The question to the Washington Post On Faith panel this week asks about the “religious freedom vs. wisdom” of building an Islamic community center near Ground Zero and questions the impact of public opinion polling.  The following is my response, cross-posted from the Washington Post On Faith forum:

As a proponent of religious freedom who early on stated my support for the construction of Cordoba House, I was proud to see President Obama’s strong endorsement of religious freedom last Friday – and was quite disappointed when, on Saturday, he seemed to walk back his comments. That disappointment deepened as I saw a statement from Senate Majority Leader Reid’s office saying he respects religious freedom but that the mosque should be built somewhere else.

It has been disheartening to see Members of Congress and other national leaders cite public opinion polling as a reason to stop the project. Anyone with a basic knowledge of the history of the First Amendment knows that religious freedom exists in part to protect the rights of the minority from the whim of the majority. In fact, it would not be a stretch to say that if the Founding Fathers had relied on polling data, the First Amendment might not exist at all. On issues of religious freedom – and let me be clear, this is one of those issues – Congress and the President should not be wavering.  In my experience, any sentence that begins “We recognize that this is a religious freedom issue, but…” is usually followed by an attempt to circumvent the guarantee of religious freedom on the basis of discomfort and bigotry. Arguing that we should overlook religious freedom in favor of taking the road less controversial is, in essence, an argument for not taking action on any significant religious freedom issue in this country; most all of them have been controversial.

Cordoba House is a project that shows the American Muslim community’s commitment to democratic values, interfaith dialogue, and civic engagement and is, in many ways, a slap in the face to the extremists who sought to destroy those values with the September 11th attacks. Please understand that Hamas’ recent statement of approval of Cordoba House is not an endorsement the initiative’s founders sought – or, I suspect, want. Imam Feisal Rauf, a voice of progressive and peaceful Islam, has long been respected as a leader in interfaith issues; he and his wife Daisy Khan have repeatedly condemned radical Islam and have taken pains to disassociate themselves from extremists. Opponents must stop intentionally mischaracterizing the motives of those behind the Cordoba Initiative, conflating them with the impure motives of extremists who defile the religion of Islam by committing acts of violence in the name of their faith.

To oppose this project because Islam is involved and Muslims are sponsors of it is a violation of the religious freedom guaranteed and protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution – period. Whether the construction of such a building is “appropriate” is not for us to decide (though I do think an institution dedicated to education, fostering mutual understanding, and facilitating reconciliation is appropriate); rather, it is for us to recognize that the founding documents of our nation permit this project to move forward as a presence whose purposes include healing. The president and Congress should remember that they have sworn to defend the Constitution. Neither now nor ever is there a time to waver from that commitment.

Share on Facebook

Rev. Gaddy joined Rabbi Brad Hirschfield on Blogginheads.tv for a discussion about Cordoba House, islamaphobia, and the role of faith in the United States.

Share on Facebook

In yesterday’s landmark decision, Judge Vaughn Walker of California’s District Court struck down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional.  Unsurprisingly, there have been strong reactions from the religious community both in favor of and opposing the decision.  State of Belief host and Interfaith Alliance President Rev. Welton Gaddy welcomed the decision as a positive step for California, the nation as a whole, and religious freedom.  In his statement, Rev. Gaddy said:

“We are pleased to see that Judge Vaughn Walker was sensitive to the concerns of people of faith who oppose same-gender marriage on religious grounds but that he recognized, as do we, that their religious freedom will not be impacted by the legalization of same-gender marriage. America’s diverse religious landscape leaves room for a variety of theological perspectives on same-gender marriage; indeed, some faiths enthusiastically support it and others vehemently oppose it. Under this ruling, as with any constitutionally-based marriage equality law, no religion would ever be required to condone same-gender marriage, and no member of the clergy would ever be required to perform a wedding ceremony not in accordance with his or her religious beliefs.”

The separation between institutions of religion and government in America was not an accident, it was by design—for the good of both religion AND government.  Our First Amendment makes it constitutionally wrong to deny an individual certain rights because of a religion’s theology concerning what is moral, ethical, or correct.  Divorce is not recognized by the Catholic Church, but it is still the right of an American citizen to dissolve a marriage legally in the eyes of the state.   Judge Walker’s decision takes same-gender marriage out of the religious sphere and into the legal one; his judgment is grounded in law put in place to serve the best interests of this country.  His decision articulates that one couple’s same-gender marriage does not pose harm or threat to another person’s existence or religious beliefs, thus does not warrant its banning.

As I write this,  Rev. Gaddy is continuing our work on same-gender marriage as he is preparing to speak at the Salt Lake Sunstone Symposium for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints on the importance of shifting the conversation on LGBT equality from a place of “problem” to “solution,” from a scriptural argument to a religious freedom agreement.

For other reactions to Judge Walker’s decision, click here.

Share on Facebook

On July 30th 2010 Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas introduced a Sense of Congress resolution asserting the House’s firm support for “academically based social studies curriculum standards.” That what our children learn should be based in fact sounds pretty obvious right? Sadly, to some it is not. Rep. Johnson’s resolution is in direct response to the Texas State Board of Education’s changes to their state’s curriculum. These changes included removing Thomas Jefferson from a list of Enlightenment thinkers and striking down an amendment that would have required students to explore the Founders’ reasons for protecting religious freedom by separating institutions of religion and government. This resolution expresses Congress’ disapproval of these decisions themselves, and the process through which they were made (by politicians, not by scholars).

As frequent readers of the State of Belief blog know, Interfaith Alliance cares deeply about this issue and wants to make sure that children across America learn about our nation’s long history of religious diversity and pluralism. We have been involved in trying to correct the Board of Education’s decision since March, and played a large role in pushing for this recent resolution. And of course, Rev. Gaddy, discussed this topic on the most recent episode of his weekly radio show, State of Belief. In the coming weeks we will continue working to gain support to pass this resolution, so that the Texas State Board of Education understands that all children in America should learn about our nation’s history in an accurate and unbiased way – stay tuned and we’ll let you know what you can do to encourage your Representative to support this resolution!

Share on Facebook

Today, the Anti-Defamation League issued a statement weighing in on the controversial Cordoba House Islamic community center.  The position they took was, in a word, disappointing.  In response to the ADL’s opposition of the center being built at Ground Zero, Interfaith Alliance President and State of Belief Host Rev. Welton Gaddy had this to say:

“It was with a great deal of sorrow that I read the carefully constructed statement from the Anti-Defamation League…those who claim to defend religious freedom can not turn their back on it when faced with controversy…We agree with the ADL that there is a need for transparency about who is funding the effort to build this Islamic center. At the same time, we should also ask who is funding the attacks against the construction of the center.”

For more on the debate and bigotry surrounding the Cordoba House, check out this earlier post on the blog and for more on Rev. Gaddy’s perspective, check out his post on the Washington Post’s On Faith blog from earlier this week.

Share on Facebook

Discussions about plans to build an Islamic Community Center two blocks away from Ground Zero now include the voice of former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, who had this to say on the matter:

“There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia.”

I implore Gingrich, and those who share his belief, to remember that the United States of America and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia are two entirely different countries, governed by fundamentally different sets of laws and principles.  A comparison of the two countries in this context is like comparing apples to oranges, making it largely illogical to have equal expectations of both.  Stephen Prothero made a similar point on the CNN Belief Blog, as did Rabbi Brad Hirschfield on the Washington Post’s On Faith blog.  Hirschfield wrote:

“Gingrich’s claim…is [an] inane unless one [and] assumes two things: A, that we should now use Saudi Arabia as our benchmark for what is appropriate as far as freedom of religious expression, and unless they are as good as we are, we need not be as good as we have traditionally been. And B, that this is a Saudi project lead by people who could change the Saudi position on religious freedom but have failed to do so.”

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is just that — a kingdom, based in Shariah Law.  The national flag of Saudi Arabia includes the Shahada, the Muslim creed that states “There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His Messenger.”  Islam is the state-established religion; in fact, according to the CIA World Factbook, Saudi Arabia’s population is 100% Muslim.

In contrast, here in the United States of America, having an established national religion is against our constitution – as a result, we are the most religiously diverse country in the world. One of our founding principles is that the government cannot show preference for one religion over another or unfairly discriminate against one faith over another, or faith over no faith.

As an American citizen, and a citizen of the world, I expect a higher level of religious tolerance and acceptance from the United States than from Saudi Arabia.  The United States of America is responsible for upholding the values and judgments it has enshrined in its crowing jewel—the Constitution.

Our own Interfaith Alliance President, Rev. Welton Gaddy, addressed the Ground Zero community center debate in his own On Faith post:

“For years, public discourse…has called for a great moderate Muslim voice to counter extremism. Now, when such a voice is seeking to be heard in meaningful and helpful ways, it faces severe backlash and strong opposition – indicating a continued fear and ignorance of the Muslim faith, even at its most peaceful.”

Reverend Gaddy also recently interviewed Daisy Khan on his weekly radio show State of Belief.  Along with her husband, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, Kahn is one of the visionaries behind the community center. I leave you with her words on the matter:

“We always take comfort is knowing that Islam’s struggle in this country is the same as the struggles of those that came before us,’ she told me last week. ‘’It’s one of acceptance. America remains shining example of religious freedom and acceptance.”

Share on Facebook

In an election season that has already seen Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle proclaim her decision to run for office as a divine “calling” and South Carolina Gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley’s struggle to prove that she is “Christian enough,” it just might be time for America to brush up on its own history.

Just as many candidates have utilized the legacy of the Founding Fathers for varying political agendas, the Founders themselves were wildly diverse in their viewpoints, especially concerning religion; to generalize the “Founding Fathers” as having one unified vision for the country is revisionist and over-simplified.

In a recent interview with Bill O’Reilly, Sarah Palin supported her declaration of the United States as a “Christian nation.”  Palin repeatedly referenced America’s Founding Fathers and documents as proof that the American political system is rooted in Christianity and the King James Bible.

I wonder, then, if Sarah Palin has ever come across the Treaty of Tripoli, written in 1797 and unanimously passed by the United States Senate.  In Article 11, this treaty signed by President John Adams, says:

The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion

In terms of Nikki Haley, it may also be prudent to remind the American public (and Mrs. Haley herself) that the United States Constitution specifically states in Article VI, Section III that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

Lastly, the First Amendment, America’s quintessential protection of religious freedom, was supported by a comically diverse group of men.  James Madison of Virginia and Fisher Ames of Massachusetts were two of the Amendment’s biggest supporters and could not have had more opposite beliefs on faith.  James Madison believed that in order for both government and religion to flourish that they had to be kept strictly separate; Fisher Ames thought that the Christian Bible should be taught in public schools.

This is not an issue that applies solely to Republicans.  Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi once referred to President Obama’s Healthcare plan as “honoring the vows of our fathers” in a speech to the House of Representatives.  The chances are, “our fathers” would be just as divided on universal healthcare had that issue presented itself in the 18th Century.

If the “Founding Fathers” themselves did not agree, how can the politicians of today claim to speak for them as a cohesive group?  Generalizations are dangerous and often incorrect; perhaps more candidates should remember this.

Share on Facebook

Senate candidate Sharron Angle (who is challenging Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in Nevada) recently gave an interview to David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network in which she described her campaign for public office as a “calling.” She also made similar comments to Ralph Reed of the Faith and Freedom Coalition saying that she believes “that God has been in this from the beginning, and because of that, when He has a plan and a purpose for your life and you fit into that, what He calls you to He’s always equipped you for.”

Today Interfaith Alliance issued a statement in response Angle’s comments, calling on all politicians to stop using their religion to appeal to voters, a practice that weakens both religion and politics. Of course, candidates for public office are free to talk about how their faith informs their thinking. But candidates should always remember that they represent people of diverse beliefs, and the policies they create need to be based on fidelity, not to their religious scriptures, but to the Constitution.

See below for the full text of Interfaith Alliance’s statement:

Sharron Angle’s recent comments on her race against Sen. Harry Reid being ‘a calling,’ and that she considers herself a ‘faith-based politician’ should be deeply troubling to anyone who cherishes religious freedom. If elected to represent the people of Nevada in the United States Senate, Ms. Angle will do so as a representative of the people of her state, not of her church. My guess is that God will be just fine without playing a role in either candidate’s campaign.

Candidates for public office are free to talk about how their faith informs their thinking, but should not imply that policy position will be based on scripture rather than the Constitution. It has been my experience that when candidates intentionally insert faith into politics, the purpose is rarely to protect religion; rather it is done to enhance a political position.

Share on Facebook

Last week, North Carolina pastor Ron Baity demanded an apology from his state’s legislators after they dismissed him from his chaplain duties when he prayed in Jesus’ name. Baity was scheduled to deliver the opening prayer for the North Carolina House for the entire week of May 31^st, but when he invoked Jesus’ name in the first of these prayers “he was relieved from his duties for the rest of the week.” Baity is now requesting that the North Carolina House issue an apology and invite him back.

This issue shows the complicated nature of legislative prayer. On the one hand, Baity argued that the legislature prevented him from freely exercising his religion, while on the other hand, the legislators argued that allowing him to pray in Jesus’ name would be an unconstitutional endorsement of religion and would have made some members of the House uncomfortable. The House had a right to request a nonsectarian prayer, but for Baity, there may be no acceptable and proper way to pray, according to his faith, except in Jesus’ name.

While Reverend Baity certainly has the right to pray in Jesus’ name, I believe that the House made the right decision in dismissing Baity from his chaplain duties. Baity has a right to pray as he chooses when serving as a private citizen. As a chaplain for the House, however, Baity was serving as a “government mouthpiece,” and he therefore had an obligation to provide an inclusive, nonsectarian prayer.

Baity also asserted that he “was made to feel like a second-class North Carolinian” because he could not pray in the manner of his choosing. However, Baity was not being treated differently from any other chaplain in a similar situation – government chaplains of all faiths abide by these same restrictions in order to ensure that every American’s religious freedom is protected. In being asked to deliver a nonsectarian prayer Baity was being treated as a first-class citizen, with all the rights and responsibilities that belong to a citizen of a pluralist and democratic nation

Share on Facebook

I recently read Jimi Jobin’s articulate and impassioned plea to Pastor H. Wayne Williams to stop his endorsements of political candidates from his pulpit.  Jobin appealed to Williams as a fellow Christian pastor on the basis of the importance of keeping Christianity and Jesus Christ above the triviality of modern politics. I, as a student of religious history, appeal to Williams on the basis that he is challenging, not continuing, the Baptist tradition in America—and that he is breaking the law.

A number of recent blogs have been written about this issue by prominent Baptists, namely Holly Hollman and J. Brent Walker, our friends at the Baptist Joint Committee on Religious Liberty.  Hollman, argues that “every historic Baptist [should] oppose those (even if it is a fellow church member) who would act as ’king’ over the consciences of others by using the state to promote a favored faith.”  Using a federally tax-exempt Church to endorse a political candidate surely fits the standard of this claim.  Walker, in a lecture entitled, “Answering the Top 10 Lies About Church and State,” gave an excellent background to current arguments over barriers between religion and government including why the BJC continues to support strict separation.

H. Wayne Williams has been quoted saying that he “would welcome the history of [his] Baptist forefathers in going to jail over these issues.”  This, in my opinion, is a perversion of the legacy of these forefathers.  Baptists were a driving force in the fight for religious liberty in America—not, as Williams claims, for the liberty to use the state to endorse religion, but to ensure that all religious denominations are free from the unfair influence of the state or each other.  I have to wonder if Isaac Backus or Roger Williams (who did routinely go to jail for voicing these ideas) would support H. Wayne William’s use of his publicly-subsidized pulpit to endorse a particular gubernatorial candidate, in this case, Gordon Howie.  My guess? They would not.

What is at stake is not Pastor Williams right to endorse Gordon Howie; undoubtedly he can support whomever he pleases.  What is at stake is how and where he can voice this support.  As Reverend Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, has said: “We have a dazzling amount of freedom to express the most controversial viewpoints imaginable from American pulpits. We just can’t have sermons converted into political advertisements for candidates.”

This is all due to the Johnson Amendment which was passed in 1954 and states that charities and churches defined as 501(c)(3) organizations cannot engage in partisan political activity.  This amendment was revisited in 1987, and then again upheld in 2000 by a District of Columbia District Court Judge who upheld the IRS’s revocation of the 501(c)(3) status from Branch Ministries, Inc. that had publicly opposed Bill Clinton in his 1992 presidential campaign.

If Pastor Williams is interested in preserving tradition, why disregard 56 years of legal precedent and 374 years of Roger William’s legacy?  I defend Pastor Williams’ right to speak his mind whether or not I share the same opinion—I cannot, however, allow him to distort the legacy of religious freedom in the United States of America.  If Williams wishes to engage in more political discourse from his pulpit, I invite him to relinquish the tax-exempt status guaranteed to all 501(c)(3) organizations and do it in peace.

As Interfaith Alliance President and Baptist Minister, Rev. Welton Gaddy has said:

“If a sectarian entity feels that compliance with civil rights laws or other government policies violates its rights or morals, that organization can exist without government money and continue its efforts to persuade others of its moral perspective and policy preferences.”

Share on Facebook