Recently in Separation of Church & State Category

Here's what you need to know about the person that the 72-year-old, cancer survivor nominee of the Republican party, John McCain, has picked for his VP. This was taped in June 2008 for their "Masters Commission" graduates who are people who have completed a training program the church runs whose ultimate goal is to evangelize non-believers in Alaska. [via]

As my family includes missionaries and pastors and others deeply involved with their churches and in living their lives as they believe God wants them to do, I am deeply sympathetic to Sarah Palin's obvious pride and love for her church family. However, her inability to separate her personal faith from her role as governor of all the people of Alaska is disturbing.

I've written before about the separation of church and state and how important it is to our country. I think that Governor Palin missed that lesson about Thomas Jefferson and the First Amendment. When I combine that with the other deficiencies in her resume including a complete lack of foreign policy experience or even evidence of basic knowledge, I can only say that her selection profoundly underscores John McCain's reckless decision making which puts our country's national security at risk.

We do not need someone ready to start a war based on her interpretation of the end times described in the Bible one heartbeat away from the presidency. And if she is an active believer in the Assemblies of God churches, then she believes in Revelations.

UPDATE: NPR's All Things Considered just aired a segment on these videos along with more background. Please do check it out as well.

UPDATE #2: Huffington Post has more background on Sarah Palin's churches and points out that they are part of "a resurgent movement that was declared heretical by the Assemblies of God in 1949. This is the same 'Spiritual Warfare' movement that was featured in the award winning movie, "Jesus Camp," which showed young children being trained to do battle for the Lord. At least three of four of Palin's churches are involved with major organizations and leaders of this movement, which is referred to as The Third Wave of the Holy Spirit or the New Apostolic Reformation. The movement is training a young "Joel's Army" to take dominion over the United States and the world."

Talk2Action has the complete post which HuffPo excerpted along with a lot more reference information.

NCJan raised an interesting point of discussion today about Barack Obama's appearance in Rick Warren's Saddleback Forum.

Did Obama pull a Colbert?

As far as the Saddleback thing goes, couldn't Obama have pulled a Stephen Colbert/Press Club thing that night?

By that I mean, while McCain was speaking to the audience in front of him and ignoring the fact that the nation was watching, Obama was speaking to all of us.

I remember when Colbert's first reviews came out, everybody in the traditional media thought he had bombed. That's because they were taking their cues from the people in the room. ... And sure enough, days and even weeks later, Colbert's performance was upgraded to brilliant. It is still remembered. It is memorable.

I think that by sticking to his guns on things like choice, Obama was "playing to the waiters" in that crowd. In this case, the waiters were all those pro-choice Republican women who were, by the very nature of patriarchal right wing religion, standing "in the back of the room" that night.

I think she's onto something there. Given the subsequent McCain campaign efforts to find out if a pro-choice Veep nomination would help or hurt him, I suspect that the McCain campaign itself recognizes that it has cut off all the Republican pro-choice women. Of course, all the pushback about choosing a pro-choice Veep nominee and how it would completely dissolve the Repub base coalition means McCain is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

Contrast that with what Barack Obama accomplished at Saddleback. In addition to reaching out to the Republican prochoice women, he established himself more firmly as a thoughtful Christian. I just ran across this blog post, "Obama Shows Guts", by David Brody, a reporter/blogger with the CBN network about Obama's appearance at the Saddleback Forum.

The fact that Barack Obama would show up at an Evangelical Church and take the tough questions is a credit to him. I mean he knew he was the visiting team so to speak yet he handled these questions like he has in the past: with relative ease.

Brody commented on the 'when does a baby get human rights' question and noted "But look, the guy is pro-choice so did anybody really expect him to answer it with a fervent "at conception" answer? He was kind of stuck and it showed. But let's remember for many others in the faith community who aren't as conservative an answer like that may have been just fine. Obama's main focus is not to win over the die hard conservative Evangelicals. He's trying to appeal to the broader faith community and the latest polling shows he's doing a pretty god job of it."

He concluded his assessment this way.

Overall the night was a success for Obama. He didn't get put on the spot too much with the abortion questions. He handled the "Jesus" question about his faith with ease and maybe most important he looked comfortable up there. His answers were nuanced quite a bit unlike McCain's quick direct answers. That was a big difference between the two of them. Obama sees more shades of gray. McCain sees the World a lot more black and white. That was on clear display. By watching Obama and McCain go back to back tonight, I think it offered a stark contrast on how they both approach the hot button social issues. But Obama has very little chance with die-hard pro-lifers anyway. Instead, Obama's goal is to come across as a caring family man who takes his faith and set of values very seriously. That plays to the broader audience. A forum like this only helps him in that regard.

I think that Brody's post supports the contention that Obama was looking beyond the people in the room. It certainly supports my contention that Barack did just fine at Saddleback. He did what he needed to do though he shouldn't have to do it. And that raises this question.

Why is such a religion focused discussion a part of our democratic selection of a president anyway?

I can remember discussing our Huguenot ancestry with my mother (who's a missionary) while I was growing up in Liberia and concluding that the separation of church and state was a good and proper thing. It wasn't so long ago that people were persecuted and killed for being the wrong kind of Christian by other Christians which, BTW, Obama did subtly underscore in his response about evil being perpetrated on behalf of the good and that good intentions didn't necessarily mean doing good.

Kathleen Parker commented on the separation issue today as well, asking how Thomas Jefferson would have responded to questions about his position on evil and his relationship with Jesus Christ?

What would have happened to Thomas Jefferson if he had responded as he wrote in 1781:

"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

Would the crowd at Saddleback have applauded and nodded through that one? Doubtful.

By today's new standard of pulpits in the public square, Jefferson -- the great advocate for religious freedom in America -- would have lost.

And the point that Ms. Parker makes is a sad one. Thomas Jefferson would have flunked at the Saddleback forum. All the chattering classes would now be talking about how poorly he did and out of touch he was. One of our country's most esteemed Founding Fathers wouldn't have made the grade at Saddleback or on the cable news shows. One can only imagine what the Fox Noise channel types would have had to say about him.

We, collectively and individually, owe so much to Mr. Jefferson. He fought long and hard for our rights to free practice of religion and freedom from religion which culminated in the First Amendment which, in case you need a refresher, reads:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

What a sublime sentence. So much democracy is caught up in that one statement.

The people at religioustolerance.org remind us of the history of it.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is also the first section of the Bill of Rights. It is arguably the most important part of the U.S. Constitution, as it guarantees freedoms of religion, speech, writing and publishing, peaceful assembly, and the freedom to raise grievances with the Government. In addition, it requires that a wall of separation be maintained between church and state. [...]

The roots of the First Amendment can be traced to a bill written by Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) in 1777 and proposed to the Virginia Legislature in 1779. It guaranteed freedom of (and from) religion. After an impassioned speech by James Madison, and after some amendments, it became law on 1786-JAN-16.

In the spring of 1778, the Constitutional Convention was held in Philadelphia, PA. They resolved three main religious controversies. They:

• Decided that there would be no religious test, oath or other requirement for any federal elected office
• Allowed Quakers and others to affirm (rather than swear) their oaths of office
• Refrained from recognizing the religion of Christianity, or one of its denominations, as an established, state church.

But there was no specific guarantee of religious freedom.

Jefferson was pleased with the constitution, but felt it was incomplete. He pushed for legislation that would guarantee individual rights, including what he felt was the prime guarantee: freedom of and from religion. Madison promised to promote such a bill, in order to gain support for the ratification of the constitution by the State of Virginia.

In 1789, the first of ten amendments were written to the constitution; they have since been known as the Bill of Rights. [...]

Shortly after Thomas Jefferson was elected president, some Baptists from Connecticut asked that he declare a national day of fasting in order to help the country recover from a bitterly fought presidential campaign. He disagreed, feeling that the Federal government should not recognize a day set aside for religious reasons. In his reply of 1802-JAN-1, he stated:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

What a brilliant idea. Thanks, Mr. President.

Now we just need to start teaching the First Amendment and what it means to all of us because somewhere along the way, there's a lot of people who seem to have forgotten it.

First, Obama set the record straight about his thoughts on Rev. Wright and his preaching at Huffington Post.

Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue. [...]

Let me repeat what I've said earlier. All of the statements that have been the subject of controversy are ones that I vehemently condemn. They in no way reflect my attitudes and directly contradict my profound love for this country.

...And while Rev. Wright's statements have pained and angered me, I believe that Americans will judge me not on the basis of what someone else said, but on the basis of who I am and what I believe in; on my values, judgment and experience to be President of the United States.

Please read the entire post if you haven't already or watch it here.

But that's not all that Barack has said. He reflects on Bobby Kennedy's words about Martin Luther King's death and speaks out about his church and his faith in Indiana on March 15, 2008.



His comment, 'the little bits of America all in me' line really struck home with me as did his overall point of choosing to not be divided.

I read blog posts on this topic from two other bloggers I respect that I want to share. Andrew Sullivan's and Poblano's comments both add critical elements for consideration when thinking about this.

I did some poking around for some background on Dr. John Hagee, whose endorsement John McCain so proudly acknowledged, at least when it was first given. It does make one wonder who on McCain's campaign staff is responsible for background research.

Bill Moyers covered Hagee last fall and again this last week. October 2007's program was titled Christians United for Israel (CUFI). The March 7, 2008 program had two segments - another one on CUFI and a second titled The GOP's Nominee. Videos and transcripts are available for each of the segments as well as links to additional source material.

Hagee's a very nasty piece of work. Troutfishing on daily kos posted about him recently.

Questioned on CNN March 1st, about whether he had been aware of John Hagee's writings prior to soliciting Hagee's political endorsement, John McCain refused to answer but for not denying it McCain's response seemed closer to a confirmation that, yes, he had been aware of the political extremity of John Hagee's writing. In pastor Hagee's book 2006 "Jerusalem Countdown", Hagee claimed the Roman Catholic Church conspired with Hitler to kill Jews in the Holocaust but also, in the same book, blamed the Holocaust on Jews themselves (for worshiping idols) and wrote that Hitler and the Nazis were actually working for God, divine agents sent to chase Jews, through the rather inefficient and brutal mechanism of killing them in massive numbers, towards Palestine, "the only home God ever intended for the Jews to have." One can read a grotesque collective theological justification for genocidal campaigns against Jews as being inherent to John Hagee's view which decries anti-Semitism but also depicts Jewish residence anywhere else but in Israel as an affront to God.

The implication is that Jews living anywhere but in Israel should expect violent persecution until they relent and make Aliyah. But Israel, in Hagee's and the Christian Zionist vision, resembles not so much a refuge as, for the implied element of violent coercion, an ethnic bantustan that will, in the end-time, function as an enormous death camp for all the Jews chased there by Hagee's 'divine anti-Semitism'.

Several leaders of John Hagee's CUFI have discussed the coming "Holocaust" they expect for Jews, and former CUFI executive board member Jerry Falwell once told a congregation that "millions of Jews" would be slaughtered. CUFI leader Dr. Chuck Missler is even a bit more explicit and John Hagee, in Hagee's 2003 book "Battle For Jerusalem", both publicly acknowledged and also seemed to agree with Missler's view that the end of days will be, for Jews, "worse than Auschwitz."

There's more in the diary as well as a link to the blog, Talk to Action, which specifically focuses on following the insanity of the Christian dominionists and those such as Hagee. Talk to Action's link to more resources on Hagee and CUFI.

I don't see why people aren't calling on McCain to "denounce and reject" the endorsement of this man and his teachings. He's every bit as reprehensible as Farrakhan and I don't believe he's really 'flown below the radar'. It's probably more accurate to say that many in the corporate media do not closely monitor the Christian dominionist movement and all its many offshoots.

UPDATE: One more reason 'denouncing and rejecting' is most definitely in order.

Media Matters has more on Hagee's many outrageous stances including his words on Katrina and New Orleans.

On the September 18, 2006, edition of National Public Radio's Fresh Air, host Terry Gross said to Hagee, "You said after Hurricane Katrina that it was an act of God, and you said 'when you violate God's will long enough, the judgment of God comes to you. Katrina is an act of God for a society that is becoming Sodom and Gomorrah reborn.' " She then asked, "Do you still think that Katrina is punishment from God for a society that's becoming like Sodom and Gomorrah?" Hagee responded:

HAGEE: All hurricanes are acts of God, because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they are -- were recipients of the judgment of God for that. The newspaper carried the story in our local area that was not carried nationally that there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other Gay Pride parades. So I believe that the judgment of God is a very real thing. I know that there are people who demur from that, but I believe that the Bible teaches that when you violate the law of God, that God brings punishment sometimes before the day of judgment. And I believe that the Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans.

Earlier in the program, Gross asked if Hagee believed that "all Muslims have a mandate to kill Christians and Jews," to which Hagee replied, "Well, the Quran teaches that. Yes, it teaches that very clearly."

There's more including the 'slave sale' that his church was going to sponsor and of course, his denigration of Catholics.

Cross-posted from Dwahzon's Village

Now that Huckabee has surged ahead in the Iowa and South Carolina polls on the Republican nomination race, conservative bloggers and pundits have some interesting things to say about him and the race.

John Cole at Balloon Juice has some interesting selections. Good for a chuckle:

Can schadenfreude be fatal?

Andrew Sullivan has also weighed in at The Daily Dish.

It's amazing to me to watch Rich Lowry and Charles Krauthammer begin to panic at the signs of Christianism taking over the Republican party. Where, one wonders, have they been for the past decade? They have long pooh-poohed those of us who have been warning about this for a long time, while cozying up to Christianists for cynical or instrumental reasons. But now they want to draw the line. Alas, it's too late, I think...

Steve Benen at The Carpetbagger Report discussed a recent poll ranking the Republican candidates and the difference between what was reported in the poll and what the vote totals were on a straw poll taken at the Values Voters conference.

In short, it showed that Mike Huckabee has a very strong level of support, exceeding that for Romney and Giuliani by far, among the Christian right wing of the Republican party.

I can recall hearing Renee Montagne interview Mike Huckabee on NPR earlier this year and thinking, "If this man wins the Republican nomination, he's a real threat." Despite how far right his policies and positions are, he's a gifted communicator and he comes across as very personable and friendly and able to present those positions in a non-threatening manner. His interview with Robert Siegel also reflected that same approach.

It was this point in particular in the Siegel report that caught my attention.

A Baptist minister by training, Huckabee says that reclaiming a nation for Christ doesn't mean coercing people to be of a particular faith.

"It means that we would reflect what [Christ] reflected, and that is compassion and love," Huckabee says.