Rev. Barry W. Lynn: October 2008 Archives

Jay, I know you would like to see the tax code provision barring endorsement of candidates by non-profits repealed.  We have a big difference of opinion about that.

             However, I do not see why you believe that under the current law the "line between issue advocacy and electioneering is not clear cut".  If a minister really wants to talk about any moral issue he or she just says, for example: "I oppose the federal income tax because it is just a socialistic redistribution of wealth" and then adds: "so do your homework and find out  what candidates for public office want repeal and vote for them", that's legal.  If the pastor says the same thing but closes "and that African American Senator who is running for President seems to like income redistribution" he has an IRS problem. It is clear that the pastor wants you not to vote for Barack Obama.  That's what Bishop Serratelli's pastoral letter was all about.  What else could he possibly have meant?

             Any "chill" on just speaking out against abortion is clearly self-imposed.  If the minister is not trying to be cute or coy, he just tells people that he thinks God doesn't like abortion and then urges parishioners to vote accordingly.  He adds no names, no pictures, no coded messages. 

             Of course, in New Mexico, "but for" the church deciding to put up that anti-abortion display, how would the passerby you envision have any reason to think about the issue at that time.  Of course, it was the church that tried to send its "moral" as well as "vote McCain" message to the public.

               As to Rick Warren, he is entitled under the tax law, to do just what he did and proclaim his support for Proposition 8.  You are right that many other religious leaders are speaking out strongly in opposition.  I just disagree with Warren on the merits (or in this case lack of merits).  I don't know any liberals who claim the Bible literally supports same sex marriage.  What they do say is that the Bible is not to be the basis for deciding what civil rights exist in Twenty-First century America.  That's called the separation of church and state.  I like it. 

For the past two years I have been telling my liberal friends, Jay, that the Religious Right is not dead; it is not even sleeping.  I've also been alerting them to the fact that the so-called "new evangelicals" may have a legitimate interest in poverty and environmental degradation, but that they often are anti-reproductive choice, anti-gay, and against real separation of church and state.  I'm on the email list of many "conservative" groups (to see how the other half thinks), and I got an interesting missive today from the Family Research Council.

Confirming my point, we now know that Pastor Rick Warren (of the celebrated Saddleback Church Forum about which we began this blog) is raising high the homophobia rooftop in supporting Proposition 8 out in California to overturn that state's high court ruling that gay and lesbian couples must be allowed to have the rights and responsibilities of civil marriage.

According to Warren "if you believe what the Bible says about marriage, you have to support Proposition 8".  I don't recall Pastor Rick urging passage of any constitutional amendments prohibiting divorce, although that topic (unlike "gay marriage") is actually mentioned in the Bible.

But Warren goes on. He claims: "this isn't even just a Christian issue, it is a humanitarian and human issue, that God created marriage for the purpose of family, love and procreation".  In his own illogically driven prose, it turns out that the only reason for "humanitarians" to support it is because Rick Warren's version of God wants them to.  A bit of circular reasoning there, I'd say.  And this is Warren's God, not the God of many of us Christians.  We read the Bible with an emphasis on compassion, not attuned to the bitter fear of others that is apparently encrusted on to Warren's soul.

 

As noted in my last post, if that school assignment was to draw anything you want (and that's the end of the story), then you were right to intervene.  I would have done the same if her mother had called me.

Now, we have been in longtime disagreement about politicking from the pulpit-- I like the 1954 provision of the IRS Code that allows for discussion of political issues but strictly prohibits actions that constitute endorsement of or opposition to any candidate for public office.  Recently, about 31 pastors violated that provision with the encouragement of a group called the Alliance Defense Fund, and they hope to create a test case for what they erroneously call "pulpit freedom."

Two religious bodies have now gone way beyond the idea of speaking out on a Saturday or Sunday morning in praise of somebody's election. 

Let's start in New Jersey.

The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Paterson, N.J., has published a letter on its website and in the diocesan newspaper by its bishop Arthur J. Serratelli.  In it, Serratelli "cleverly" never mentions the name Barack Obama but suggests that "the present democratic candidate" (who could that be?) is comparable to the biblical monarch Herod Antipas, the fellow who ordered the beheading of John the Baptist.  Serratelli then goes on a screed about how in this election we either "choose to respect life...or we sanction the loss of our most basic freedom".  The Archdiocese denies it's an intervention against Obama. 

Jay, I'd like to think you would agree that it is obviously partisan politicking even if you think the church should be allowed to do it.

And, then, let's move over to New Mexico. There, the Rock Christian Fellowship in Espanola posted two large photographs on its building.  One showed a smiling baby; the other the remains of what appears to be an aborted fetus.  Under the healthy baby are the name of three Republican office seekers, including John McCain; under the fetus, the names are of three Democrats including Barack Obama.  Below the whole display: "YOU WILL DECIDE."

Leaving aside seriously sight-impaired individuals who cannot see this presentation, can anyone believe this is not a blatant anti-choice message combined with a clear and unequivocal "vote Republican" add-on.  Without any reference to the election, a church can put up pretty much anything; with the candidate endorsement it is a clear violation of the law.  Pastor Michael Naranjo told the local paper : "I'd rather lose my 501 c (3) than lose my soul."

If the IRS does its job, he should get his wish.

Jay, you are mixing apples and oranges.  Let's start with the story of the pro-Obama textbook.  Although I must admit I generally treat anything reported in WorldNetDaily like I used to treat the stories of Bat Boy in the now defunct Weekly World News, let's assume they are right about the use of the text containing Obama speeches.  This might be worthy of debate but it doesn't raise any First Amendment issues.  Schools are free to purchase textbooks that make many kinds of choices about content.  It is not unconstitutional to purchase a book that emphasizes John Kennedy over Dwight Eisenhower or which gives more space to Western settlers than to the Native Americans they displaced. Again, there could be pedagogical reasons to challenge the wisdom of some books over others, but it is very rare that you can take those challenges to federal courts. (By the way, the very story you cite indicates that the book was published before Obama was a Presidential candidate and that subsequent editions removed these pages, presumably so as not to appear partisan.)

Indeed, the only ideas that public schools cannot promote are "religious" ideas.  You say, that's unfair!  Here's why it is not.  The First Amendment only prohibits the "laws respecting an establishment of religion"; it doesn't prohibit governments from promoting cultural ideas, economic ideas or political ideas (that's why we have elections)

As for the girl and the cross.  I have been hearing about cases of schoolchildren allegedly being denied their right to expression of religious ideas for decades.  USA Today famously put out a headline once reading "Girl Gets 'F' For Jesus Paper".  She went to court and lost her free speech claim because she had gotten the required teacher approval for a drama paper but decided to change her mind and write on Jesus instead.  She got the failing grade because she hadn't followed directions.

So, whether you were right (you might have been) or wrong in writing to the principal depends on some facts that aren't on the record.  If the assignment was "draw a powerful image", you are correct; if the assignment was "draw a representation of an animal", you were wrong.

The third Presidential debate did provide another example of the candidates' views on abortion, but both candidates were unconvincing in their responses to Bob Schieffer's questions on the matter. On whether a potential nominee's views on Roe would be a "litmus" test for the new President, both Senator McCain and Senator Obama denied it would be.  Frankly, I don't believe  McCain's response was truthful.  This is because I am acutely aware of the shenanigans employed by conservative activist groups to guarantee that George W. Bush would only be allowed to get two anti-choice zealots on the court.  Beliefnet's own Dan Gilgoff wrote a fine book in which he describes how the Right decided to fervently support John Roberts as the new chief justice.  Basically, a number of leaders of your team, Jay (and you may have been there) quickly concluded that because Mrs. Roberts was active in the group Feminists for Life, John could be assumed to be an easy anti-choice vote. It is also now well known that Harriet Miers nomination was sunk because her anti-choice record was non-existent and nobody on the Right wanted to risk another David Souter.  Now, how would a President John McCain possibly pick a nominee who had not proven his or her bona fides on abortion?  You folks would go ballistic and demand he go back to the same short list of federal judges you kept throwing around during the Bush presidency.

                Yes, Jay, there are so many issues that should be discussed in the third debate.  I am not clairvoyant (although given the stock market I am thinking of putting up a psychic hotline and trying to get $2.99 per...

I'm glad that Michelle Obama wasn't too offended, but I still think she had every right to be after Senator McCain's "that one" comment.Of course, the candidates should address both constitutional law and future Supreme Court nominees at the final...

I'm not a big fan of the Drudge Report, Jay, but Drudge and company nailed it last night as it posted its response to the second Presidential debate in big bold letters: BORING.  Let's face it though, plenty of...

Jay, I'm sure you noticed that the major media has noticed that there is a Supreme Court.  This may have something to do with the fact that this, the first Monday in October, is the opening day of the 2008-2009...

OK, Jay, for starters, I did like this Bill Maher film more than I liked Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ". I saw it last night at a pre-opening screening sponsored by the Washington Area Secular Humanists and the...

The asylum decision that you just achieved is admirable.  Willfully sending people back to their country of origin if there is credible evidence that persecution will occur there is an affront to international legal principles and virtually any standard of...

I'm glad that you appear to agree with me that there is no obvious basis for believing the Supreme Court would surely rule the current "no partisan politicking" rule unconstitutional.  Of course, I don't want to see a "fix" of...