I want to get these first drafts out before Christmas and have a complete statement of principles ready for the New Year. I’m putting a second post up, then, as I promised, tonight. It will stay focused on the social issues theme, this time shifting to religious grounds.
Respect for Religious Freedom
- America is a nation that both holds respect for religious faith and cherishes pluralism and legal secularism. Both of these values can be affirmed without giving particular bias to one or the other by the government.
- In keeping with strict constructionist judicial values, it should be stated unequivocally that Christmas displays on public property that include religious imagery, performances by public schools’ choruses featuring religious lyrics, Christmas parties by public schools, and anything of the sort are not unconstitutional. Recognizing the religious and cultural makeup of our country is not the same as endorsing Christianity.
- Moments of silence for optional prayer or reflection, as well, should be decided on a district-by-district basis and are not unconstitutional, nor is the phrase ‘under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance. Unless there is a specific endorsement of a religious doctrine by a government official or government policy — which should be resisted — it is not a constitutional matter.
- All efforts to block homeschooling should be resisted. The option of educating one’s own child should be the parents’ prerogative. The alternative — the government forcing its own brand of education on the child, with or without the parent’s consent — is a bleak picture.
- At the same time, religion — whether it be Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or smaller religious sects — should not be immune from legitimate criticism and inquiry, and religious moderates and nonbelievers should feel welcome in the Republican Party. The overriding theme must be individual choice without interference from others. Respect to both the majority — Christians — and the minority — nonbelievers, Jews, Muslims, etc. — must be given. No set of religious beliefs should be mandated upon another person.
- Churches, mosques, and synagogues should generally be free from taxation: a very tight set of guidelines should be used before determining that a church is acting in a political manner. Preaching against abortion, homosexuality, etc., is not an inherently political matter and should be kept out of the realm of government and instead be discussed in the cultural realm.
—
Tomorrow: Political Realism AND Objectivity
—
THE PRINCIPLES:
Global Leadership - Individual Opportunity and Personal Responsibility – Cultural Traditionalism – Respect for Religious Freedom – Political Realism – Objectivity – Optimism – Inclusion – Constructive Dialogue – Smart Governance
—
Alex Knepper can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:19 am
I agree with most of what you wrote:
This part I cannot consent to:
“- Churches, mosques, and synagogues should generally be free from taxation: a very tight set of guidelines should be used before determining that a church is acting in a political manner.”
The continuation of the LBJ rule which Johnson wrote into the tax code to silence pastors who dared to criticize him is wrong.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:21 am
So you think that churches should be free to be political and act as a political action group if they want, then? I’m not saying it’s right or wrong — I think there are fair arguments on both sides, myself. I’m just asking you.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:30 am
#2
As a Christian, yes. If you read scripture, John the Baptist himself preached directly against the activities of the King. Both King Herod and the IRS says John the Baptist should be punished with varying degrees of severity for naming the King.
As an American, yes. Do we really want the IRS in churches being the arbiter of who steps over political lines? I don’t think so. I think that when you get into issues of morality and justice, it’s very hard to say, “Here is where religious conscience and that’s where politics begins…” And yes, that even extends to candidates. Who stands for righteous, who doesn’t? These are things that churches should have the freedom to explore.
I believe in freedom of religion in that regard. If I don’t like a church that talks politics, I can go somewhere else (and that fact scares a lot of pastors in the first place), but the pastor should be free to provide his full counsel and our current law is designed for the protection of politicians.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:34 am
#3
Individuals are perfectly capable of getting around these rules, and Huckabee certainly demonstrated that this last time around. The political arena is not for churches but for individuals. Christ paid the tax and John did not preach in or own a church.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:38 am
Cont.
Unless churches wish to pay taxes like every other political organization.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:50 am
The tax rules go back to the 1950s and were introduced by a corrupt politician to silence his political opponents. If you think that’s the ground of American politics and the heritage claim, go right ahead on.
December 19th, 2008 at 7:39 am
Another good job Alex. One of my only concerns is where your thoughts on gay marriage and the independence of churches collide.
December 19th, 2008 at 7:46 am
As far as AdamG’s thoughts I would say that its perfectly fine for churches to preach sermons on political issues and how that applies to biblical (or other) teachings, but when it comes to advocating for any particular candidate, it should be strictly forbidden. It should be more like ‘I would like for each of you to prayerfully consider the issues before us today, and incorporate that into your choice of which candidate can best deliver those things we hold dear’. Any admonition to vote for ‘one of our own’ or otherwise suggest by name particular candidates should remain illegal in order to hold onto a tax free status.
December 19th, 2008 at 9:06 am
Alex, I’m a bit to the left of you on some of these issues.
I’m uncomfortable with the government placing religious symbols on public property.
That said “Winter Choral Presentations” are the bleakest and depressing musical activity that could go on in a public school.
I think performing music that contains religious content should probably be treated as art and given some sort of excption (just like teaching the Bible as literature).
My view is that we cannot and should never have a “Christian government” however we ought to have room for traditional Christians to be involved in government without leaving their religion.
December 19th, 2008 at 11:26 am
As it was originally intended, the concept of separation of Church and State means the State should stay out of the Church’s business, not the other way around. Turning the idea on it’s head as it has been is exactly the kind of tyranny our founders came here to get away from! As the church is people, not a building, the full application of the reversal being pushed today is to disenfranchise Christians, and I mean that literally. To separate the church from the state, you would have to deny Christians the right to vote. We’re actually governed by we the people, remember?
December 19th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Adam #3,
First of all, the Herod John the Baptist spoke against was Heord Antipas. He was no king. He was a tetrarch which meant he ruled ten cities. His father, Herod the Great, was a king. He was the one who reigned when Christ was born.
Second of all, John didn’t say boo about his political acts. He condemned Herod’s adultery. The equivalent would be preachers who spoke against Clinton’s affairs. None of them lost their tax-exempt status AFAIK.
December 19th, 2008 at 11:49 am
For bibilical examples of religionist interring in politics, go to the Old Testement. It is replete with examples.
One of the most glaring was Jeremiah. For years he did everything in his power to convince the rulers and the people that their foriegn policy was all wrong. According to him, Judah should allign itself with Babylon, not Egypt. They didn’t, and Babylon destroyed them. Egypt had promised them support, but were merely playing them for suckers, hoping that Babyon would be weakened by fighting Judah first.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Alex, I’m a bit to the left of you on some of these issues. I’m uncomfortable with the government placing religious symbols on public property.
I’m completely ambivalent about the matter and most Americans support it. If a city wants to have a Christmas display and puts up a nativity scene, whatever. (Why even have Christmas as a federal holiday if we’re going to be so ridiculous about the whole thing?)
That said “Winter Choral Presentations” are the bleakest and depressing musical activity that could go on in a public school. I think performing music that contains religious content should probably be treated as art and given some sort of excption (just like teaching the Bible as literature).
I agree. Religious music is not only traditional and well-known, but is among the most beautiful holiday music out there. One of the things that I miss most about having left the church is hearing the hymns.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Good post Alex. A couple of thoughts, back when Romney and Huckabee were battling it out we fell into a religious divide. Many Mormons and Evangelicals were rather vocally after each other. This animosity between two reliable Republican groups needs to stop. Since people of faith agree on most political and social issues, it shouldn’t matter what the specific religion of our candidate is. We found out in CA (sore subject, I know) that people of all faiths can work together to achieve a common goal.
As far as taxation, I have always been appalled that conservative churches must stay silent, but that Democrats campaign at the pulpit on Sundays in black and liberal churches without any consequences.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
#10 – perhaps the most uninformed and absurd commentary ever
“As it was originally intended, the concept of separation of Church and State means the State should stay out of the Church’s business, not the other way around.”
Ahh no. THe specific Constitutional ban is against both the establishment of religion, and infringements on the freeexercise thereof. That means no church can lay claim to official status or a priveledged position under the law, nor can the government interfere with churches.
“Turning the idea on it’s head as it has been is exactly the kind of tyranny our founders came here to get away from! ”
The exact kind of tyranny our founders came here to escape was a tyranny where the state officially recognized a particular religion and disadvantaged all others. That is why our founders beleived that the state should be separate from religious matters.
“As the church is people, not a building, the full application of the reversal being pushed today is to disenfranchise Christians, and I mean that literally. To separate the church from the state, you would have to deny Christians the right to vote.”
What kind of mindless stupidity is this? Who has ever attempted to deny Christians the vote? You think you can just come along and make up any ludicrous thing to make people afraid or to get them to hate eachother? What is your problem?
December 19th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
The GOP needs to be the party of religious reconciliation and ecumenicalism.
December 19th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
I have no problem with a government putting up a nativity scene for Christmas, a menorah and/or Star-of-David for Hannakah, a half moon and star for Ramadan, and/or any other thing they wish to commerate the religion of their citizens.
Religious music is some of the most beautiful ever written. It’s a crime not to teach it to students. I learned Ave Marie in public High School. Being non-Catholic I certainly do not support the adoration of Mary, but wow! What incredibly beautiful music that is!
December 19th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
December 19th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
People are too concerned about carrying religion on the sleeve, or bumper, instead of in the heart.
December 19th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
The greatest evidence we have one way or the other over religion in government or whether or not to invade the beliefs of churches is found at the beginning of our nation under our leaders at the time.
“Do not let anyone claim to be a true American if they ever attempt to remove religion from politics.”-George Washington
It should also be noted that Washington while a “godly” man, didn’t seek to impose his beliefs, only that religion was where they were derived from. That is exactly why we cannot punish churches that speak out on political issues, and also why many still seek an expression of faith from their leaders, because while morality can happen without religion, it is much more likely to occur in the presence of religion.
December 19th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
I have no problems with the speaking out on issues, but I do have a problem with them pushing particular candidates. Its an insult to their parishioners even though they may not all realize it. If people are taught correct principles, that should be ample for them to decide on candidates.
December 19th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
“People are too concerned about carrying religion on the sleeve, or bumper, instead of in the heart.”
You seem to believe that religion cannot be both a public and private thing. Basically, that those who boast loudest about their faith on the street corners are the least likely to truly follow what they claim to believe…
December 19th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
22
The real issue with religion as a public thing is not the sermonizing on the street corners, its the attempts to use the power of government to force everyone to behave as the religion demands.
December 19th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Alex,
Despite the fact that I don’t believe Congress should have instituted a “national pledge of allegiance” in the first place, I pretty much agree with this post as well.
My only caveats are that:
A). While you are correct in stating it is not unconstitutional for a state or local government to have any sort of religious display on public property, it is unconstitutional for the federal government to spend any tax dollars on any sort of religious display, except for within the city of Washington, DC.
B). I think all churches and religious institutions should be free to make political statements and keep tax-free status. To anyone not familiar with my philosophy, who might accuse me of being a religious fanatic, let it be submitted to the record that I am a firm secularist, atheist, and anti-theist.
December 22nd, 2008 at 11:42 pm
[...] Leadership - Individual Opportunity and Personal Responsibility – Cultural Traditionalism – Respect for Religious Freedom – Political Realism – Objectivity – Optimism – Inclusion – Constructive Dialogue – Smart [...]
April 6th, 2009 at 12:58 am
[...] Party,” I discussed cultural traditionalism and respect for religious freedom. Here is what I wrote: – America is a nation built upon not only its government and individual citizens, but also by [...]