On Sunday October 7th, Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative evangelical Christian group, will be promoting ‘Pulpit Freedom Sunday’. It’s an event where the ADF says it has 1,000 pastors pledged to violate Federal tax laws by preaching about the election, endorsing a candidate, and sending a video of their sermon to the IRS. Their stated point is that the tax law prohibiting endorsing specific candidates violates the pastor’s freedom of speech. Once again the religious right is wrong.
Both Mitt Romney and President Obama gave lengthy interviews to the National Cathedral’s magazine, “Cathedral Age”. I believe that we live in a secular republic where the government ought to be religiously neutral. There is no religious test to hold office but this interview did gives us a case study in Christian privilege that some like Mitt Romney believe they deserve. While he tore into the wall between church and state, in another interview he tried to use his religion as an excuse not to reveal his tax returns.
I noticed an Associated Press (AP) story published Monday evening with a very misleading headline. It read “Amish in Ohio Hair-Cutting Case Seek to Avoid Oath”. Why is it misleading? Those of us who struggle to support separation of church and state know why it is misleading. The AP headline was basically biased toward people who don’t want to swear an oath in court.
The story was about the current criminal case in Ohio involving a dissenting sect of Amish people who had cut the hair and beards of other Amish people who they thought were observing their faith incorrectly. The story leads with:
It was reported in the Washington (DC) Blade that through a White House spokesperson, President Obama said he opposes the ban on LGBT participation in the Boy Scouts of America. The ban was recently affirmed after a secret two year evaluation. The President made a point to say he would not resign as Honorary President of the BSA. Does staying as the honorary president undercut his opposition to the ban?
The Catholic church and other religious conservatives are suing the government to invalidate the new health care regulation that forces them to provide insurance coverage for birth control for non-clergy workers. This follows the recent history of legal religious accommodation like the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. But these attempts to knock down the wall of separation of church and state leads down a road I don’t think most people have thought about in trying to roll back religious neutrality.
One bit of good news from the Supreme Court today was it refused to hear an appeal in Trunk v. City of San Diego which concerned the constitutionality of the San Diego’s Mt. Soledad Cross. By refusing to hear the appeal it let stand the 9th Circuit’s last ruling in the long fought 1st Amendment case which said the cross now on Federal land is still unconstitutional. Of course one justice took the unusual step to issue a statement and possible hint to pro-cross people on how to keep the cross on Mt. Soledad.
The 9th Circuit ruled in January of 2011: