The gist of Joe’s argument (but be sure to read his post and the comments) seems to be that since religious right groups get criticized for trying to entangle church and state, the Pulpit Forum should be criticized here in this case. In the comments, Joel Gillespie reiterates one of Joe’s claims, that liberal religious groups are not held to the same standard as conservative groups with regard to the separation of church and state.

For the sake of argument, let’s assume that this is true, and that “religious left” groups don’t get as much scrutiny on church/state issues as religious right groups. That still doesn’t make this an issue where there *should be* scrutiny on church/state grounds.

At this point, all we know is that the group is presenting a claim about how certain records were destroyed. As of right now, this has nothing to do with a religious viewpoint at all.

Compare this to some of the things the religious right has done – rallies calling for mandating prayer in schools, the teaching of creationism, and openly talking about putting God in our government. In what way does that compare to presenting a claim about the destruction of evidence in an investigation? The first group of items is entirely based on religious doctrine. The second has no relation to any religious doctrine.

If the Pulpit Forum petitioned the government to put a traffic light up at a dangerous intersection, would that be asking for a violation of church and state? Certainly not (though Joe might try to convince us that it was), but this issue has far more in common with that situation than with some of the actions of the religious right.

Guarino’s argument essentially is that if any religious group has ever received criticism on a church/state issue, then no religious group should escape criticism in that area, regardless of the nature of their actions. My point is that it’s ridiculous to not look at the actual actions involved. Taking his stance to an extreme, but logical conclusion, we should be criticizing liberal pastors for voting in elections because some religious right pastors have received criticism for calling for gays, adulterers and blasphemers to be executed. Not all actions are equivalent, as much as he seems to want to lump them together.

Joe keeps insisting that the situations are similar and has claimed that this is a “major breach”. The problem for his argument is that he hasn’t shown any similarities or demonstrated that it’s a major breach, let alone any breach at all.

In my reply to his post, I said:

One area that I would question is that of gay marriage. I understand that it’s not a “traditional” arrangement. However, consider this: There are now – and have been for a long time – de facto families headed by gay people. These de facto families aren’t going anywhere. They have kids from previous marriages or by adoption, the adults in those situations support and rely on one another. Is it not in our best interest as a society to make those arrangements strong, rather than weak? What purpose is served by trying to undercut them? They may not be “traditional” families, but they are families nonetheless.

Essentially, the problem is that the stance taken by some self-described “pro-family” or even “pro-traditional family” advocates is really anti-family if the family does not meet a specific narrow criteria. A good example of this came up recently in Utah (via Dispatches from the Culture Wars).

A Utah woman with a history of drug problems, currently entangled in legal issues as a result, wants her four children to stay with her uncle. Her uncle is willing and able to care for them. However, because he is homosexual and cohabitating with his partner, the state of Utah wants to place the children in the foster care system, where they may be split up.

To the state, it’s a simple matter of the law, which says that to adopt or be a foster parent, you must be legally married or single and not cohabitating. … The two men, both natives of Utah County, said they would love to get married, but voters passed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

This would certainly seem to be one case where an insistence on only allowing “traditional” families to exist is having an overall anti-family effect. For now, a judge has said that the four children can remain with their mother’s uncle – for their sake, let’s hope that they prevail in this.

Had our Christian forebears acted as we do, we would still be a Crown colony today, without the freedom and independence that America has enjoyed for these past two hundred years. Think about it: there would be no Constitution. No states’ rights. No Bill of Rights. No right to keep and bear arms. No right to privacy. No right to be secure in our own homes. No constitutional protections in court. No constitutional protections for speech, religion, or redress of government. No constitutional protection for the freedom of the press. The foundational principles upon which our entire society and way of life rest would be nonexistent.

By refusing to hold our President accountable to the Constitution, by promulgating the idea that Christians should not get involved in politics, by standing idle as political and corporate forces work to steal our national sovereignty and independence, we are surrendering everything that Americans have historically held precious.

…

Dear Christian friend, do you mean to tell me that we are supposed to sit back and let men (even well-intentioned men) destroy our constitutional republic? Do you mean to tell me that we are not to resist the evil machinations of those inside our country as vehemently as we would those who seek our destruction from afar?

(Via Jim Capo)

The High Point City Council recently voted on a resolution to stick with non-sectarian prayers at the start of their meetings. The resolution passed, with Councilman Mike Pugh casting the lone, dissenting vote, saying, “No, in the name of Jesus Christ”. As you may recall, Pugh would rather start city council meetings with prayers to Jesus.

:::

Last week was an interesting and unusual week for me.

Early in the week, I found myself wrestling with this cartoon – after running it by a few people, I’d gotten a very mixed bag of feedback on it. Some thought it was very good, some thought it was too contentious, and others thought it missed the mark in comparing Pugh’s attitude with the verse from Matthew.

Later in the week, my Pulpit Forum cartoon started generating some negative responses, including a Letter to the Editor in the News and Record.

All this prompted a lot of thinking on the role and responsibilites of a political cartoonist, as well as on the limitations of the medium.

I’m generally not a mean or confrontational person, which makes editorial cartooning a bit uncomfortable for me at times. Having to publicly ridicule people on a regular basis tends to go against Mom’s admonition that if you can’t say something nice, you shouldn’t say anything at all.

However, one well-known political cartoonist (I can’t remember who it was at the moment, unfortunately) said that the job of the cartoonist is to hold people in power accountable for their actions, and to me that is an important distinction. Wielded against an appropriate target – those in power – and with the purpose of encouraging them to use their power in good ways, a stinging cartoon can become a way to help right wrongs. I don’t pretend that my cartoons amount to a crusade for truth and justice, but I do find the idea of holding those in power accountable to be a useful guiding principle. Towards that end, kind and gentle cartoons are unlikely to get the job done.

Unfortunately, while editorial cartoons can be a powerful device, they also can be a bit of a blunt instrument. Exaggeration is one of the primary tools of the cartoonist, and because of this it’s sometimes difficult to present a nuanced, detailed position on a subject. Background info and context can get left out or inadequately communicated, and that can lead to misunderstandings.

For example, some critics of my Pulpit Forum cartoon seemed to assume that I am racist. (Ironically that’s the exact thing my cartoon was critical of – attributing any criticism to racist motivations rather than to a legitimate complaint about the person or group in question.) However, I’m sure that the members of the Pulpit Forum are fine people. I have no problem with the members themselves, only with their seemingly hair-trigger, unsupported use of the “racist” label – a tactic which detracts from any legitimate arguments they may actually have.

Similarly, the Pugh cartoon may not convey enough context for some people either. At first glance, there may indeed seem to be a disconnect between the bible verse and my criticism of Pugh, or someone may (incorrectly) think I am speaking out against all public prayer. After all, in Matthew 6, Jesus is not prohibiting public prayer, but rather cautioning against praying publicly for the wrong reasons – for the glory of the petitioner rather than of God.

And that’s where some context can help out. I tried to put it in by echoing Pugh’s words at the council meeting: “No, in the name of Jesus Christ”. When Pugh said those words, he was not in prayer, or in fellowship with other believers. He was casting a vote on a contentious subject at a City Council meeting. That is one point of reference.

A second point of reference was not in the cartoon, but may be familiar to anyone following the story. At an earlier rally with supporters, Pugh threatened to take his fight all the way to the Supreme Court. These sorts of actions – threats and grandiose proclaimations – smack of grandstanding. In other words – in my opinion – I think Pugh is doing exactly what we are warned not to do by Matthew 6:5-6.

As I’m finding out, some people will understand that point, and maybe agree with it. Others will disagree. Ideally, the cartoon will get people – maybe even Pugh himself – to think about the issue in a way they may not have. If that happens, the cartoon will have done its job.

Mike Pugh got a standing ovation even before he finished telling the gathering for the “In Jesus’ Name” prayer rally Saturday that he is willing to take the fight to invoke the name of Jesus in opening City Council meetings all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

I see two possible outcomes to this.

The first is that they fight it out in court and lose. Similar cases have been tried before, and the courts have been consistent – sectarian prayers that advance one specific faith over another are unconstitutional. If Pugh and the city council are merely going to “fight to invoke the name of Jesus in opening City Council meetings” then they are going to lose that fight – at the taxpayers’ expense.

The second possible outcome hinges on the council taking a slightly different approach. From the News and Record article linked above:

Pugh’s proposal would allow for a rotation of people of various faiths, which would give non-Christians the same right to invoke the name of their deity during prayer — something he thinks would pass muster with the courts.

That has the potential to succeed in court. However, winning that battle sets the council up for a whole different set of problems. It’s been shown in the past that while some folks *say* they are willing to give people of other faiths equal access, when that possibility becomes a reality they suddenly become firm believers in the idea of separation of church and state. The most recent example that comes to mind is the Virginia fiasco revolving around a pagan flyer handed out at schools.

Christian groups in Albemarle County, Virginia pushed their school district to allow churches to distribute flyers to schoolchildren through a school “backpack mail” program. After being threatened with legal action by the Liberty Counsel – a Religious Right legal group – the district acceded to the request, opening the “backpack mail” program to all religious groups. Soon after, some local Pagans took advantage of the opportunity with a flyer promoting a December holiday event with a Pagan twist to it. Christian leaders and parents in the community suddenly saw this as inappropriate, and expressed outrage at the idea that the school system would allow such flyers to be distributed.

ReligiousTolerance.org has some examples that are even more relevant:

The Tampa city council has had a long tradition of having Christian ministers and an occasional Jewish rabbi deliver an invocation before the start of each meeting. Ed Golly, chairperson of Atheists of Florida offered to have someone from his group take a turn saying the invocation. Councilman John Dingfelder agreed. He later said that people of different beliefs, or lack thereof, deserve a chance to give an invocation without censorship. He said “I thank God every day that I live in a country that accepts everybody.” The Atheist group had selected Michael R. Harvey to say the invocation. Councilman Kevin White tried to deny him an opportunity to speak, saying: “We have never had people of an Atheist group represent Americans and I don’t think it is appropriate in this setting.” He called for a vote to either find a different person to pray, or to bypass the invocation for this meeting. Different sources say that there was either one or two votes in favor; the vote would have had to be unanimous in order to take effect. White then walked out of the meeting, along with fellow council members Mary Alvarez and Rose Ferlita.

And this:

Cynthia Simpson, a Wiccan priestess, was informed that she could not lead the opening prayer at a Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors meeting. The county asserted that her beliefs as a Wiccan were not consistent with the Judeo-Christian tradition.

So, how will High Point Councilmembers and citizens react when a Muslim Imam wants to deliver the invocation, praying in the name of Allah? Or a Wiccan Priestess? A Satanist? Is that something that Pugh and his supporters really want to see?

This issue has come up before, and I think Jon Lowder had a great take on the situation in the comments:

As far as the City Council and whether/how they pray, personally I don’t see a need for any government forum to start with a prayer of any kind. To me it is city business, not city worship. I’ve never been in a business meeting that started with a prayer and I don’t see the need for it at a city business meeting.

Despite what some of the people quoted in the News and Record article seem to think, no one is trying to stop any private citizens from praying on their own time as they see fit. The circumstances in question are very limited – actions by a government body at a government business function. As Mayor Becky Smothers pointed out, “Council is perfectly able to pray informally before we get up on that dais.” They can also pray silently to themselves at absolutely any time they want to.

I think some words from Matthew are appropriate here:

And now about prayer. When you pray, don’t be like the hypocrites who love to pray publicly on street corners and in the synagogues where everyone can see them. I assure you, that is all the reward they will ever get. But when you pray, go away by yourself, shut the door behind you, and pray to your Father secretly. Then your Father, who knows all secrets, will reward you.

Whatever reward Pugh is seeking through a legal battle, I don’t think it’s going to work out quite the way he hopes.

The majority of Republicans in the United States do not believe the theory of evolution is true and do not believe that humans evolved over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. This suggests that when three Republican presidential candidates at a May debate stated they did not believe in evolution, they were generally in sync with the bulk of the rank-and-file Republicans whose nomination they are seeking to obtain.

The poll also touched on respondents reasons for not believing in evolution. Most of the reasons given were religious in nature, with 19 percent giving, “I believe in Jesus Christ” as their reason for rejecting evolution, 16 percent responding, “I believe in the almighty God, creator of Heaven and Earth” and another 16 percent saying their rejection of evolution was “Due to my religion and faith”.

It’s strange that “Jesus Christ” and “Evolution” have become an either/or dichotomy for some folks – sort of like saying “I don’t believe in the germ theory of disease because I believe in Jesus Christ”.

(Via Pharyngula)

(Pointed out to me by Ged)

The News and Record also reported that Rev. Howard Chubbs offered his endorsement and spoke on her behalf. He is the pastor of Providence Baptist Church, reported to be “one of the most prominent black churches in town”. Once again, our local separationists failed to squeal in outrage that the esteemed wall between church and state had been breached. If a local conservative Christian or Catholic pastor had done something like this, we never would have heard the end of it.

I’m not sure if I qualify as a “local separationist”, but since I’ve written on such topics before, let’s take a look and see if there’s anything to this that’s worthy of squeals of outrage.

The main issue at hand is whether Chubbs’ endorsement breaches the wall of separation between church and state. The main protection that this “wall” provides applies to governmental authorities – acting in an official capacity, government agents may not act to endorse or favor one religion over another. Chubbs is not an agent of the government. In fact, at first glance, this would appear to be the exact opposite situation – a church looking to endorse or influence the government.

That brings up another potential conflict. While it’s obvious that there is no problem here in the sense of the government meddling in religion, there are indeed certain circumstances where churches and other non-profit organizations are prevented from doing exactly what Chubbs did – speaking on behalf of a certain candidate, and attempting to influence voters to vote in a certain partisan direction. IRS regulations state:

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.

However, this is intended to apply to the church as an organization. It applies directly to pastors or church officials only when they are speaking from the pulpit, or in an official capacity on behalf of the church. From the IRS website:

The political campaign activity prohibition is not intended to restrict free expression on political matters by leaders of organizations speaking for themselves, as individuals. Nor are leaders prohibited from speaking about important issues of public policy. However, for their organizations to remain tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3), leaders cannot make partisan comments in official organization publications or at official functions.

So if Chubbs was speaking from the pulpit, or as a church leader at an official church function, we’d have a problem here. The context of Chubbs’ endorsement is given in the News and Record article that Guarino links to:

On Thursday , there were a few signs — more than a few signs, actually — that City Councilwoman Yvonne Johnson’s mayoral candidacy won’t be your typical starched, buttoned-up affair.

… [S]peakers offered a preview of Johnson’s powerful political support: former council members Claudette Burroughs-White and Robbie Perkins ; attorney and civic leader Henry Isaacson ; arts activist Betty Cone ; and the Rev. Howard Chubbs , the pastor of one of the most prominent black churches in town, Providence Baptist Church .

Chubbs, who isn’t Johnson’s pastor, said she told him weeks ago she was considering a run for mayor.

He asked: “Who better than you and what better time than now?”

In other words, Chubbs’ endorsement was given at Johnson’s press conference to announce her candidacy, at the Phill G. McDonald Governmental Plaza in Greensboro. All indications are that he was speaking in an individual capacity, hence there is no conflict here, and nothing worthy of any squeals.

Had Chubbs been speaking from the pulpit, then I would absolutely agree that there was a conflict. But the First Amendment also guarantees free speech, and as an individual Chubbs is fully entitled to that right. I would say the same thing of any conservative church leader endorsing a politician in an individual capacity.

This is especially true considering the reason that the principal gave for taking action against Arthurs, which allegedly was because “religion is not allowed in school”. Hogwash. Of course, this is probably another example of what I’ve spoken of before, where a school administrator may be skittish on the issue of religious expression simply due to the rantings of anti-ACLU folks who would have us (incorrectly) believe that the ACLU is always hauling people into court for allowing religious expression.

I think its unfortunate that Arthurs felt that his religion compelled him to distribute an anti-homosexual message, but I believe he still has the right to do so.

(Via Dispatches from the Culture Wars)

Shawn Hornbeck’s disappearance had a happy ending when police found him alive earlier this month. The news took many people by surprise, most likely including psychic Sylvia Browne, who had earlier told Shawn’s parents that he was dead:

His parents were beyond desperate when they went on Montel Williams’ syndicated television program, where they were brought together with renowned psychic Sylvia Browne … Browne was telling his parents the worst possible news — that Shawn was dead, and that his body was in a rocky, forested area within 20 miles of their home. For the next three weeks, the search reportedly focused on finding Shawn’s body in that prescribed area.

Of course, they failed to find the body because last week — four years after he went missing — Shawn Hornbeck turned up very much alive.

It’s despicable that someone would pretend to have knowledge of a child’s fate and lead his parents – and the police – astray like this.

Browne was totally wrong, not just about Shawn’s fate, but about his abductor as well. According to James Randi:

But there was more specific drivel from Browne, She said that Shawn had been taken by a “dark-skinned man, he wasn’t black – more like Hispanic.” She said the kidnaper had long, black hair worn in dreadlocks and was “really tall.” He was driving an older model blue sedan, she said, a car with fins like in the late 1950′s and early 1960′s Chevrolets. All of this drivel was wrong, from the description of the man – he is not Hispanic nor dark-skinned, he’s Caucasian, he’s heavy and not tall – and his car was quite the opposite of Browne’s invented notions: it was a white pickup truck.

Maybe it’s time to have criminal penalties for psychics who provide police with false information?