Using religion for political purposes? ... Surely Not!

One of the sites I consult on a regular basis is Religious Dispatches, which can be found at www.religiousdispatches.org. In addition to links to news items related to religion, the site has great writers who provide different perspectives on religious related issues.

This week, a Baptist minister from Missouri wrote an essay, which can be found at http://religiondispatches.org/Gui/Content.aspx?Page=AR&Id=170, about the efforts of Missouri legislator to introduce an amendment to the Missouri State Constitution explaining that children have the right to pray in school and to read the Bible on the schoolbus. Now, this might be a really important issue, except for the fact that all citizens of the United States, even schoolchildren, already have those rights as guaranteed in the First Amendment.

I know, I know. Most folks think that, according to the US Supreme Court, school prayer has been outlawed. That is only partially accurate. In simple terms, what the Supreme Court ruled as unconstitutional was prayer led by or instituted by a school official or the school system. Part of the reasoning behind it being that having an officially sanctioned and mandated prayer placed undue pressure on a schoolchild to conform to one particular religion. That does not, however, take away the right of any child in school to pray.

Granted, some school officials over-react when they see a child engaging in private religious activity and forbids it. Typically, an incident like that makes the news, and various 'talking heads' proclaim how horrible this is and blah, blah, blah. What is needed, though, is not a Constitutional Amendment. All it would take is an enlightened training program for school administrators and teachers.

What Brian Kaylor points out is the apparent political machinations of the proponents of the bill. They are forcing it to be on the ballot in November, after defeating a move to have it on a ballot in August. Evidently, these politicians want to point at those who oppose the amendment as being against prayer or against religion. It plays better at the polls that way.

I have already commented on this site about my fervent belief in the concept of the separation of church and state. I believe that attempts to use religious practices as a way to influence voters in a partisan way is unconscionable and reinforces my belief.

What do you think?

Religion and Law, 2nd Round

The other on-going story related to religion and law is the news from Texas. This story seems to be much more at the forefront of the news coverage, perhaps with good reason. It has all of the elements to hold our attention - hundreds of children and women have been taken away from the compound, charges of child abuse have been made, and the overwhelming silence on the part of those who were forced to leave adds to the mystery.

A fundamentalist off-shoot of the Latter Day Saints that believes polygamous marriage is God-ordained had purchased and inhabited a sprawling ranch compound on the outskirts of El Dorado Texas. This Texas group, is reported to have ties with Warren Jeffs, the convicted leader of another such group in Arizona. According to officials in the area, someone from the compound, believed to be a minor female, called local law enforcement and indicated that she had been forced into a 'marital relationship' against her will.

It is important for me to underscore that the official Latter Day Saints, think Salt Lake City and probably a group down the street from you, condemns such polygamous churches. While it is true that Joseph Smith proclaimed that God had revealed the principle of a man having more than one wife and that Brigham Young had many, many wives, the official teaching of the LDS church now condemns the practice and will excommunicate anyone who practices it.

In fact, it was this condemnation of polygamy by the LDS church that many of these groups cite as their justification to continue the practice. These groups say that God ordained it, and no human law could, or should, take precedence over divine fiat.

And that is the issue. When devoutly religious people believe that God has commanded something - the end to abortions, the teaching of the 'true story' of the beginnings of the universe, the inclusion of Bible readings (from Christian scriptures) and prayers (from a Christian perspective) in public schools, the posting of the 10 Commandments in courtrooms and schoolrooms, the use of hallucinogenic drugs in worship services, the sacrifice of live animals in church, having more than one wife, depending on prayer alone for physical healing, or whatever the issue is - they want to know what right any governmental authority has in thwarting their desires.

How would you answer them? How do we, as a nation, decide what religious principles are accommodated and what are prohibited?

What Takes Precedence - Religion or Law?

The story is one of those tragic ones that come to the public awareness from time to time. The beginning of the last act of this particular drama took place in a courtroom in Oregon last Monday. On that day, Carl and Raylene Worthington walked into court and declared that they were not guilty of manslaughter and criminal mistreatemnt in the death of their 15 month old daughter.

This story, as with most, had its beginnings long ago. In the early part of the 20th century, a new church group was founded in Chanute, Kansas. This group, the Followers of Christ Church, emerged out of the Pentecostal movement and believes only in divine healing. That means, when sickness comes to one of their members, they believe in the scriptural admonition to anoint the person with oil and to pray for them, without seeking medical care from a doctor. Over the course of time, the church moved west, and many settled in Oregon. Since the 1950's, it is alleged that many children of church members have died of treatable conditions. In 1999, Oregon became one of the few states to enact legislation that would hold a parent accountable in the death of a child who might have been saved with medical treatment.

That brings the Worthingtons into the narrative. Their daughter died at home on March 2 from bacterial bronchial pneumonia and a blood infection. The young girl also had a benign cyst on her neck that further compromised her breathing. According to the Deputy Medical Examiner, the medical conditions could have been treated. So, under the 1999 Oregon law, they were charged.

This case raises a host of issues - both legal and theological.

Theologically, how do you evaluate a church that believes so strongly in the power of God to heal and interprets scripture so literally that they view utilizing medical professionals as a sin worthy of excommunication? Do they have the right to their spiritual convictions even when those principles affect minor children?

Legally, should parents be exempt from any criminal prosecution when they refuse competent medical treatment for their children due to religious convictions? Should a state or national government stop such behavior, by any and every means available to it?

This church, of course, is not the only one to take such a stand. This is merely the latest incident in a long line of such situations.

It is easy for me to condemn the parents of this girl. I know what I went through every time my sons were ill, and what I was willing to do to bring them back to health. I have to believe that the Worthingtons honestly and fervently did what they thought was the right thing to do and desperately hoped that God would heal their daughter. I cannot imagine what they experienced when their daughter took her last breath.

That raises the question. Should the law take precedence over someone's religious beliefs in every case or any case at all? Should one's religious convictions trump any law, even if it means putting a child in danger? Do we want to live in a world where religious principles can contribute or cause the death of a child or anyone else? Do we want to live in country where the government can, by fiat, invalidate religious beliefs?