TruthBook Religious News Blog

By TERENCE CHEA (AP) – 3 days ago

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals court upheld the use of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency, rejecting arguments Thursday that the phrases violate the separation of church and state.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel rejected two legal challenges by Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow, who said the references to God are unconstitutional and infringe on his religious beliefs.

The same appeals court caused a national uproar and prompted accusations of judicial activism when it decided in Newdow's favor in 2002, ruling that the pledge violated the First Amendment prohibition against government endorsement of religion.

President George W. Bush called the 2002 decision "ridiculous," senators passed a resolution condemning the ruling and Newdow received death threats.

That lawsuit reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 2004, but the high court said Newdow lacked the legal standing to file the suit because he didn't have custody of his daughter, on whose behalf he brought the case.

So Newdow filed an identical challenge on behalf of other parents who objected to the recitation of the pledge at school. In 2005, a federal judge in Sacramento decided in Newdow's favor, prompting the appeals court to take up the case again.

Judge Carlos Bea, who was appointed by Bush in 2003, wrote for the majority in Thursday's 2-1 ruling.

"The Pledge of Allegiance serves to unite our vast nation through the proud recitation of some of the ideals upon which our Republic was founded," he said.

***************

Please click on "exteranl source" for the complete article.

For your consideration, here is a Urantia Book quote which speaks of the separation of church and state as a "great peace move...":

70:1.14 7. Religion—the desire to make converts to the cult. The primitive religions all sanctioned war. Only in recent times has religion begun to frown upon war. The early priesthoods were, unfortunately, usually allied with the military power. One of the great peace moves of the ages has been the attempt to separate church and state.

Is our pledge's referral to God disregarding this attempt?

Does inclusion of God's name violate the separation of church and state?

Labels: church-state, God, Michael Newdow, pledge of allegiance, religion, Terence Chea

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Wednesday, January 07, 2009

What's the Status of Religion and Politics Post-Obama?

Published Jan 1, 2009, by Carol Forsloff

It seems that many Americans have had their fill of churches being involved in politics George Bush in 2001 ushered in a period where the religious right was particularly active in governmental affairs.

In 2001 the airwaves were filled with ministers praising the election of Bush as president. His leadership was treated as something that had been divinely ordained. The Post at the time talked about the number of religious leaders who met with Bush during the first year of his Presidency who testified in their faith in Bush and his ability to lead the country as God-ordained. Web sites encouraged people to pray for the President, to recognize his position as both government leader and spiritual model, virtually a Messiah for the government at the time.

According to the Pew Forum things have changed from 2000 and the election of George Bush and the election of Obama in 2008. A survey finds a small majority of the public now declares religion and politics shouldn’t mix, and ministers and religious leaders should not express their opinions on daily activities or political matters. This change follows ten years when most Americans supported religious involvement in government with Christian leaders able to express their views on political matters.

Pew Research Center research reveals that most conservatives have reexamined their position regarding the involvement of religion in politics, and now only 50% of them express support of it. Four years ago 70% believed that churches should involve themselves in governmental affairs. So there has been a sizable shift in public opinion during the last years of the Bush Presidency. Four years ago, just 30% of conservatives believed that churches and other houses of worship should stay out of politics. Today, 50% of conservatives express this view. This is likely why it was said that there was only “soft support” among religious conservatives for John McCain.

Despite the fact that Congress is accused of not representing fully the religious views of the rest of the country, the fact is that Pew reports that the composition of the new Congress is similar to that of the population of the United States, although somewhat less diverse in its representation of minority religious groups. The largest main group in the Congress is Protestant, but if the denominations are considered separately the majority group is Catholic. One unique distinction between Congress and the general population is the fact that fewer political leaders claim no religious affiliation (about 1%) than the rest of the United States (16%)

It seems, however, with the public shift towards less involvement of religion in politics, politicians may not longer have to protest their specific religious views in order to be elected. Or the pendulum may swing again, depending upon future issues because that has been the pattern of American history. The country has struggled with the issue of religion and politics since the beginning of the government, with the battle never being fully won on either side. This newest finding just measures citizen opinion at this point in time.

Labels: Barack Obama, Carol Forsloff, church-state, Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, politics, religion

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Thursday, October 02, 2008

How religion got deep into politics

How religion got deep into politics

By John Shulson | The Virginia Gazette
October 1, 2008

WILLIAMSBURG -- Bruton Parish Episcopal Church recently launched its fall series, “The Influence of Religion on Presidential Politics,” with an overflow crowd in Lewis Hall to hear Dan Roberts speak on “America’s Vacant Public Square.”

Roberts, a true Renaissance man, is a professor of history at the University of Richmond. He’s also a Presbyterian minister, a Bronze Star Medal recipient and a jazz pianist. Roberts created the syndicated Public Radio series, “A Moment in Time,” which plays to 2 million listeners eager to resist “this growing epidemic of ignorance about the [historical] past.”

The radio program was inspired by a survey in which 78% of college seniors from 55 top universities could identify Bevis and Butthead, while only 33% could connect the dots between George Washington and Yorktown. Roberts set about to make history relevant in short radio bursts.

His thoughts concerning religion and politics date back to the founding days of our country and its disenchantment with the Church of England.

Assuredly, “Church and state were tightly locked,” he told his Bruton Parish audience, “but distrust also existed.” He recalled that the Founding Fathers rejected sectarian religion in government. “The state would not be the people’s moral salvation, and it wouldn’t seek to manage people’s lives.”

Instead, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution addressed religion in non-specific terms. “We could have created a Christian republic, but we looked west toward something new,” he said.

However, the seeds of a growing religious movement within the state were sown when the Constitution was ratified. “Evangelicals said they wanted a Bill of Rights and freedom of religion and bartered with James Madison to achieve this.”

As America began to grow into a diverse republic, the Great Awakening saw a growth in evangelical churches. Later, the immigration of many Catholics and Jews tended to undermine Protestant dominations, he said.

Roberts said presidential candidates realize “it’s dangerous to play the religious card. Candidates try to avoid making it an issue... in order not to offendcategories of people.”

Since candidates need to be careful not to make overt appeals, Roberts said, politicians resort to code language such as “family values.” He explained that “family values” can mean one thing to a couple with a child in Virginia and quite another to two men who adopt a child in Chicago.

Of the need to tread lightly in the use of religion, Roberts illustrated three candidates who traversed political minefields: Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Richard Nixon.

Even though Jefferson was accused of being a deist and the father of a child born to a slave, he refused to respond to allegations and chose to ignore the subject of religion. He decided instead to hit hard on John Adams’ position on war.

Lincoln didn’t conform to orthodox religious folks. He reacted against sectarian rivalry and even used reason and ridicule to counter aspects of the Bible. However, Lincoln eventually grew into a form of Unitarian religion, using it not in debates but in other ways. He used biblical language in fighting slavery. He could speak the religious language of the voters he needed. The result was that his humor and his personal demeanor propelled him to office even though the people didn’t share his religious beliefs.

It was Nixon, Roberts said, who started “pious presidential pandering” to play to the religious. He explained that Nixon, a Quaker, occasionally went to church, preferring to hold Sunday services in the White House. However, Nixon tended to stay away from the subject of religion.

Instead, he used overt religiosity as a code.

“Nixon’s strategy was to win the Southern white vote. Many in the South were racists and religious. He realized a direct racist appeal couldn’t be done. But he did appeal to them through the use of code phrases familiar to Southern whites such as ‘states’ rights’ and ‘law and order.’”

In drawing his extensively prepared comments to a close, Roberts returned to his theme of a town square.

“The vacant public square is under attack. Many voters calculate to use religion to determine who they’ll vote for. It’s now factored into the strategy. The fate of the public square hangs in the balance.”

Labels: Abraham Lincoln, America, church-state, Dan Roberts, history, John Shulson, politics, religion, Richard Nixon, Thomas Jefferson

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Monday, September 29, 2008

AZERBAIJAN: Religious freedom survey, September 2008

By Felix Corley, Forum 18 News Service

This is the first few paragraphs of a lengthy article presenting details of a survey analysis of religious freedom in Azerbaijan, one the former Soviet Socialist Republics. We present it here to encourage readers to realize what a gift we have in this country with our level of religious freedom, and how damaging a history of Godless philosophy can affect generations of God-seekers and religious expression.
Please click on "external link" for the complete article

In its survey analysis of religious freedom in Azerbaijan, Forum 18 News Service has found continuing violations of freedom of thought, conscience and belief. The state attempts to control or limit the majority Muslim and minority religious communities, including imposing strict censorship, violating its international human rights commitments. The situation in the Nakhichevan exclave is worse than the rest of the country. Officials often claim that Azerbaijan is a state of religious tolerance – a view promoted by government-favoured groups – but the state promotes intolerance of some minorities and has not introduced the genuine religious freedom necessary for genuine religious tolerance to flourish. Many officials are convinced that ethnic Azeris should not be non-Muslims, and act on this conviction. In practice, many violations of the human rights of both Muslims and non-Muslims – such as the detention of Baptist prisoner of conscience Hamid Shabanov and a ban on Muslims praying outside mosques - are based on unwritten understandings and even violations of the written law.

Ahead of the Universal Periodic Review of Azerbaijan by the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council in February 2009, Forum 18 News Service has found tight official controls over religious communities and unwritten restrictions on peaceful religious activity.

Azerbaijan's government claims to be secular, officially recognizing no state religion. State-sanctioned Islam, Russian Orthodox Christianity, and Judaism are considered "traditional" and so their official bodies receive preferential treatment, such as being allowed a public voice and avoiding official harassment. Despite this preferred status, all three "traditional" religions are subordinate to government control and scrutiny, especially Islam.

The state appears to be fundamentally hostile to freedom of thought, conscience and belief, state policy apparently being to control faiths it regards as a potential challenge (especially Islam), to limit or co-opt faiths it sees as useful (Judaism, Russian Orthodoxy, Lutheranism and Catholicism) and to actively restrict faiths that it dislikes (some Protestant Christians, Jehovah's Witnesses). Faiths with a small following who function unobtrusively, such as Molokans (an early Russian Protestant group), Georgian Orthodox, Hare Krishna and Baha'is, have mainly tended to be able to operate without much hostile government attention.

Freedom of thought, conscience and belief acts as a litmus test of the state of the rule of law and human rights in any society. So violations of religious freedom are linked with violations of such human rights as freedom of speech and association, freedom of the media, etc., as well as with similar violations in other areas of society and politics. Since 1993, Azerbaijan has been ruled by the Aliev family, first by Heidar Aliev (President from 1993 to 2003), then by his son Ilham Aliev (President since 2003). New presidential elections are scheduled for 15 October 2008, and the authorities are trying to ensure Ilham Aliev's victory. Despite massive oil wealth and a booming economy in the capital Baku, much of the population remains in poverty. Corruption is said by many observers to be widespread. The long-running dispute with Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh, remains unresolved and is a source of continuing tension, religious minorities having sometimes been accused of being "Armenian spies."

Much of Azerbaijan's population of more than 8 million would identify themselves as Muslim by tradition. Although most of these are of Shia background, there is also a large Sunni Muslim minority. The state has been hostile to Muslim scholarship advocating genuine religious freedom, and seeing pluralist democracy as totally compatible with Islam. All Muslim communities are compelled by the Religion Law to be under the control of the state-favoured Caucasian Muslim Board.

Government control of the majority religious community and harassment of minority communities violates Azerbaijan's international human rights commitments, such as those it undertook as a member of the Council of Europe and participating State in the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). This appears, from Forum 18's observation of officials' responses, to stem from a fear of social change they cannot control, and a dislike of pluralism.

The situation in Nakhichevan [Naxçivan], an exclave between Armenia, Iran, and Turkey separated from the rest of Azerbaijan is considerably worse that the rest of the country. There has long been a de facto ban on religious activity by non-Muslim communities in Nakhichevan. Baha'is, a small Adventist congregation and a Hare Krishna community have been banned. "Of course our people would like to be able to meet" a Baha'i told Forum 18. Muslim communities too are under strict control by the Nakhichevan authorities. "There is no democracy, no free media and no human rights in Nakhichevan," Professor Ali Abasov of the International Religious Liberty Association told Forum 18. Asked why, he responded with a grim laugh: "The authorities don't want it," insisting that the Nakhichevan authorities are doing what the authorities in the rest of Azerbaijan would like to do.

Officials often claim that Azerbaijan is a country of religious tolerance – a view sedulously promoted by government-favoured groups such as the Russian Orthodox Church, and the Jewish communities (Mountain, Georgian and Ashkenazi Jewish). At the time of the 2002 visit of Pope John Paul II, Catholics also promoted this view. Land was subsequent granted in Baku for a new Catholic church to be built. Orthodoxy's worldwide leader, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, repeated the same message during his high-profile visit in 2003. Social relations between the more visible religious communities are generally good, but the government – through such devices as sometimes broadcasting hostile TV film footage after police raids - promotes intolerance of some minorities.

Azerbaijan has continued many of the Soviet period's mechanisms of control, and has not introduced the genuine religious freedom which is an essential pre-condition for genuine religious tolerance to flourish. Many officials are therefore convinced that ethnic Azeris should not be non-Muslims, and act on this conviction.

For example, during an autumn 2007 police raid on a Protestant church in Sumgait [Sumqayit], north of Baku, some 30 church members were detained. Police pressured them to renounce their faith, calling in the local imam. "The imam held up a copy of the Koran and police tried to force church members to pass underneath it and deny their faith," one Protestant told Forum 18. It is illegal for police to force individuals to renounce their faith.

National and local officials of the State Committee for Work with Religious Organisations have repeatedly alleged that Protestant Christians and Jehovah's Witnesses have violated the law by holding "illegal meetings", and that their communities should be closed down. Such claims encourage the belief among officials and the public that such groups are a threat to society.

Labels: Azerbaijan, church-state, Felix Corley, religious freedom

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Friday, September 19, 2008

Survey shows increase in support for separation church and state

Alison Wing
Updated: Thursday, September 18, 2008

Mixing religion and politics has long been an issue in the United States, and with the next presidential election upon us, some people are once again questioning the importance or unimportance of the separation or non-separation of church and state.

A recent survey conducted by The Pew Research Center reported the percentage gap between the general public thinking church and state should be separate has increased almost twenty percent over the past decade.

Four years ago fourty-four percent of the public thought the two should be kept separate. Today fifty-two percent say that the church should stay out of social and political matters.

Sixty-three percent say they want their leader to have the same beliefs and faith, but the church should not endorse nominees.

The Pew Forum survey, however, said although fifty-one percent of Americans don’t mind listening to politicians talk about how religious they are, fourty-six percent today say that they are becoming more uncomfortable with it.

In contrast, the survey finds 72 percent of Americans agree with the president having strong religious beliefs.

Thirty percent of college graduates agree it is important for the president to have strong religious beliefs while 27 percent disagree, and only 21 percent of young adults between the ages of 18 and 29 agree and 38 percent disagree.

There are a little over 300 million people in the United States with 14,911 living in Oxford. About 11,526 of the Oxford population are 18 years and older and of voting age.

The survey also reveals that most of the increased opposition has come mostly from those who identify themselves as Republicans rather than Democrats. The percentage of Republicans who say churches should keep out of politics has jumped from 37 percent in 2004 to 51 percent in 2008.

The latest national survey also finds social issues still continue to be greatly overshadowed by both domestic issues and the war on Iraq.

Labels: Alison Wing, church-state, politics, religion, The Pew Research Center

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Thursday, September 04, 2008

America's paradox: We want religion in, but out, of politics

By Sharon Schmickle | Tuesday, Sept. 2, 2008

"Keep religion out of politics," said a mega sign cruising St. Paul's streets on the back of a truck on Monday, the opening day of the Republican National Convention.

But a few blocks away, dozens of anti-war demonstrators marched with placards declaring: "Blessed Are the Peacemakers, For They Will Be Called Sons of God."

And Steve Ahlgren's sign said, simply: "1st John 4:7-21."

It was a biblical reference to loving God and loving one another, too. And Ahlgren, a lawyer from Lauderdale, insisted that religion expressed like that has a place in politics as a powerful force for good.

Religion in politics? Religion out of politics?

Both positions, paradoxically, express the view of America, one of the most devout nations in the Western world.

"Religion plays a crucial role, and it has throughout the history of the Republic," said Dan Hofrenning, a political science professor at St. Olaf College in Northfield.

It was a factor in the moral justification of FDR's New Deal, he said, and it was debated intensely when John F. Kennedy, a Roman Catholic, ran for president. Religion provided moral authority for the civil-rights movement in the 20th century, and it played a role in women's drive for suffrage.

Indeed, religion trumps the issues for many Americans. And voters who perceive a candidate as sharing their own faith and a related set of values will forgive the candidate on a range of issues.

Religious and political differences

Putting together a religious and secular coalition is very difficult for a party and a candidate, Hofrenning said. Voters who pray often and rarely miss church are looking for expressions of faith, and candidates must respond. But many secular voters revolt at any hint of encroachment of the separation of church and state.

Hence, we have seen both McCain and Obama stumble in trying to have it both ways.

More vigilant about separation

A major quirk in America's political culture is that while we mix religion and politics, we are more vigilant than many other countries about separating church from state.

The religion-out-of-politics sign cruising St. Paul this week is sponsored by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, which identifies itself on its website as "the nation's largest association of freethinkers (atheists and agnostics)." Saying it is "critical to defend the separation between government and religion," the foundation also sent the sign to Denver last month for the Democratic National Convention.

Americans agree in theory with the ideal of drawing a line between church and state. But it isn't clear where they want it. In an August 2007 poll by the Pew Forum and the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, a large majority (69 percent) of Americans agreed that it is important for a president to have strong religious beliefs. However, a sizable majority (63 percent) opposed churches endorsing candidates during election campaigns. Just 28 percent said churches should come out in favor of candidates.

The voters' desire for faith in their leaders is reflected in media coverage of campaigns, according to another Pew project.

A relatively prominent topic

Researchers for Pew's Project for Excellence in Journalism analyzed coverage of religion in the campaign through 16 months of the primary season, from January 2007 to April 2008. They found that when coverage of the "horse-race" aspects of the campaign was excluded, religion emerged as a relatively prominent topic. Religion garnered nearly as much coverage (10 percent of the stories) as race and gender combined (11 percent), even though the front-runners for the Democratic presidential nomination were a black man and a woman.

"So despite the attention paid to Obama's former pastor, questions about McCain's relationship with his party's conservative religious base, interest in Mitt Romney's membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the surprisingly strong campaign of former Baptist preacher Mike Huckabee, only 2 percent of all the campaign stories directly focused on religion," said the Pew report.

Candidates readily affirm faith

In other words, reporters may be a bit squeamish about focusing directly on a candidate's religion. The same is not true for the candidates themselves. We heard affirmations of faith at the Democrat's convention in Denver. We can expect more of the same this week at the GOP convention and in the campaigns afterward.

Marching through St. Paul on Sunday, Rick Robinson from Cedar Rapids said his line on where religion is appropriate in politics is drawn "at using God to push your own agenda forward." The use of force to put down other people and other religions "misses the whole point of belief in God," he said.

Labels: church-state, Dan Hofrenning, faith, Freedom From Religion Foundation, Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, politics, Sharon Schmickle

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Wednesday, April 09, 2008

Church and State, Reconsidered

When most people talk about the “separation of church and state,” the idea is to protect the state from the church. People work hard to keep “Intelligent Design” out of the public schools, believing that public life is already too religious. This may be true, but Steven Goldberg argues in the book Bleached Faith, that it’s religion that needs protection from the influence of public life.

Intelligent design in the classroom, over-sized menorahs in public buildings, and the Ten Commandments—dubbed by Goldberg as the “Nike Swoosh of religion”—in the courts don’t strengthen faith. Forcing religious imagery into public life actually cheapens religion and spirituality.

Many in the religious community, however, understand that politics and religion don’t mix well. In a recent survey by the National Association of Evangelicals, the vast majority of evangelical leaders came out unequivocally opposed to using their churches to endorse candidates. One university president put the issue in stark terms saying, “the pulpit is not the place for electioneering.”

—Bennett Gordon

Labels: Bennett Gordon, church-state, National Association of Evangelicals, politics, religion, Steven Goldberg

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Thursday, June 21, 2007

Church-state disputes as human dramas

By CHRISTOPHER SULLIVAN,
Associated Press Writer
Wed Jun 20, 12:54 PM ET

"God on Trial: Dispatches From America's Religious Battlefields" (Viking, 362 pages, $26.95) — Peter Irons: Combining legal analysis with good storytelling, a lawyer-professor explores church-state disputes.

Nobody talks about how it feels to be right in the middle of an ACLU lawsuit in a small, fundamentalist town. But in a new book, a Texas woman who filed such a suit does exactly that. Surprisingly, her words might even make you laugh.

"I got the word out, very loudly in the community, if they burn a cross in my yard, I'm inviting everybody over for hot dogs and marshmallows," she tells author Peter Irons. "And that stopped them. Because they want you to be scared, they thrive on that."

One of the best elements of Irons' book, "God on Trial: Dispatches From America's Religious Battlefields," is a series of extended first-person statements like this, allowing real people involved in these disputes to explain themselves.

An atheist in one of these soliloquies, traces his nonbelief in part to a slap he received from a clergyman after asking an unwelcome question as a boy; and, in another personal narrative, a defender of a Christian religious display, who turns out to be Jewish, recalls his Holocaust-survivor parents' words about the danger of suppressing religious symbols.

"God on Trial" is a highly readable exploration of several church-state separation disputes that combines thoughtful analysis of the law with journalistic storytelling about the personalities and personal stakes on both sides.

Although Irons clearly has a viewpoint — he represented plaintiffs in one case he details, the longest-running church-state struggle ever, about a giant cross in a hilltop park in San Diego — he does not shortchange the positions of those who support prayer in school or Nativity scenes on the courthouse lawn.

He takes on the usual sound-bite views, for example, the notion that church-state separation is a "myth" without basis in U.S. history. In response, he notes that way back in 1785 the issue was real enough that a ban on religious taxation was taken up by Virginia's legislature.

And what about the idea that the United States is "a Christian nation"? Irons doesn't buy it, but in any event: Which Christians? He details intolerance and power-grabbing, pitting Christian sects against each other, from colonial Massachusetts to contemporary Texas.

Irons, a lawyer and emeritus political science professor, occasionally overdoes the legal detail. More often, his writing is lively, engaging and sometimes amusing. In one case where tempers are rising, a colorful judge roars: "Anyone who violates these orders, no kidding, is going to wish that he or she had died as a child."

In the end, "God on Trial" illuminates our never-ending religious battles. It shows that these cases are not all the same, that some are harder calls than others. And it suggests that if we recognize that the antagonists aren't two-dimensional, maybe we can make some progress.

Labels: ACLU, Christian, church-state, Peter Irons, religion