The Boston Globe reports today that state officials stopped a United Church of Christ volunteer program from distributing soup to homeless people on the streets after diners got sick eating food that had been prepared in volunteers’ home kitchens.
The church swiftly acknowledged its responsibility to the public, and its obligation under the law, to ensure that food is prepared in safe, licensed kitchens.
Now let’s contrast the UCC’s law-abiding response to the reactions of antigay activist Maggie Gallagher, the Roman Catholic Church, and the ex-gay movement, when their churches are urged to protect the public health and obey the law like everyone else.
1. When the same state, Massachusetts, last week considered legislation to regulate the medical practice of circumcision, Gallagher lost her nerve and proclaimed that Jews were being threatened with religious persecution — a facetious claim, largely unsupported by the state’s Jews, that merely served as a token effort by Gallagher to drag Jews into her holier-than-thou war against the religious freedom of sexual minorities.
2. After social-justice advocated urged the Pope to condemn antigay genocide in Uganda — out of respect for international law, public health, and common human decency — the Pope did the opposite last week:
…In his address to the bishops of Uganda last Friday, Benedict XVI made no reference to the anti-gay bill or the international outcry surrounding it.
Instead he called on the bishops to “encourage the Catholics of Uganda to appreciate fully the sacrament of marriage in its unity and indissolubility, and the sacred right to life” — the latter a reference to abortion. He also urged them “to resist the seduction of a materialistic culture of individualism which has taken root in so many countries” — a reference to concerns about an encroaching cultural influence from Europe and North America.
Far worse than the UCC’s well-intentioned serving of spoiled food, the Roman Catholic Church in Uganda has greased the wheels of a church-state death machine: A barbaric apparatus to sweep up thousands of LGBT people and their relatives for indiscriminate mass execution at the gallows. The Pope’s naked repudiation of life (when it isn’t heterosexual and preferably Catholic) is an act of negligent homicide against Ugandan minorities. The Pope’s silent affirmation of genocide also plainly repudiates international law regarding nation-states’ obligations to stop genocide, and finally the Pope’s ongoing promotion of abstinence-only public policy promises to accelerate the growing loss of human life that has occurred since conservatives began to silence Uganda’s comprehensive education, prevention, and treatment programs for HIV/AIDS in 2003.
3. Finally, when Tennessee intervened to stop youth sexual abuse and negligent treatment at Exodus’ flagship Love In Action residential facility back in 2007, Exodus responded by declaring that so-called “ministries” enjoy a blanket religious freedom to (mis)treat children — under the guise of phony pseudo-medical marketing — as their religion dictates. In the end, to the chagrin of concerned regulators, Tennessee’s conservative Baptist politicians agreed: Where the potential for medical malpractice and sexual abuse is concerned, churches are largely above the law.
What is it about the Christian Right family of political organizations that prompts them to defy law and health in order to preserve the same — and to deny religious freedom to all but themselves?
There is a stark difference between churches that obey humanitarian law, serve the public good, and respect public health — versus those that accumulate power by repudiating law, undermining human rights, sickening the public, and deliberately harming their chosen enemies.
One side believes that it should act on the assumption that God is love, while the other acts on the assumption that God is fear, sadism, and avarice.
Focus on the Family today applauded a Missouri senate panel’s endorsement of legislation which Focus claims would merely protect religious freedom.
In fact, the legislation does the opposite:
The legislation, Senate Resolution 31, establishes a ballot issue to amend the state constitution. The amendment would permit conservative Christians to impose official prayer and official religious symbols in public schools — against the will (and the faith) of Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, atheist, and liberal Christian parents.
The Resolution would violate the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It is poorly written and, while likely to increase litigation, may be difficult to enforce, according to Leigh Hunt Greenhaw in an article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
The real purpose of the law is to scare conservative voters into believing, falsely, that their right to pray is under fire so that they will go to the polls and vote for extremist candidates who are intolerant of religious minorities. The Post-Dispatch writer observes:
The proposed amendment to Section 5 could be a partisan strategy. If voters hear our right to pray is endangered and that an amendment to the Missouri Constitution is needed to protect it, they might come out to vote for it. And those that do might well favor candidates and parties that have supported the amendment.
Focus and its Missouri affiliate hinted at this true intent in today’s statement:
Joe Ortwerths, executive director of the Missouri Family Policy Council, said his group promoted Senate Joint Resolution 31, because groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, for example, are trying to convince public school officials that freedom of religious expression cannot be permitted in public settings.
The Christian Rightists deliberately mischaracterize the ACLU’s defense of individual religious freedom — in particular, the freedom of minorities to pray as they wish without official school interference or official religious indoctrination.
The “religious freedom” that Focus and Missouri’s Christian Right seek is a freedom from the religion of others, not religious freedom for all.
UPDATE: There seems to be some degree of misunderstanding on what’s going on here. See the comments below for more discussion, specifically from the representative himself. The bill seems to already be on the law books, and thus needs to be removed, even if it’s not enforced, as it very obviously violates religious freedom as guaranteed in the United States Constitution. My example, below, of a legislator trying to suddenly ban communion rites in a church stands as an obvious parallel to this law that exists on Oklahoma’s books. As Louise pointed out, there are already clergy all over the nation who perform same-sex weddings, regardless of whatever civil marriage is recognized in their jurisdiction. Representative Nelson explains that this is a “shell bill,” which contains an amendment to the text (reflected in the quote below), which would change the reading from “imprisonment in the State Penitentiary” to “custody of the Department of Corrections.” The Representative states that this is not a bill that he plans to advance in this session, but that he has filed as a shell bill, just in case he decides to advance other legislation related to marriage. So, it’s good news (?) that this is not new, but it’s grotesque that it exists. It’s a simple fact that in many Christian denominations, a large percentage of Jewish congregations, and several other religious entities, that they include same-sex couples in their sacrament of marriage. So my question to the representative is this: Do you support repeal of this provision, however unenforced it may be, and why or why not?
_____
Yes, as opposed to simply banning state recognition of same-sex marriage, Rep. Jason Nelson, a fresh faced knuckle dragger wearing an ill-fitting knit shirt, has put forth a bill that would criminalize performing same-sex weddings:
Rep. Jason Nelson of Oklahoma City has introduced HB 3408 “An act relating to marriage.” It would make it a felony for a minister of the Gospel to solemnize a marriage not recognized by the state of Oklahoma.
Here’s the text of the bill:
Any minister of the Gospel, or other person authorized to solemnize the rites of matrimony within this state, who shall knowingly solemnize the rites of matrimony between persons prohibited by this chapter, from intermarrying shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and upon conviction thereof shall be fined in any sum not exceeding Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) and imprisonment in the State Penitentiary custody of the Department of Corrections for not less than one (1) year nor more than five (5) years.
Jason. Hi, Jason! This is Evan. I need to explain something to you. The separation of church and state? It goes both ways. You, wingnut, have proposed a bill that would legislate, from the secular government, what rites and sacraments a church may or may not administer.
Let me provide a hypothetical counter-example that might illustrate how utterly stupid and unconstitutional your idea current Oklahoma state law really is:
Hi, Jason. Now I’m your representative! I have just put forth a bill in the Oklahoma legislature that states that your church may not perform the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. Why? I don’t know, I just don’t like it very much! I think it’s weird! And Jesus was 100% human, and we outlawed cannibalism in Oklahoma at least five years ago.
Now, Jason, how would you like that particular bushel of apples? I have a sneaking suspicion that you might have a problem with it.
How many times do we have to explain that the government does not recognize your religious marriage in the first place?* They recognize your signed marriage certificate. Therefore! It’s absolutely irrelevant whether or not the state allows or disallows state-sanctioned civil marriage for same-sex couples! The church may offer the sacrament to whomever it will. I mean, give me a break! I know of certain Episcopal churches that have special days when they bless peoples’ various ponies and kittens for them. Because inside the church walls, they can do whatever the hell they want, as long as it doesn’t hurt anybody. That’s called religious freedom!
Clear now? If you need pictures or something like that, maybe a pop-up book, you just let me know.
Focus on the Family protested a federal judge’s ruling that South Carolina license plates may not give favored treatment to Christianity at the expense of the state’s Jews, other faiths, and atheists.
In an article published yesterday, writer Nima Reza called the opponents of religious freedom “pro-family.”
Focus made no effort to direct readers to the actual facts of the case, which were reported by Agence France Presse.
The truth is, Christian Rightist enemies of religious freedom deliberately wasted public funds advancing a blatant attack upon minority religious perspectives.
The lawsuit against South Carolina was filed on behalf of four local clergy — three pastors and a rabbi — the Hindu American Foundation and the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.
Rev. Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State said:
“Some officials seem to want to use religion as a political football…. That’s an appalling misuse of governmental authority, and I am thrilled that the judge put a stop to it.”
Christian Rightists have created a profitable industry by declaring themselves to be victims as they deprive everyone around them of their equality under the law.
Focus on the Family and the Alliance Defense Fund, a religious-right legal attack squad, today accused an atheist/agnostic group of threatening the National Day of Prayer.
But Focus on the Family had already eviscerated the event years ago, leaving little to threaten besides a sectarian evangelical organization that uses the event’s federal status to pray and politicize against Jews, Muslims, liberal Christians, and other American religious and non-religious traditions.
In 1952, Congress created the National Day of Prayer as an interfaith commemoration of prayer. Decades later, Focus on the Family destroyed the ecumenism of the Day when James and Shirley Dobson commandeered the event’s organizing task force. Now the task force’s website says:
Americans of all faiths are encouraged to participate in the [National Day of Prayer] according to their own traditions. However, the [National Day of Prayer] Task Force provides promotional materials and sponsors several events in keeping with the Judeo-Christian tradition
In order to join the task force, one must now sign a statement affirming Biblical inerrancy and “commit that NDP activities I serve with will be conducted solely by Christians.”
The commandeered National Day of Prayer now enforces sectarian religious observances in opposition to the wishes of Founding Father Thomas Jefferson — and in violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
On several occasions, Focus on the Family has used its control of the National Day of Prayer to attack family values and freedom of religion.
Jews on First and the Council of American Islamic Relations, among other faith organizations, maintain that the National Day of Prayer Task Force improperly turned the event into a judgmental and exclusive evangelical political sermon.
Religion plays an important role not just in individual lives, but in our society; that role is worthy of impartial recognition. Many religious people say they long for the day when Americans can join peacefully in honoring prayer. Such people have but one organization to blame for the loss of such an event:
The Family Research Council on Feb. 26 sent out an e-mail to constituents which contended that penalties for felony violence threaten religious liberty.
The enactment of so-called “hate crimes” legislation is a long-stated objective of the homosexual agenda. What this legislation does is lay the legal foundation and framework for investigating, prosecuting and persecuting pastors, business owners, and anyone else whose words and actions reflect their faith.
The act would establish a new FEDERAL offense for so-called “hate crimes” and add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as specially protected classes. It will mandate a separate federal criminal prosecution for state offenses.
FRC sidesteps a basic fact: Existing hate-crime laws punish felony violence — murder, rape, and severe battery — not speech. Adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the existing laws merely ensures that such violence won’t be ignored or treated less harshly by local authorities.
Why does FRC, year after year, defend a special right to felony violence against gay and transgender persons? Perhaps because its constituency of far-right pastors considers bullying and incitement to violence by far-right Christians to be valid forms of religious expression against the religious and social freedom of others.
FRC adds that punishment of antigay felony violence is equivalent to punishment of “thought crime.” FRC concludes by asking donors to sign a worthless online “petition” which tells signers that they are fighting hate crimes — even as they exempt antigay and anti-transgender felony violence from full prosecution under existing hate-crime laws which already protect other at-risk demographics.
Sign our Petition TODAY to say that equal protection under the law means equal protection for ALL.
FRC seems to reinterpret the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution so that it guarantees “equal protection” only to those persons who continue to be excused by prejudiced law-enforcement agencies for acts of systematic violence against gay people.
Despite what some prooftexted Bible verses may claim, felony violence is never a legitimate form of religious “speech” in civilized society. Furthermore, it is the victims of felony violence — not the perpetrators — who are denied religious liberty.
For FRC’s culture-war constituency, bullying and incitement to violence against entire sectors of the population remain necessary tools in their war against religious and social freedom and individuality.
Twenty antigay Oklahoma politicians including state Rep. Sally Kern — who recently enjoyed the enthusiastic public support of Oklahoma-based Exodus ex-gay activist Stephen Black — voted to suppress the public record of the opening prayer for the Oklahoma House of Representatives. (Sixty-seven voted in favor of recording it.)
The people of Maine should be free to marry the one person they love, under civil law, according each couple’s personal, religious and philosophical freedom of conscience.
Unfortunately, Focus on the Family opposes religious freedom, and further believes that conservative Christians should enjoy sole authority to define marriage and to dictate who is, or isn’t, allowed to marry.
Today, gay couples are under fire. Tomorrow, why not ban marriage for Muslims and Mexican-Americans?
Focus on the Family yesterday promoted “religious freedom” for itself, but silently mouthed a “no comment” regarding religious freedom for anyone who isn’t evangelical.
Focus on the Family and the religious-rightist legal attack-dogs at Alliance Defense Fund claimed to promote “Christian” clubs in public schools, promote the expression of supposedly “Christian” prejudices against gay and non-Christian public-school students, and promote amateur preachers’ self-aggrandizing public “prayer.”
But when it comes to the rights of atheists, Jews, gay Christians, or others to express themselves — or to protect their children from captive proselytization by fundamentalists in classrooms — Focus and ADF couldn’t care less about the freedom not to bow before idols of fundamentalism.
