Posts Tagged ‘religious freedom’

Prop 8 Ruling Good for Religious Freedom

Thursday, August 5th, 2010

In yesterday’s landmark decision, Judge Vaughn Walker of California’s District Court struck down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional.  Unsurprisingly, there have been strong reactions from the religious community both in favor of and opposing the decision.  State of Belief host and Interfaith Alliance President Rev. Welton Gaddy welcomed the decision as a positive step for California, the nation as a whole, and religious freedom.  In his statement, Rev. Gaddy said:

“We are pleased to see that Judge Vaughn Walker was sensitive to the concerns of people of faith who oppose same-gender marriage on religious grounds but that he recognized, as do we, that their religious freedom will not be impacted by the legalization of same-gender marriage. America’s diverse religious landscape leaves room for a variety of theological perspectives on same-gender marriage; indeed, some faiths enthusiastically support it and others vehemently oppose it. Under this ruling, as with any constitutionally-based marriage equality law, no religion would ever be required to condone same-gender marriage, and no member of the clergy would ever be required to perform a wedding ceremony not in accordance with his or her religious beliefs.”

The separation between institutions of religion and government in America was not an accident, it was by design—for the good of both religion AND government.  Our First Amendment makes it constitutionally wrong to deny an individual certain rights because of a religion’s theology concerning what is moral, ethical, or correct.  Divorce is not recognized by the Catholic Church, but it is still the right of an American citizen to dissolve a marriage legally in the eyes of the state.   Judge Walker’s decision takes same-gender marriage out of the religious sphere and into the legal one; his judgment is grounded in law put in place to serve the best interests of this country.  His decision articulates that one couple’s same-gender marriage does not pose harm or threat to another person’s existence or religious beliefs, thus does not warrant its banning.

As I write this,  Rev. Gaddy is continuing our work on same-gender marriage as he is preparing to speak at the Salt Lake Sunstone Symposium for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints on the importance of shifting the conversation on LGBT equality from a place of “problem” to “solution,” from a scriptural argument to a religious freedom agreement.

For other reactions to Judge Walker’s decision, click here.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Students at Liberty find none

Wednesday, May 27th, 2009

James Madison must be exhausted. The poor guy just can’t catch a break – with all of the government interference in religion (the faith-based initiative-turned-partnership) and religious interference in politics (Propositions 8, 102 and 2), he’s probably been rolling over in his grave nonstop for years.

The latest offense against religious freedom is Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University deciding to kick its chapter of College Democrats off-campus, a decision they announced late last week.

Usually when you hear about a student organization getting kicked off-campus, it’s a Greek that’s had its charter revoked for hazing. At Liberty, it’s apparently the desire for two-sided political discourse that will get you asked to leave.

Liberty University, which shares the conservative Christian views of its founder, Jerry Falwell, didn’t approve the presence of any student group affiliated with the Democratic Party (although College Republicans has been a presence on campus for some time) until this past October, when they recognized a chapter of College Democrats. Recognition was granted on the condition that its members would support neither gay marriage nor abortion – two issues that are major no-nos at Liberty.

The students say they’ve held up their end of the bargain. Unfortunately, Liberty’s powers-that-be have decided that endorsing candidates – something the College Republicans also practice and is in the College Democrats’ constitution, which its president, Brian Diaz, says was approved by the university – who “clearly promoted abortion” violates their agreement, and have revoked their recognition of the student organization.

Legally, Liberty has done nothing wrong. They’re a private institution, and as such they can make whatever decisions they want about student organizations.

But (and let me just insert here that I would be making the same argument if this were a liberal college denying its students a College Republicans chapter) one of the purposes of a college education is to teach you to discuss things – important things, big things, change-the-world things – with your peers. Those who agree with you, and those who don’t. In the real world, your peers aren’t limited to far-right conservatives who vehemently oppose both a woman’s right to choose and the (future, I hope) right of any couple to be married by the government. In the real world, you have to learn how to express your opinion, your reasoning for believing as you do and your rationale for disagreeing with “the opposition” – and be civil about it. (Not to mention that in the ivory tower of academia, rational discourse and the exchange of ideas are supposed to be sacred.)

Liberty has a perfect right to do what they did – but choosing to do so shows their poor sportsmanship, small-mindedness and fear of anything beyond the extremely limited scope of their definition of the norm.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in First Amendment | 2 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 »

Religious Freedom Day 2009

Friday, January 16th, 2009

President Bush has declared today, January 16, 2009 as Religious Freedom Day.  Other presidents have done the same. However, it is an ironic act on the part of a president who leaves office with a dismal record on protecting and strengthening religious freedom. Consider President Bush’s faith-based initiative, opposition to comprehensive hate crimes legislation and treatment of Muslims following the events of September 11.  Why, this president has been known for using religious language to advance political agendas, further blurring the line between religion and government. Having said all of that, though, make no mistake about it, religious freedom – our first freedom – is well worth celebrating.

The date January 16th was chosen in commemoration of the signing of Jefferson’s Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, an act that Jefferson considered the major accomplishment of his life. The enactment clause of this historic document states:

That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

This document popularized and gave substance the concept of “separation of church and state.”

Unfortunately many members of the Religious Right continue attempts to hijack even an emphasis on religious freedom by distorting the promise of the constitution and suggesting that the meaning of religious freedom is freedom for our religion, not yours.

Among those who have joined the so called “Religious Freedom Day Coalition” are the Becket Fund and the Institute on Religion and Democracy, two organizations that consistently have sought to erase institutional boundaries between religion and government in an effort to impose their beliefs on all Americans.

My guess is that, for most Americans, January 16th will pass without a thought given to religious freedom, and that is unfortunate. Religious freedom, our first freedom, is essential to the integrity of religion and the vitality of democracy.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in First Amendment, Welton, faith based initiative | 1 Comment »

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 »

What would Lilith do?

Friday, September 12th, 2008

Last night, as I was watching ABC’s Charlie Gibson interview Gov. Sarah Palin and restraining myself from throwing anything too heavy at my T.V., I wondered just how dumb, exactly, the McCain campaign thinks the American people are.

Are we supposed to be fooled by Sarah Palin’s smile and average soccer (excuse me,  hockey) mom voice into believing that a McCain-Palin administration would actually respect the Constitution, despite the fact that one of the major reasons she was named his running mate was the fact that her positions on key issues make her a darling of the Religious Right, a group whose support McCain desperately needs to win?

(Just to be clear, the Obama campaign isn’t completely off the hook on this one, either – that “Committed Christian” flier made my blood boil, too.)

Should we ignore that she never actually answered Gibson’s question about whether or not she’s experienced enough for the job, or will feel comfortable as a player on the national stage?

Are we really supposed to not be outraged that in defending a political statement she made – in a church – in which she strongly suggested, intentionally or not, that she believes the war in Iraq is a holy war? And then not throw up our hands in complete disgust when she defended herself by comparing her not-so-eloquent, off-the-cuff words to Abraham Lincoln’s, one of the most thoughtful, meticulous orators in American history?

Regardless of what she intended with her comment about the troops (or the one about the construction of a natural gas pipeline across Alaska being God’s will), she made a political statement in a house of worship, to a group of graduating ministry students. Highly unethical behavior, at best, for an elected official who is supposed to not only keep religion and government separate in her own politics, but defend that separation for every citizen she represents.

Add in the fact that she apparently thinks her work in government is immaterial without religion, and I’m all but pulling my hair out at the thought of Palin remaining an elected official of any kind, let alone tackling the vice presidency. Take her statement that “I can do my job…but really all of that stuff doesn’t do any good if the people of Alaska’s heart isn’t right with God,” for example. Poor grammar aside, the implication that a state’s population “being right with God” is essential to its political institutions functioning properly is blasphemy against the Constitution. That’s not something I want anyone thinking while working in any part of the White House. (Too late, I know. But let’s try for a little 20/20 hindsight here, and not make that mistake again.)

While I’m here, I may as well cover all the bases in the ballgame of the Sarah Palin media circus: no, I am not sexist. I do not disdain my fellow women or think having a family means a woman should stay home. I think being a successful working mother is something to be proud of, and I hope I can do it myself in the future. And just for the record: I’m a liberal, as well as a woman, and I can hit eight out of ten clay birds with a .410. Nine out of ten with a .20 or a .28. Sarah Palin is not the only woman who knows her way around a gun, and the Republican Party does not have a monopoly on target shooting. I can only wish they’d stop talking about it as though it has anything to do with being a politician. Kind of like being Christian, or believing in a Judeo-Christian God.

From a feminist who loves her country and her religious freedom: Please, let’s show every candidate for public office that America is neither dumb nor asleep, and that we won’t accept any compromises to our First Amendment just so they can get the backing of the Religious Right.

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

Listen Now