what?, exists to protect religion as much as it does the government.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in First Amendment, faith based initiative, public policy issues | 4 Comments »

In Iowa: Recognizing the merits of change, protect the rights of others

Monday, February 1st, 2010

January 31, 2010 Des Moines Register:

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20100131/OPINION01/1310317/1035/arc

Guest column by CONNIE RYAN TERRELL-executive director of the Interfaith Alliance of Iowa. Contact: connie@interfaithallianceiowa.org

In any public conversation, that which defines us is the manner in which we debate. Do we do so with integrity and civility, or not? The Jan. 24 guest essay in the Register by Bryan English argued that Iowans have a right to vote to allow or to ban same-sex marriage. However, English’s article distorted important facts.

Regardless of the religious right’s attempts to rewrite history, marriage has always been an organic, ever-changing institution. Even Biblical literalists must acknowledge that marriage has changed throughout history as humanity and our critical-thinking skills evolved. What marriage looked like in Old Testament times is a far cry from marriage today.

One cannot honestly argue that “traditional marriage” is the only form of marriage ever to exist. Historically, women were, and in some countries still are, treated as property with no rights. In our country, interracial marriage was forbidden only a few short decades ago. The institution of marriage changed due to the pressure from those who understood a more progressive future. The government then interrupted the socially accepted norms by changing the laws. Thankfully, our society understands the value of change.

What role should religion play in this discussion? Let’s be clear. The public debate on same-sex marriage is about civil marriage, not sacred marriage. Those who argue against civil marriage equality do so solely from their particular religious perspective. They have a right to their religious belief, they just cannot write it into our civil law. Thankfully, the U.S. and Iowa Constitutions are very clear on this point.

History proves that differences in civil law and religious beliefs can cohabitate. For example, there are faith traditions that disagree with civil laws that sanction divorce. Our state and U.S. Constitutions protect the rights of religious institutions to handle divorce according to their beliefs. However, civil law stands as the law of the land. Religious liberty is our most precious freedom. If we can agree on nothing else, let us at least agree to protect faith and freedom in our state and country.

Those who publicly rally against same-sex marriage most often speak from their faith, usually as Christians. They typically assert that their faith speaks with one voice on the subject, and those who disagree are not true believers. It is an arrogant assertion. People of faith span the full spectrum of beliefs on this and many other social issues. Whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Unitarian Universalist, Sikh, or any other, there is no unanimous understanding in any faith. We see things through the lenses of our life’s experience and we interpret from that.

Regardless, the differences between people of faith are secondary in the discussion on civil marriage. This is a societal conversation about access to civil rights and responsibilities. Do we as a society believe all people have equal protection under the law? Or, do we as a society believe in an institutionalized class system defining the haves and the have-nots?

Years ago, the Iowa Legislature passed a marriage law that clearly disregarded the Iowa Constitution’s equal protection clause. The Iowa Supreme Court used its rightful powers to dismantle that unconstitutional law. The religious right disingenuously asserts the Supreme Court overstepped its authority. Their current tactic is to contend that elected officials are blocking the public’s right to vote.

Since when has Iowa ever placed the rights of others on the public chopping block?

When have we ever dissolved the rights of a group of people by adding discrimination to our Constitution?

As the public discussion continues on civil marriage equality, let us do so with integrity and civility. Scare tactics, distorting history and perpetuating myths never serve the public’s best interest. This can only be ensured when the rights of all are equally protected by our government and by each of us.

Tags: ,
Posted in In the Field, Uncategorized, public policy issues | 1 Comment »

Rev. Gaddy talks to Dan Gilgoff About the White House Faith-Based Office

Thursday, June 11th, 2009

Dan Gilgoff of U.S. News & World Report, and a frequent guest on State of Belief, has posted an interview with Rev. Gaddy about the White House office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships entitled Critic of White House Faith-Based Office Joins Task Force on Reforming It. Rev. Gaddy says in the inteview that:

I have thought all along it would be best not to have such an office, and I still have that opinion. But if there’s going to be an office, I want to do everything I can to see that it is constitutional in nature and that it operates both legally and in the spirit of protecting the First Amendment’s historic separation between religious institutions and government institutions.

Posted in First Amendment, faith based initiative, public policy issues | 1 Comment »

Update on faith-based initiative

Thursday, April 9th, 2009

This week, the White House announced the final names of members of the President’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, which oversees the faith-based initiative begun by the previous administration. Here is the full list (the asterisks mark the new appointments announced this week):

Diane Baillargeon, President & CEO, Seedco
New York , NY

*Anju Bhargava, Founder, Asian Indian Women of America
New Jersey

*Bishop Charles Blake, Presiding Bishop, Church of God in Christ
Los Angeles, CA

Noel Castellanos, CEO, Christian Community Development Association
Chicago, IL

*The Rev. Peg Chemberlin, President-Elect, National Council of Churches USA
Minneapolis, MN

Dr. Arturo Chavez, President & CEO, Mexican American Catholic College
San Antonio , TX

Fred Davie, Senior Adviser, Public/Private Ventures
New York , NY

*Nathan Diament, Director of Public Policy, Orthodox Jewish Union
Washington, DC

Pastor Joel C. Hunter, Senior Pastor, Northland, a Church Distributed
Longwood, FL

*Harry Knox, Director, Religion and Faith Program, Human Rights Campaign
Washington, DC

Bishop Vashti M. McKenzie, Presiding Bishop, 13th Episcopal District, African Methodist Episcopal Church
Knoxville, TN

*Dalia Mogahed, Executive Director, Gallup Center for Muslim Studies
Washington, DC

Rev. Otis Moss, Jr., Pastor emeritus, Olivet Institutional Baptist Church
Cleveland, OH

Dr. Frank S. Page, President emeritus, Southern Baptist Convention
Taylors, SC

Eboo S. Patel, Founder & Executive Director, Interfaith Youth Core
Chicago, IL

*Anthony Picarello, General Counsel , United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
Washington, DC

*Nancy Ratzan, Board Chair, National Council of Jewish Women
Miami, FL

Melissa Rogers, Director, Wake Forest School of Divinity Center for Religion and Public Affairs
Winston-Salem , NC

Rabbi David N. Saperstein, Director & Counsel, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism
Washington , DC

Dr. William J. Shaw, President, National Baptist Convention, USA
Philadelphia , PA

Father Larry J. Snyder, President, Catholic Charities USA
Alexandria , VA

Richard Stearns, President, World Vision
Bellevue , WA

Judith N. Vredenburgh, President and Chief Executive Officer, Big Brothers / Big Sisters of America
Philadelphia , PA

Rev. Jim Wallis, President & Executive Director, Sojourners
Washington , DC

*Dr. Sharon Watkins, General Minister and President, Disciples of Christ (Christian Church)
Indianapolis, IN

Posted in public policy issues | 1 Comment »

Ask Welton

Thursday, February 26th, 2009

Where does Interfaith Alliance stand on the faith-based partnership? What are Interfaith Alliance’s legislative priorities for the 111th congress? These questions and others are answered on video by Interfaith Alliance President Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy. We’ll be adding additional segments in the weeks and months ahead, so leave any comments you have, and if you have suggestions for topics you’d like to see covered, you can submit them using the link below!

How will the new president and congress impact the focus of Interfaith Alliance?

How will you go about protecting faith and freedom in the age of Obama?

Does President Obama’s faith-based partnership include enough safeguards?

What are Interfaith Alliance’s legislative priorities in the 111th Congress?

Submit your own topic for Welton here.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Welton, public policy issues | 1 Comment »

Sound science in the states

Friday, January 23rd, 2009

Despite the fact that the Scopes Monkey Trial took place over 80 years ago, the teaching of evolution in public schools is still a controversial topic these days.  And the outlook for sound science is not all that great.  In Mississippi, a state legislator introduced a bill that would require a disclaimer be placed in school textbooks about evolution.  The warning reads in part:

This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things. No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life’s origins should be considered a theory.

The disclaimer concludes: “Study hard and keep an open mind.”

This is pretty sad – this public official has so little understanding of how science works that thinks that scientists can only make conclusions based events they personally witnessed.  Think of the implications! If it snows today in Chicago, and I fly to Chicago tomorrow, I can’t conclude that it snowed in Chicago the day before because I wasn’t there to see the snow fall.  If we take this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, no one was present when God created the universe, so any statement in the book of Genesis “should be considered a theory.”

Mississippi could become the second state to print a textbook disclaimer on evolution – I suppose they want to “keep up with the Joneses” over in Alabama.

Fortunately, in nearby Texas science scored a victory this week.  There the State Board of Education voted to abandon a longtime state requirement that high school science teachers cover the “weaknesses of evolution.”  One socially conservative board member opposed the effort, arguing that teaching the weaknesses of evolution doesn’t mean “you’re supposed to teach creationism or intelligent design.”  Oh sure, then why else would you attempt to undermine evolution?  Just for kicks?  While we’re at it, let’s try to confuse impressionable students by telling them that 2+2 = 5.

It’s not true…but hey, keep an open mind!

Posted in public policy issues | No Comments »

« Older Entries

Listen Now