Is Religious Freedom A Central Principle Of Christianity?

Yesterday, I commented on part of this Roy Moore quote:

as late as 1931, the Supreme Court in United States v. Macintosh declared, “We are a Christian people … according to one another the equal right of religious freedom, and acknowledging with reverence the duty of obedience to the will of God.” Thus, the Supreme Court itself recognized that God is the source of religious freedom, not man – a central principle of the Christian faith.

I focused on his claims about the Scotus quote. Then I started thinking about the claim about God. I do not know what God thinks about religious freedom, but I’m not so sure you can describe religious freedom as “a central principle of the Christian faith.” Or at least I do not think the historical record demands that contention.

Consider John Calvin’s view on the purposes of civil government:

But we shall have a fitter opportunity of speaking of the use of civil government. All we wish to be understood at present is, that it is perfect barbarism to think of exterminating it, its use among men being not less than that of bread and water, light and air, while its dignity is much more excellent. Its object is not merely, like those things, to enable men to breathe, eat, drink, and be warmed, (though it certainly includes all these, while it enables them to live together;) this, I say, is not its only object, but it is that no idolatry, no blasphemy against the name of God, no calumnies against his truth, nor other offences to religion, break out and be disseminated among the people; that the public quiet be not disturbed, that every man’s property be kept secure, that men may carry on innocent commerce with each other, that honesty and modesty be cultivated; in short, that a public form of religion may exist among Christians, and humanity among men.

Let no one be surprised that I now attribute the task of constituting religion aright to human polity, though I seem above to have placed it beyond the will of man, since I no more than formerly allow men at pleasure to enact laws concerning religion and the worship of God, when I approve of civil order which is directed to this end, viz., to prevent the true religion, which is contained in the law of God, from being with impunity openly violated and polluted by public blasphemy.

In other words, civil government cannot mandate that a person attend church, but it can burn at the stake a person who denies the trinity. That would be a pretty tortured definition of liberty, if it were so to be called.

I think most would agree that Calvin’s attitude was typical of churchmen – Catholic and Protestant (but not Anabaptists) – during the reformation. These attitudes, I think, more than justify an observer in concluding that Christianity had no place for religious liberty.

And what of Colonial America? How about John Winthrop’s famous sermon:

We shall find that the God of Israel is among us, when ten of us shall be able to resist a thousand of our enemies, when He shall make us a praise and glory, that men shall say of succeeding plantations, the Lord make it like that of New England. For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill, the eyes of all people are upon us. So that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and byword throughout the world, we shall open the mouths of enemies to speak evil of the ways of God and all professors for God’s sake, we shall shame the faces of many of God’s worthy servants, and cause their prayers to be turned into curses upon us till we be consumed out of the good land whither we are going. And to shut up this discourse with that exhortation of Moses, that faithful servant of the Lord in His last farewell to Israel, V 30., Beloved there is now set before us life and good, death and evil, in that we are commanded this day to love the Lord our God, and to love one another, to walk in His ways and to keep His commandments and His ordinance, and His laws, and the articles of our covenant with Him that we may live and be multiplied, and that the Lord our God my bless us in the land whither we go to possess it.

Did that lead to religious liberty in colonial Massachusetts? Ask Roger Williams. Or consider what happened to women accused of having strange religious ideas. The result was more like a theocracy.

Different views existed. William Penn, for instance. But those folks were considered freaks. By and large the views were similar to Calvin. Again, the objective observer would probably not conclude that religious liberty is a central tenant of Christianity.

Obviously, I am no historian. The lessons I have been taught, however, lead me to question Moore’s assertions. God may indeed think highly of religious liberty. But I think the actions and words of his followers might cause an objective observer to wonder.

Do The Right Thing

Exodus 22:21

Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt.

Leviticus 19:33

When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him.

Deuteronomy 10:19

And you are to love those who are aliens, for you yourselves were aliens in Egypt.

Leviticus 19:34

The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

Psalm 146:9 

The LORD watches over the alien /and sustains the fatherless and the widow, /but he frustrates the ways of the wicked.

Mathew 25: 31-46 

When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’

Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.

In the Huntsville Times today:

A statewide conservative Christian group is rallying behind Councilman Glenn Watson’s proposed illegal immigration ordinance with a call to pack tonight’s City Council meeting to “encourage” Watson and “intimidate” other council members into supporting it.

The plans were revealed in an e-mail circulating among members of the Conservative Christians of Alabama that Watson forwarded to local news media Wednesday afternoon.

Jim Zeigler, immediate past chairman of the organization, confirmed the e-mail was being circulated among the statewide group. “We’re making everybody aware of it even though it’s a local ordinance. Naturally, it has state and local impact,” Zeigler said. . . .

The Conservative Christians of Alabama recently backed Republican Roy Moore in his failed race for the GOP nomination for governor. The group also supports such causes as lower taxes and greater protection from eminent domain.

The e-mail asks recipients to attend tonight’s council meeting to voice their support for Watson’s ordinance. The measure would punish businesses that willfully hire illegal immigrants and landlords who knowingly rent to them.

The other city council members “need to be encouraged to get off the fence and stand up against the illegal immigration,” says the e-mail, noting that Council President Mark Russell and Councilman Bill Kling face re-election later this month. “Your presence is needed to cheer our speakers and intimidate the Huntsville City Council.”

It also encourages people living outside Huntsville to call council members and ask them to “do the right thing.”

Do the right thing indeed.

If we should deny gay people the same government benefits enjoyed by heterosexuals because the Bible says being gay is wrong; if we should not teach evolution in public schools because the Bible says God made the Earth in six day; if we shold not use stem cells for research because the Bible says God knew us before he formed us in the womb; if we should execute people because the Bible says an eye for an eye; then we ought to welcome illegal immigrants with open arms.

If you are going to argue that public policy ought to be based on the Bible, at least have the integrity to apply the whole thing, rather than just those parts that accord with your own prejudices.

My Kingdom Is Not Of This World, Unless You Are Well Connected

From James Evans’s July 8th column in the Decatur Daily:

The church was never intended to rule — that’s why we have never been good at it. Our true identity has to do with serving, healing souls and reconciliation. It’s that old taste of power in our mouths that keeps us from embracing our proper vocation.

Being on the side is exactly where we belong. It’s where we started from, and the place from which we have always done our best work. Being on the side puts us where hurting people — the rejected, the despised and the lonely — are found. On the side is where Jesus was going every time he turned to his disciples and said “Follow me.”

In our culture, being on the side means second rate, second string. But that is not true from the perspective of faith. Jesus stands with us on the side and reminds us that the last shall be first, that humble servants are the ones who are truly great, that sinners get in to see God ahead of the self-righteous, and the powerful will be thrown down.

Not that any of this should come as a surprise. Jesus said repeatedly that his kingdom was not of this world. If it was not for him, what made us think it would be for us?

Some of the responses:

Don’t expect liberal ministers like James Evans to stand for Christian values in government, or against taking God out of our government, or taking Bible reading and prayer out of the schools, or standing against the murder of unborn babies.

I shudder to think about where this country, or the church, would be if we all took people like Mr. Evans seriously.

How long did this paper have to search to find someone who thinks homosexuality is a non-issue? Who was on the search committee? If the intention is to provoke the readers of THE DECATUR DAILY to think in new ways, then why not have a Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, etc. write on the religion page?

What fascinates me here is that the ‘liberal’ and the ‘conservative’ have swapped positions. Post-monkey trial, the fundies were the ones on the fringe arguing that Christians ought not be involved in politics and condemning the social gospel of the modernists. Now it’s the other way around. The lefties stand outside the power structure and condemn the unholy alliance of Christians and Republicans.

The flip flop leads me to propose that a group’s level of political and cultural involvement depends more on the group’s relative power than on Christian theology. At least as far as American Protestants are concerned.  

That said, I am much more sympathetic to Evans than to his detractors. Many things stand out when I ruminate about my journey from fire breathing evangelical to airhead liberal, one of which was a sermon I heard one Fourth of July. It was typical God and country stuff, bemoaning the decadence of modern society, and blaming it on the country’s abandonment of God. Think Roy Moore. I really liked this pastor, sitting proudly in his amen corner. But for some reason on that day, as I was listening, I thought, “Who is he talking to?”

It was as if his words left the pulpit, sailed over our heads, and went out the door. What happened to them once outside? Probably they were drowned out by the noise from the traffic, as they momentarily floated around on the breeze before falling into nothingness. 

That experience led me to re-think the role of God in our government. Eventually I ended up where I am today. I am sure God has an opinion about abortion, Alabama’s tax code, and the environment. But that opinion has no place in a public debate over those issues. Nor does codifying that opinion necessarily make anyone more pleasing to God. That does not mean Christians should abandon social action, but when the action is to push for legislation, the rationale must be something that all people can accept.

The Seeker Sensitive Blog

I don’t know how many of you will appreciate this blogger’s advice to pastors who want to connect the unchurched to a family of faith through a relevent blog that expresses their vision in a transparent way. 

But if you have ever spent any time at all in the evangelical world, or read anything by Rick Warren, or attended a church like B’ham’s Six Flags Over Jesus, you will laugh out loud. My favorites:

5) Put lots of pictures of yourself on your blog, especially ones of you preaching and “relating” with seekers, but make sure you are wearing jeans and a long untucked shirt. That’s what everybody wears, so even if you happen to be 60 years old, show them that you can dress just like them, like a teenager. Then they’ll be less afraid to come to church.

12) You need to be prepared for anyone who might leave a negative comment on your blog that would seem to question your ‘vision’. Those ruin the whole upbeat enthusiasm thing. The way to handle these is to cover-up any biblical points that they made, by citing the number of baptisms you had last month. Ask them how many baptisms their church had. Show them that “numbers” are the end-all indicator of ministry success, and try to make them feel less successful if they don’t produce as many numbers as you do. That might discourage them from arguing with you. If they persist by questioning your obsession with numbers, remind them that “numbers are people” and “we count because we care” etc.

So familiar, so revolting.

Sick, Sick, Sick.

I’m not sure where to start with this one, other than to just lay it all out (h/t Alabama Ass Whuppin’):

In a memorial service that bounced back and forth from loving salute to spirited defense, former Enron Chairman Ken Lay was remembered Wednesday as a kind and generous man who was unfairly characterized after the company’s collapse. . . .

“I am glad to have known Ken Lay and glad that he was willing to reach down and touch people like me,” said the Rev. William Lawson, pastor emeritus of Wheeler Avenue Baptist Church. “Ken was a rich and powerful man, and he could have limited his association to people who were likewise rich and powerful.” . . .

Lawson likened Lay to James Byrd, a black man who was dragged to death in a racially motivated murder near Jasper eight years ago.

“Ken Lay was neither black nor poor, as James Byrd was, but I’m angry because Ken was the victim of a lynching,” said Lawson, who predicted that history will vindicate Lay.

His comments, met by hearty applause, referred to Lay’s recent federal trial on fraud and conspiracy charges stemming from Enron’s unraveling in 2001 and four charges of bank fraud. Lay had planned to appeal his conviction and was awaiting sentencing when he died.

Some of the applauders:

Houston’s political and business leaders, including former President George H.W. Bush, turned out for Kenneth Lay’s memorial service on Wednesday, less than a week after the Enron founder’s sudden death. . . .

Among the other luminaries at the service were former Secretary of State James Baker, former Secretary of Commerce Robert Mosbacher Sr., several corporate heads such as Reliant Energy Inc.’s Joel Staff, and baseball team owner Drayton McLane.

There was more reason for the applause:

“The folks who don’t like him have had their say. I’d like to have mine … (Like Jesus Christ) he was crucified by a government that mistreated him.”

“Overzealous federal prosecutors have vilified an exceedingly good man … They did so without visible efforts to seek the truth, and the media piled on. It was total character assassination … I do know Ken would never intentionally do anything illegal.”

Obviously, going to the funeral is fine, admirable even. If Ken Lay was someone important to you, of course you ought to attend his funeral.

But comparing him to Jesus Christ? The reasoning, I suppose, is this: Jesus Christ was perfect; Jesus Christ was convicted of a crime; therefore, if you are convicted of a crime you are perfect. You see this type of reasoning in other situations. For example, Lincoln was a great president; Lincoln was often criticised; there if you are criticised you are a great president. But the ubiquity does not make it correct. That Einstein was a genius and had disheveled hair does not mean mean that ill-groomed people are geniuses. The absurdity is patent.

Never mind the flawed logic, the big distinction between Ken Lay and the incarnate Son of God is that Jesus Christ was convicted by military commissions at GITMO by a mob and a petty local politician whereas an impartial jury evaluated the evidence against Ken Lay and the evidence supporting Ken Lay before deciding that, yes, the “overzealous prosecutors” were right: Ken Lay was a crook. Lay’s supporters can believe whatever they want, the facts say that whatever good deeds he may have done, in the end he was a crook.

And comparing Lay to James Byrd is just sick. In case you don’t remember, this is what happened to James Byrd:

On June 7, 1998, Byrd, 49, accepted a ride from Berry, Brewer, and King. Instead of taking him home, however, the three men beat Byrd, tied him to a pickup truck with a chain, and dragged him about three miles. An autopsy suggested that Byrd was alive for much of the dragging and died only after his right arm and head were severed when his body hit a culvert.

King, Berry, and Brewer dumped their victim’s mutilated remains in the town’s segregated black cemetery, and then went to a barbeque.

To aid him against his ‘assasins’ Ken Lay had the best defense money could buy. Not to mention the Constitution and all its guarantees of a fair trial. What did James Byrd have? Nothing. Ken Lay was ‘mistreated’ because there was good reason to believe he had broken the law and injured thousands of people. James Byrd was brutally murdered because he was black. Ken Lay died of natural causes in his own home. James Byrd spent the last minutes of his life feeling the skin burn off his body onto the tar of an empty Texas road. Yeah, I see the similarities, sure.  

Fred Gray should have preached at this funeral.

The Power Of Love

In the news today:

A Mobile woman raising a baby boy with the child’s mother wants to adopt him as a second parent, a legal step of significance in a state that just passed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages.

Cari Searcy’s partner, Kim McKeand, gave birth to the baby boy in December with the aid of a donor. Searcy then sought to become the adoptive parent of the child, who bears her last name. Adoption would give Searcy rights to make medical decisions for the child as well as securing the sense of family in their home.

But Searcy’s application was denied in probate court May 3. McKeand said the judge ruled against adoption because Alabama does not recognize same-sex marriages. She said their case now is going to the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals.

I probably know more about tax law than I do about family law, but with that caveat, I’m going to give you my two cents anyway: This couple is going to lose.

Some states, like Florida, have statutes explicitly prohibiting adoption by gay people. In Alabama, we have Roy Moore’s infamous concurrence in a case where a gay mother sought custody of her own child:

Homosexual conduct is, and has been, considered abhorrent, immoral, detestable, a crime against nature, and a violation of the laws of nature and of nature’s God upon which this Nation and our laws are predicated. Such conduct violates both the criminal and civil laws of this State and is destructive to a basic building block of society — the family.

The law of Alabama is not only clear in its condemning such conduct, but the courts of this State have consistently held that exposing a child to such behavior has a destructive and seriously detrimental effect on the children. It is an inherent evil against which children must be protected. . . .

The State carries the power of the sword, that is, the power to prohibit conduct with physical penalties, such as confinement and even execution. It must use that power to prevent the subversion of children toward this lifestyle, to not encourage a criminal lifestyle.

Alabama law, though, has not wholly adopted Roy’s religion. Rather, Alabama’s adoption statute states:

Any adult person or husband and wife jointly who are adults may petition the court to adopt a minor.

Now, these two, thanks to the “we hate fags” amendment, are not a “husband and wife jointly.” So the question will be “what does ‘any adult person’ mean?” The obvious answer is any person. Ms. Searcy is a person, therefore Ms. Searcy ought to be allowed to adopt the child.

The answer given by elected judges in a state that just constitutionalized its hatred for gay people will go something like this. The legislature, by setting forth two categories of potential adoptors – “any person” and “husband and wife” – meant to limit adoption by couples to adoption by married couples. Further proof of this is that other sections of the legislature set forth the criteria for a step-parent’s adoption of a step-child. The legislature did not intend for individuals, whether gay or straight, to adopt the child of their unmarried partner. Here, the prospective adoptive parent is not married to the natural parent. Hence, the adoption is not allowed.

Nor will there be a successful constitutional challenge. The Eleventh Circuit upheld Florida’s explicit gay bashing, so there is no way they would reject Alabama’s subtle bigotry.

In short, whether or not this child will thrive under these parents is irrelevant. Whether or not Ms. Searcy would be a good parent is irrelevant. All that matters is that Ms. Searcy and Ms. Mckeand love each other. Because of that love, Ms. Searcy cannot adopt the child who bears her name.

Woo Pig Sooie!

I wasn’t going to comment on last week’s Arkansas Supreme Court decision striking down the state’s prohibition of gay foster parents. But now I want to compare it to yesterday’s display of truthiness in New York.

New York’s court of last resort, you recall, decided that “intuition and experience” justifies a state legislature’s conclusion – in the face of contrary empirical evidence – that kids are better served by straight couples. Hence, the legislature may encourage straight couples and discourage gay couples by giving marital benefits to the one but not the other.

In Arkansas, a statute gave the department of human services the authority to make rules and regulations that promote “the health, safety, and welfare of children.” Relying on that grant, DHS came up with this regulation:

No person may serve as a foster parent if any adult member of that person’s household is a homosexual. Homosexual, for purposes of this rule, shall mean any person who voluntarily and knowingly engages in or submits to any sexual contact involving the genitals of one person and the mouth or anus of another person of the same gender, and who has engaged in such activity after the foster home is approved or at a point in time that is reasonably close in time to the filing of the application to be a foster parent.

The plaintiffs sued, arguing that the regulation exceeded the statutory delegation of authority. In other words, they argued that it had no relationship to the health, safety or welfare of children.

The test is similar to the one used in the New York case: Is the prohibition rationally related to the statute? Like the rational basis test in New York, this one is very deferential.

DHS offered the same arguments as did the state in the New York Case: Being around gay people is bad for kids. They also offered the following:

Various members of the Board, including Robin Woodruff who introduced the regulation, testified as to their guidance and reasoning behind adopting Regulation 200.3.2. Woodruff testified that, in her opinion, (1) same-sex relationships are wrong; (2) homosexual behavior is a sin; (3) homosexuality violates her biblical convictions; (4) adults who have same-sex orientation should remain celibate; and (4) she would not be a proponent of her children spending time with openly gay couples.

James Balcom, another member of the Board, testified that there were three components to his decision to vote to enact the regulation – scientific evidence, his personal beliefs including his religious beliefs, and societal mores. Balcom further testified that he believed gay relationships are immoral and that he has a moral objection to people being in a household where there is a same-sex relationship going on.

The plaintiffs countered with studies and expert opinions. After hearing both sides fully argue the issues, the trial court made the following findings of fact:

10. The defendants are aware of “homosexuals,” as defined, who have served as foster parents in Arkansas11. The defendants are not aware of any child whose health, safety, and/or welfare has been endangered by the fact that such child’s foster parent, orother household member, was “homosexual”, as defined

12. The State has no statistics indicating that gays are more prone to violence than heterosexuals or that gay households are more unhealthy than heterosexual households

13. Based on its foster care statistics the defendants do not know of any reason that lesbians and gay men would be unsuitable to be foster parents

23. The blanket exclusion may be harmful to promoting children’s healthy adjustment because it excludes a pool of effective foster parents.

. . . .

29. Being raised by gay parents does not increase the risk of problems in adjustment for children.

30. Being raised by gay parents does not increase the risk of psychological problems for children.

31. Being raised by gay parents does not increase the risk of behavioral problems.

32. Being raised by gay parents does not prevent children from forming healthy relationships with their peers or others.

33. Being raised by gay parents does not cause academic problems.

34. Being raised by gay parents does not cause gender identity problems.

. . . .

37. Children of lesbian or gay parents are equivalently adjusted to children of heterosexual parents.

38. There is no factual basis for making the statement that heterosexual parents might be better able to guide their children through adolescence than gay parents.

39. There is no factual basis for making the statement that the sexual orientation of a parent or foster parent can predict children’s adjustment.

40. There is no factual basis for making the statement that being raised by lesbian or gay parents has a negative effect on children’s adjustment.

41. There is no reason in which the health, safety, or welfare of a foster child might be negatively impacted by being placed with a heterosexual foster parent who has an adult gay family member residing in that home.

. . . .

46. There is no evidence that gay people, as a group, are more likely to engage in domestic violence than heterosexuals.

47. There is no evidence that gay people, as a group, are more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexuals.

Now is where the New York court would say “facts be darned, our intuition and experience says gay people are dangerous.” The Arkansas court, in contrast said:

there was no rational relationship between the regulation’s blanket exclusion and the health, safety, and welfare of the foster children.

Thus, they struck it down.

The first thing that strikes me about these two cases is that, if you like to use silly labels, the Arkansas Court is the liberal one, while the New York Court is the conservative one. Take that, you snooty yankees.

Second, the Arkansas decision is the better decision not because it is the liberal decision, but because the Arkansas decision rests on reason and facts, not “intution and experience.”

Third, I am extremely sick and tired of people, like those cited in the opinion, who equate their beliefs with universal rights and wrongs. Maybe it is wrong to be gay. But how about some concrete evidence of widespread harm before we start basing public policy decisions on that belief.

Fourth, and related to three, that your religion, like mine, says being gay is wrong does not mean society ought to codify your religious belief. I don’t want to live according to Muhammed’s precepts, so I’m not going to make anyone else live according to my views about Jesus’s teachings. Religious motivations are fine, but the proposed law needs to have secular justifications. That is, justifications that people of any religion could accept.  

I have yet to see any evidence of concrete harm that would result from extending marital benefits to gay couples, nor have I seen secular justification for denying them marital benefits. So, although you’ll never see me out protesting in favor of extending marital benefits to gay couples, I just can not agree with the anti-gay marriage crowd.

Move Over Roy

Because your monument can’t touch Memphis’s newest lawn ornament:

                         

I don’t even know how to use photoshop; this is for real. Here is the whole story:

On Independence Day, Lady Liberty was born again.

As the congregation of the World Overcomers Outreach Ministries Church looked on and its pastor, Apostle Alton R. Williams, presided, a brown shroud much like a burqa was pulled away to reveal a giant statue of the Lady, but with the Ten Commandments under one arm and “Jehovah” inscribed on her crown.

And in place of a torch, she held aloft a large gold cross, as if to ward off the pawnshops, the car dealerships and the discount furniture outlets at the busy corner of Kirby Parkway and Winchester that is her home. A single tear graced her cheek. . . .

The Statue of Liberation Through Christ, as she is called, stands 72 feet tall from the base of her pedestal to the tip of her cross. She was the idea of Mr. Williams, a very successful pastor whose church, World Overcomers, qualifies as mega: it has a school, a bowling alley, a roller rink, a bookstore and, he said, 12,000 members.

I don’t use “theocrat” lightly, but the symbolism here is pretty powerful. If that is not enough, listen to Williams, the the self styled apostle who came up with it:

This statue proves that Jesus Christ is Lord over America, he is Lord over Tennessee, he is Lord over Memphis.

The Tennessee Guerrilla Women have more here.

My thoughts: You do not have to disagree with that statement in order to disagree with the statue.

First, Jesus may be Lord, but that alone does not mean society ought to conform to his teachings.

Practically, Williams can not expect policy to be driven by his own religious beliefs. Jesus may disaprove of abortion (or of Alabama’s tax policies) but the only people who care are people who think Jesus is authoritative. For everyone else, Jesus’s views are irrelevent. If Williams wants to get rid of abortion, therefore, he needs to provide secular rationals.

Theologically, there is the whole “my kingdom is not of this world” thing. Jesus is not out to save America, but Americans. If Williams persuades Americans, America will change. If he imposes rules on America, Americans will resent him and Jesus.

Second, something that always bugged me in my fundie days was how today’s Christian sub-culture is just a sanitized version of the normal culture. Christian music is the best example. Sometimes the ads sounded like ads for knock-off perfumes: “If you like Lynyrd Skynyrd, you’ll love Third Day.” This statue is another example. Where is the art that expresses in an original manner Jesus’s grieving over the world?

Bass Ackwards

That is the best description of how the supporters of H.R. 2679 understand the First Amendment. Sponsored by, among others, our own Spencer Bachus, the purpose of the bill is [emphasis added]:

To amend the Revised Statutes of the United States to eliminate the chilling effect on the constitutionally protected expression of religion by State and local officials that results from the threat that potential litigants may seek damages and attorney’s fees. 

Federal law gives us the right to sue state officials who violate the constitution. Because the harm is serious – thumbing their noses at our essential law – but the damages are usually not monetary, congress long ago decided to provide for attorney’s fees in these types of case.

The proposed law would exempt cases where someone sues the state for violating the establishment clause. What that means is the plaintiff would have to foot the bill on their own, even if they win. It also means there would be no real penalty for the offending state officials. The result? Establishment clause immunity. (Read more criticism here, and here. Favorable views are here).

What I really want to point out, however, is the highlighted language. Read it again. Do you understand what these folks are proposing? That THE STATE has a right to the free expression of religion. 

Um, no. The Constitution gives the people the right to free expression. It limits government involvment in religion. You have the right to the free expression of religion, I have the right to the free expression of religion, state and local officials have the right to free expression of religion as individuals. But if the state itself has that right, then guess what? You and I do not. Is that what we want? To authorize the state of Alabama to declare an official religion? That’s what this language would allow.

Governments don’t have rights, they have power. On government’s power over religious beliefs, here is Thomas Jefferson:

our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God.

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

The language about the bill’s purpose, of course, is not part of the law. But it says a lot about the people who support the bill.

God And Iraq

I'm late to the game, but thanks to Alabama Ass Whuppin' I can tell you about Ava Lowery. She is a fifteen year old peace activist from Alabama who produces short videos expressing her ideas. Her website is here. You can watch one of her videos and her recent interview on CNN here. In response to the videos, she has received death threats. Examples of which are here.

Generally, peace activists annoy me and I really dislike being lectured by teenagers. I'm sceptical about the death threats, also. Nothing drives up web traffic like a good persecution.

Still, when the CNN talking head questioned Lowery about the video in which a voice sings "Jesus Loves Me" as images of dead and wounded Iraqi children scroll past, her answer struck me. She said something like these are all God's children and they are suffering as a result of our actions.  

No Christian can deny the truth of those two assertions. We have caused suffering. And the victims are God's children. The video lets us experience these facts. It does not assert that the war is bad. Rather it presents the facts for whatever impact they may have.

I'll let you decide whether or not God – who came to Earth as the suffering servant in order to free us from tyranny – thinks this is a good war and whether or not that should alter our foreign policy. All I'll say is that the only wrong response is to ignore the facts.