This morning, President Obama spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast. His remarks highlighted the need for a return to civility in our national dialogue. Civility has been an ongoing theme of Interfaith Alliance’s work since its founding, equally important as its work as been protecting the boundaries between religion and government.

The New York Times has an interesting article about the organization – known as “The Family” – behind the prayer breakfast. The president can and should engage with the faith community, and is free to speak about his personal faith. However, enough legitimate questions have been raised about The Family and their secretive nature and connection to right-wing causes, that the president should think twice about participating in the future.

A group of  progressive organizations have come together this year to offer an alternative forum called the “American Prayer Hour.” It will be interesting to see if their efforts gain any traction.

Share on Facebook

When I read the headline “Religious leaders worry that Obama’s faith council is for show” in The Washington Post this morning, I imagined the story might have something to do with how concerned people are that the faith council may not be able to convince Josh DuBois to rein in the activities of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Partnerships, an office with both a title and an agenda tweaked only slightly from the disastrous Bush Administration office of similar name.

Upon reading the full text, however, I discovered that the article’s focus was, instead, on those who think the faith-based partnership isn’t doing enough to entwine our domestic agenda and our country’s religious organizations.

Apparently, “critics” are concerned about the fact that the council hasn’t been allowed to weigh in on issues like religious hiring and abortion. They’d really like the council to be able to tackle those, because they want religious organizations that receive federal funding to be able to turn away job applicants on the basis of their religious beliefs, and because they want to influence the president’s reproductive health agenda with their religious views on abortion.

That’s all well and good, but the article all but skipped over the other half of the “critics,” whose concern stems from a very different point of view.

Faith plays a very important role in our country and is a large part of the diversity that makes us so unique, but it often plays a disproportionate role in public debate. People of faith have every right to speak out on the issues that are important to them, but a line is crossed when we put religious concerns about political issues before all else.

It may be impolitic to say so, but my concern with the role of faith in the Obama Administration is not whether or not faith leaders are being listened to. It’s the fact that the faith-based office is still operating under the rules of the Bush Administration, which are deeply flawed and of questionable constitutionality. We all need to keep in mind that, since the government accepts taxes from and represents every person in the country, whatever their beliefs, it is not free to create policies or pass laws that favor any one, or several, belief system or systems. That would be the establishment of religion, prohibited by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Which, guess what?, exists to protect religion as much as it does the government.

Share on Facebook

January 31, 2010 Des Moines Register:

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20100131/OPINION01/1310317/1035/arc

Guest column by CONNIE RYAN TERRELL-executive director of the Interfaith Alliance of Iowa. Contact: connie@interfaithallianceiowa.org

In any public conversation, that which defines us is the manner in which we debate. Do we do so with integrity and civility, or not? The Jan. 24 guest essay in the Register by Bryan English argued that Iowans have a right to vote to allow or to ban same-sex marriage. However, English’s article distorted important facts.

Regardless of the religious right’s attempts to rewrite history, marriage has always been an organic, ever-changing institution. Even Biblical literalists must acknowledge that marriage has changed throughout history as humanity and our critical-thinking skills evolved. What marriage looked like in Old Testament times is a far cry from marriage today.

One cannot honestly argue that “traditional marriage” is the only form of marriage ever to exist. Historically, women were, and in some countries still are, treated as property with no rights. In our country, interracial marriage was forbidden only a few short decades ago. The institution of marriage changed due to the pressure from those who understood a more progressive future. The government then interrupted the socially accepted norms by changing the laws. Thankfully, our society understands the value of change.

What role should religion play in this discussion? Let’s be clear. The public debate on same-sex marriage is about civil marriage, not sacred marriage. Those who argue against civil marriage equality do so solely from their particular religious perspective. They have a right to their religious belief, they just cannot write it into our civil law. Thankfully, the U.S. and Iowa Constitutions are very clear on this point.

History proves that differences in civil law and religious beliefs can cohabitate. For example, there are faith traditions that disagree with civil laws that sanction divorce. Our state and U.S. Constitutions protect the rights of religious institutions to handle divorce according to their beliefs. However, civil law stands as the law of the land. Religious liberty is our most precious freedom. If we can agree on nothing else, let us at least agree to protect faith and freedom in our state and country.

Those who publicly rally against same-sex marriage most often speak from their faith, usually as Christians. They typically assert that their faith speaks with one voice on the subject, and those who disagree are not true believers. It is an arrogant assertion. People of faith span the full spectrum of beliefs on this and many other social issues. Whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Unitarian Universalist, Sikh, or any other, there is no unanimous understanding in any faith. We see things through the lenses of our life’s experience and we interpret from that.

Regardless, the differences between people of faith are secondary in the discussion on civil marriage. This is a societal conversation about access to civil rights and responsibilities. Do we as a society believe all people have equal protection under the law? Or, do we as a society believe in an institutionalized class system defining the haves and the have-nots?

Years ago, the Iowa Legislature passed a marriage law that clearly disregarded the Iowa Constitution’s equal protection clause. The Iowa Supreme Court used its rightful powers to dismantle that unconstitutional law. The religious right disingenuously asserts the Supreme Court overstepped its authority. Their current tactic is to contend that elected officials are blocking the public’s right to vote.

Since when has Iowa ever placed the rights of others on the public chopping block?

When have we ever dissolved the rights of a group of people by adding discrimination to our Constitution?

As the public discussion continues on civil marriage equality, let us do so with integrity and civility. Scare tactics, distorting history and perpetuating myths never serve the public’s best interest. This can only be ensured when the rights of all are equally protected by our government and by each of us.

Share on Facebook