The Corner of Church and State

This is something of a milestone for me, albeit a little one. This is my 20th posting. I realize this is an inconsequential number compared to folks who have been at this for a year or two or more, but I am pleased at reaching 20.

As I have looked back at my postings, I realize that I seem to feature religious themes. I had hoped that I would have more variety, but I am not surprised at my focus. After all, I have been engaged in theological training or professional church ministry for 30 years now. And, that does not count the years when I was an avid volunteer. The other thing that seems to be driving my choice of material is the political process, which is just dripping with religious themes and quotes.

I want to share three things that have to do with church-state issues. I am an ardent believer in the separation of church and state. Part of this is because of my study and part because of my religious background. Growing up as a Baptist, I was raised to cherish this principle. I know that many Baptists seem to be drifting away from it, but, even though I am no longer a Baptist, I hold the principle dear.

If you have any interest in reading about such issues, let me recommend three websites to you: 1) the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty (http://www.bjcpa.org/); 2) the Inter-Faith Alliance site (http://www.interfaithalliance.org/); and 3) The Americans United site ( http://www.au.org/). Now, on to the fun.

********************
In December 2007, House Resolution 847 was introduced, moved through committee, and was adopted by the House on a vote of 372-9. The title of Resolution is "Recognizing the Importance of Christmas and the Christian Faith." Let me encourage you to "google" hres 847 to see the full text of it. It is much too long to include here. Essentially, the resolution says that Christianity is an important religion, that there are a lot of Christians in the US, that Christmas is important to Christians, that Christians were important to the US and western civilizations; and that there is a lot of respect for American Christians and Christians world-wide.

Now, resolutions have no legal force, are not signed by the President, and are not sent to the other chamber for a vote. This resolution, in final form, is much better than its original incarnation. The authors had originally included an evangelistic message that was stricken from the final version. Once it got to the floor, I can understand why the House voted for it. A "No" vote would make great campaign ammunition. I can hear the ads now, "My worthy opponent voted against a resolution honoring Christmas and Christians. Vote for me." Nonetheless, I wonder why the House felt compelled to let this one through the process.

I know that there are more people in this country who say they are Christian than any other religious tradition. Yet, I have always thought our government was supposed to look out for the minority as well as the majority. Even though there may not be as many, there are Buddhists, Muslim, Jews, and Hindus in America, as well as people with no faith at all.

What does it say to them for this Congress to be on record respecting American Christians and Christians world-wide? Is the United States Congress going to pass resolutions respecting all other folks as well? Couldn't they have passed a resolution extolling the virtues of love and mercy that are prevalent during the Christmas season rather than singling out one religious tradition?
********************
One other resolution, this one is House Resolution 888. It was introduced in December, but has not come up for a vote yet. This resolution affirms "the rich spirtual and religious history of our Nation's founding and subsequent history and expressing support to designate the first week in May as 'American Religious History Week." If I counted correctly, there are 74 'whereas' statements, so, again, please use a search engine to find the text.

In addition to presenting many inaccurate or misleading statements in its 'whereas' section, I have a problem with the over-riding slant of the resolution. It purports to call attention to America's religious history, yet the examples given are all Christian oriented. Again, I know that many Christians, of one type or another and whether they would meet current defintions of being a Christian or not, have been influential in the development of our nation. Yet, if we are to honor the Religious History of America, should we not be honoring all of the richly woven tapestry of religions that have helped shape this country?
********************
I know that the media has been all over the latest gaffe from Mike Huckabee. Just in case, you have not read the statements, let me share the pertinent info.

On the campaign trail in Michigan, Huckabee said, in part, "What we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than trying to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family." On FOXNEWS, he clarified what he meant by saying that an amendment banning abortion and another banning same-sex marriage "are the two areas I'm talking about. I'm not suggesting that we rewrite the Constitution to reflect tithing or Sunday school attendance."

OK, granted that he does not believe the Constitution should be rewritten to mandate tithing or Sunday School attendance, I am still not very comforted by his clarification. I know that many Christians in this country firmly and fervently believe that there ought to be Constitutional amendments banning abortion and same-sex marriage. I also know that there are many Christians who believe there ought to be Constitutional amendments banning or allowing many other things.

One group, with ties to Huckabee, is Christian Reconstructionism. R. J. Rushdoony and Gary North are leaders in this movement. Among other things, Reconstructionists believe that America ought to be a theocracy and wants to institute the Old Testament law in all its ferocity of punishment. So, should the Constitution be changed to reflect these views?

The other thing I wonder about is why Huckabee believes that abortion and same-sex marriage are the only things that defines God's standards? Isn't there a lot about such things as peace and economic justice and care for the weak and powerless in the Bible? Why can't we do something definitive about these issues?