Posts Tagged ‘Constitution’

USA and Saudi Arabia? Apples and Oranges.

Monday, July 26th, 2010

Discussions about plans to build an Islamic Community Center two blocks away from Ground Zero now include the voice of former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, who had this to say on the matter:

“There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia.”

I implore Gingrich, and those who share his belief, to remember that the United States of America and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia are two entirely different countries, governed by fundamentally different sets of laws and principles.  A comparison of the two countries in this context is like comparing apples to oranges, making it largely illogical to have equal expectations of both.  Stephen Prothero made a similar point on the CNN Belief Blog, as did Rabbi Brad Hirschfield on the Washington Post’s On Faith blog.  Hirschfield wrote:

“Gingrich’s claim…is [an] inane unless one [and] assumes two things: A, that we should now use Saudi Arabia as our benchmark for what is appropriate as far as freedom of religious expression, and unless they are as good as we are, we need not be as good as we have traditionally been. And B, that this is a Saudi project lead by people who could change the Saudi position on religious freedom but have failed to do so.”

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is just that — a kingdom, based in Shariah Law.  The national flag of Saudi Arabia includes the Shahada, the Muslim creed that states “There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His Messenger.”  Islam is the state-established religion; in fact, according to the CIA World Factbook, Saudi Arabia’s population is 100% Muslim.

In contrast, here in the United States of America, having an established national religion is against our constitution – as a result, we are the most religiously diverse country in the world. One of our founding principles is that the government cannot show preference for one religion over another or unfairly discriminate against one faith over another, or faith over no faith.

As an American citizen, and a citizen of the world, I expect a higher level of religious tolerance and acceptance from the United States than from Saudi Arabia.  The United States of America is responsible for upholding the values and judgments it has enshrined in its crowing jewel—the Constitution.

Our own Interfaith Alliance President, Rev. Welton Gaddy, addressed the Ground Zero community center debate in his own On Faith post:

“For years, public discourse…has called for a great moderate Muslim voice to counter extremism. Now, when such a voice is seeking to be heard in meaningful and helpful ways, it faces severe backlash and strong opposition – indicating a continued fear and ignorance of the Muslim faith, even at its most peaceful.”

Reverend Gaddy also recently interviewed Daisy Khan on his weekly radio show State of Belief.  Along with her husband, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, Kahn is one of the visionaries behind the community center. I leave you with her words on the matter:

“We always take comfort is knowing that Islam’s struggle in this country is the same as the struggles of those that came before us,’ she told me last week. ‘’It’s one of acceptance. America remains shining example of religious freedom and acceptance.”

Tags: , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Good Start, Now We Need Good Action

Wednesday, April 15th, 2009

The following is cross-posted from the Washington Post/Newsweek On Faith forum:

I am delighted to hear President Obama speaking to the Muslim world in a part of the Muslim world and not just speaking about the Muslim world.  The president’s message in Turkey was precisely the message appropriate for the President of the United States to deliver anywhere and everywhere.

Frankly, I find it disturbing, as well as a bit sad, that so many people feel it necessary to congratulate the president for understanding and speaking about basic concepts of religious freedom and pluralism. No president with a constitutional conscience should say less or more than President Obama said.  A majority of United States citizens claiming Christianity as their religion does not make the United States a Christian nation.  The Constitution reflects our people’s appreciation for religion while leaving no doubt that the government of the nation is secular in nature.  Subsequently, never should the United States government go to war against any religion or on behalf of any religion.  Any time the last option of war has to be chosen to resolve an international dilemma, the target of our nation’s military action should be a foreign government entity or rogue terrorists, not a religion.

The speech was brilliant.  Now it is time for action. Speaking is not doing; words are not actions.  The president has a civil and moral responsibility to see that this nation does not seek to promote or establish any one religion or religion itself and to assure that all citizens are beneficiaries of civil rights and liberties even if they are out of step with a popular, even majority, religious point of view among other citizens.

I applaud the president’s efforts to demonstrate to the international community his strong commitment to repairing relations with foreign governments generally and with the global Muslim community specifically.  But there is also work to be done here at home.  This work, too, will deliver an important message to the rest of the world.

Too many Muslims living in this country still feel like second class citizens. Too many non-Christians in this land continue to feel like our government favors one religion over another. I appeal to President Obama to find specific ways to make clear at home his commitment to religious pluralism and to religious freedom as promised by the Constitution.

No speech or act is as influential or transformational as are consistency and continuity between a person’s words and actions.  In that regard, President Obama is off to a good start.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in In the Field, Welton | No Comments »

Government-endorsed religion: 9, Equality: 0

Wednesday, February 25th, 2009

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously today that the sect of Summum can’t force Pleasant Grove City, Utah to add a religious monument of their own to a public park that already has one of the Ten Commandments in it.

The difference, according to the justices, is that the Ten Commandments have a connection to the history of the community. Such a blatant subordination of individual rights to the religious heritage of the majority is itself disconcerting, as is the notion that the government can adopt any religious monument as its own.

Justice Alito justified that sentiment by claiming that when government accepts such a gift, it is no longer individual expression, but rather government speech. The logic behind Alito’s argument is troubling on constitutional grounds: If Pleasant Grove City is claiming the Ten Commandments statue as its own speech, how is it not violating the Establishment Clause?

Although the case was argued on the grounds of free speech, not the separation of church and state, today’s ruling has clear (and dangerous) implications for the latter. It could also have a marked impact on Salazar v. Buono, a case out of California that will determine whether or not a large cross honoring fallen soldiers can remain on public lands, while a Buddhist shrine was not allowed to be built nearby.

Stay tuned, America.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

Public Schools + Religion = Success Story

Wednesday, February 4th, 2009

Religion is not only at the crux of electoral and international politics, its influence has also been on the rise in the past few decades. Naturally, the most religiously diverse nation in the history of humanity ensures that its students learn about this omnipresent force, right?

Wrong.

California’s Modesto school district is the only one in the country to require students to take a world religions course. Students are allowed to opt out of the 9th grade class, but in the eight years it has been offered, few have. Those that oppose the class on grounds of ‘constitutionality’ are failing to make an important distinction: there is a big difference between teaching religion and teaching about religion. Though it requires exceptional preparation and tact, the latter is both legal and imperative.

Numerous media reports have tracked the success of this course, with multiple studies noting that students gained “respect for religious liberty as well as for basic First Amendment rights.” Sounds good to me.

I find it more than a little ridiculous that a graduate of the K-12 American school system will have taken roughly 26 semesters of mathematics (with many courses in obscure disciplines like trigonometry) but not a single course on the world’s religions. As Americans, we come into contact with someone of a different faith on a fairly regular basis. Trigonometry, on the other hand…well, let’s just say I haven’t given sine or cosine a thought since my junior year of high school. After all, very few of us spend our days computing the relationship between the sides and angles of a triangle.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Daily News, First Amendment, In the Field | 3 Comments »

Private faith? What a concept!

Wednesday, November 19th, 2008

Way to go, Kathleen Parker! Today’s column, “Giving Up on God,” may be a little over-the-top even for Ms. Parker, but it made me laugh and nod my head in agreement, so I’m more than happy to pass it on.

“Simply put,” she says, “Armband religion is killing the Republican Party…. Which is to say, the GOP has surrendered its high ground to its lowest brows. In the process, the party has alienated its non-base constituents, including other people of faith (those who prefer a more private approach to worship), as well as secularists and conservative-leaning Democrats who otherwise might be tempted to cross the aisle.”

Exactly. I mean, does anyone who isn’t an evangelical Christian at ease with publicizing their faith really feel comfortable with evangelical Christian members or supporters of the GOP publicizing their faith at every opportunity? (And I’m sure the people who answered “No” to that include some evangelical Christians who prefer to keep their faith private.)

The Republican Party’s traditional base includes a large number of conservative Christians, which in the last thirty years has come to include the often reactionary organizations of the Religious Right, most of whom believe they should have significant influence on the party’s platform and candidates. (Case(s) in point: Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins and Focus on the Family’s James Dobson.)

Having large blocs of people with similar beliefs who vote together isn’t a bad thing – in fact, it’s one of the main ideas behind the democratic process. But having large blocs of people who think their common belief should be imposed by the government on everyone who doesn’t already agree with them is certainly not democracy, and is in fact the very antithesis of what the founders intended.

So, actually, is giving up on God. One of the many exciting things about being a citizen of the United States of America is that you’re actually commanded – by the First Amendment to the Constitution – to believe whatever you want. So don’t give up on God – or do – your choice. More to the point, don’t give up your beliefs whether they include one God, six gods or no gods at all.  Keep faith in the Constitution alive by continuing to adhere to your own personal faith – whatever it may be.

So let’s keep religion out of politics and the government out of houses of worship and see if we all can’t get along with just a little less tension than we’ve seen throughout this (very long and finally over!) election season.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in First Amendment | 7 Comments »

Cutting through the bull on Obama’s “Muslim” beliefs

Tuesday, October 14th, 2008

I generally turn CNN on in the evenings and then ignore it, but my ears perked up when I heard Campbell Brown, in the “Cutting Through the Bull” segment of “Campbell Brown: Election Center” last night, say, “So what if Obama was Arab or Muslim? So what if John McCain was Arab or Muslim? Would it matter?”

Like anyone who’s read Article VI of the Constitution, my answer was a resounding “No!” Apparently Brown is also up on her Constitution knowledge, because she seemed as frustrated as I am by the implicit religious test for public office being created by the reaction to this whisper campaign about Obama’s “secret Muslim identity.” And she made some spectacular points – take a look:

Brown is right: Obama is not Muslim – although millions of patriotic Americans are – but it shouldn’t matter. What should matter are his positions on the issues at stake, and that he’s an American. Everything else is just intolerance at best, and hatred-driven prejudice at worst.

Campbell Brown may be my newest hero.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Elections | No Comments »

Pulpit Politics Compromise Clergy for Campaigns

Monday, September 22nd, 2008

Last week, we wrote to Interfaith Alliance’s members about the Alliance Defense Fund’s (ADF) manipulative “Pulpit Initiative,”  a  project encouraging Christian pastors to preach a sermon on September 28th – this Sunday – “intended to challenge the Internal Revenue Code’s restrictions by specifically opposing candidates for office that do not align themselves and their positions with the Scriptural truth,” according to the ADF’s website.

Today, USA Today features a report that:

Four in 10 Americans believe that religious leaders should be permitted to endorse political candidates from the pulpit without risking their organization’s tax-exempt status, a new survey by the First Amendment Center shows. [...] The finding was based on a new question in the Washington-based center’s annual “State of the First Amendment” national survey. When asked to name specific rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, just 15% mentioned religion, the lowest percentage to recall that topic since 2000.

While the study shows most American’s don’t want clergy campaigning for their favorite political candidate, it also illustrates a growing disconnect in our thoughts about religion and the Constitution. What the ADF and the pastors who plan to participate don’t understand is that the IRS Code protects houses of worship from being turned into a political convention hall. Without that Code, money put into the collection plate on Sunday could be used to line politicians’ coffers on Monday, leaving our religious freedom in ruins.

To fight back against the ADF and encourage religious leaders around the country to speak about the issues of the day, not the candidates, Interfaith Alliance has launched its Clergy Pledge nationwide. We now have signatures from more than 175 clergy around the country who have taken action, vowing to keep partisanship out of houses of worship and to protect both religious freedom and the First Amendment.

You can help by sending our Clergy Pledge to the leader of your congregation. Together, we’ll unite diverse voices to challenge extremism and build common ground, during the election and beyond.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in First Amendment | 1 Comment »

Listen Now