A Sheriff and a Bishop Both Leap Across the Church/State Dividing Line

I was trying to wrap my head around this topic, freedom of religion v. separation of church and state. I kept coming back to the fact that I didn't agree with churches excluding followers because they supported gay marriage or other equalities for gay people simply because I think discrimination against gay people is wrong no matter who is doing it. I'm surprised at how many politicians belong to extremely conservative churches, especially if their voting base is moderate on social issues. How can someone who follows a faith excluding certain peoples and choices, support those same people and choices among his constituents? I can see from the church's point it takes a bit of hypocrisy but in my world the church changes not the politician.

Spend Wisely Texas ( http://www.spendwiselytexas.com ) - Living Well and Spending Less in Texas

The commenbt "Yes, that's exactly why we need to have Christianity in government.  Because if we don't, these other religions are going to come in and take over." is typical right-wing spin. They feel they have the lock on what Christianity is and is not, nd they thrive on promoting fear. It makes me sad and angry.

~~ Contributing Editor, Mata H. also blogs right along at Time's Fool ( http://timesfool.blogspot.com )

When I try to walk in the shoes of the Catholic leadership to try and understand, it does make sense that they would claim responsibility to say what does and doesn't make a Catholic. And if they deny communion to anyone but Catholics, then I can see their point --somewhat...but their uneven-handedness is what gets me. Not everyone in the church is run through a doctrinal litmus test before receiving communion, so I think more is afoot here. Perhaps, as you suggest, it is about power. But then, if we say the church is wrong for doing that, is another church right for holding meetings to promote certain legislation? I am thinking of churches in urban areas that block the incursion of porn shops to their block, or churches that organize to attend peace marchs on Washington, or churches that register voters on site. Is that over the line?

~~ Contributing Editor, Mata H. also blogs right along at Time's Fool ( http://timesfool.blogspot.com )

The really sad thing is that I've heard an interview where someone with similar views to this sheriff was asked how he would feel if the shoe were on the other foot, if someone were trying to insert a religion other than his into government institutions.  And all he did was reinterpret the question to his liking and answer "Yes, that's exactly why we need to have Christianity in government.  Because if we don't, these other religions are going to come in and take over."  I am shocked and dismayed by the inability of these few extremists to imagine themselves in anyone else's place and their insistance that anything less than state sponsorship of their faith and their faith only is persecution.  I hope that the great majority of more reasonable people of faith will make a point of publicly denouncing this kind of behavior.  While I certainly believe you can be loyal to both your religion and your country, trying to twist of government founded on the idea of separation of church and state to promote your faith is un-American.

Sara

www.inkandpixelclub.com ( http://www.inkandpixelclub.com )

Great article. I'm not very religious although I come from a very religious family. A politician who is a member of a church or a faith is put in a position where the needs and wants of his constituents are quite different from the tenants of his or her religion. However, isn't one of the founding principles of the US, the separation of church and state, giving politicians the duty to look to their constituents before following the dictates of whatever church they follow? If they don't do this then religious minorities and even atheists are at a severe disadvantage. When it comes to asking religious groups to follow laws that would violate their faith, I don't agree (unless it's a law that would stop the church from violating the rights of people within their community who are unable to defend themselves, like children).  I do believe that churches, no matter the denomination should provide services to the community. The church I grew up in emphasized service to the community and if service is essential to the church then it will find a way to help its community. Lastly, denying communion to politicians who appose abortion or support gay marriage is wrong. The church is making political statements when it makes these denials and is exceeding its scope in the US. The church should be a part of our personal life. In reality, most groups (men?) crave power no matter the field. Many people in the religious community may be no different than most. 

Spend Wisely Texas ( http://www.spendwiselytexas.com ) - Living Well and Spending Less in Texas

Hi Michelle - Good points as usual, and you are right that churches and individuals have a right to withdraw from an activity that compromises their belief. But, I opposed prior administrations' actions on the basis of my faith, and had no legal recourse to withhold tax revenue proportionately.  Further, while I can see the reasons a church would withdraw from partnerships, wouldn't that make it possible for them to scale down, but still be active? I just feel the sense of footballs being taken home here -- but I agree it is a thorny issue.

Re the communion issue -- despite the fact that my personal theology is more accepting at the communion rail, I undertsand how some would fence it in. Denial of Eucharist is just so huge -- esp from the Catholic tradition. yet I do not see the denials being extended beyond visible politicians here and there. It just does not seem even-handed. And the only places I see it mentioned are around issues of abortion, gay marriage and what is being called "religious liberty". It really is a selective denial. I guess that ultimately  I want poiticians that are doing what they believe is best for the nation and their constituency, not what won't be objected to by their church, whether that church is progressive or conservative.  However, recent events have me more anxious about the religious imposition of the far right.

~~ Contributing Editor, Mata H. also blogs right along at Time's Fool ( http://timesfool.blogspot.com )

we have religious institutions doing social services that the government should be doing. I do think that churches have the right to not engage in what they don't believe in. And I think that any church has the right to withdraw from working with state and local governments if those contracts will oblige them to do things that are against their beliefs.

The question of communion is a very interesting one. I tend to agree with the idea that a religious institution does have the right to dictate whether and how it's adherents relate to it, but where it gets problematic is when that becomes part of public discourse about an issue, such as abortion.

I think why I am reacting so strongly to the rights of religious institutions is that I can easily see it coming back to bite progressive religious organizations if the tide turns at some point.

Thanks for this statement "The right wing faithful would have us believe that they can be right or they can be wronged. But they cannot be wrong." That is such a cogent summary of their perspective.

It is a thorny issue. It is made even more complex by the fact that the program has some partnership with the government -- one of those faith-based initiatives where it is both church and state at the helm. So in those cases, the church is asked to obey government laws that if they were not accepting state funds, they would not have to -- like extending partner benefits to gay employee spouses/partners. But I , like you, think the main point is to help those in need, period. Just help.

~~ Contributing Editor, Mata H. also blogs at Time's Fool ( http://timesfool.blogspot.com )

Kim, I admire your writing and your opinion so very much that your praise has me humbled. Thank you so much!

~~ Contributing Editor, Mata H. also blogs  at Time's Fool ( http://timesfool.blogspot.com )

You can favorite the post by clicking the Star, next to the title of the post.

~Denise BlogHer Community Manager
Flamingo House Happenings ( http://www.flamingohouse.net/ )

I would hope the church doesn't stop providing social services in an area that also happens to have a policy that the church doesn't support.  By helping people in need I don't see how they are condoning a law they don't agree with.

I am a Catholic and the whole communion thing is an issue.  I tend to think it is appropriate for a priest to approach (very privately) someone who is publicly supporting issues that go against church teachings.  But I would not agree with withholding communion.  The priest cannot know what is in the person's heart at the time they accept communion.
Should I be able to go to communion because I voted for Obama, a pro-choice president?  I'm a pro-life democrat and so I feel in my heart it is OK for me to accept communion.  That is my decision and I'll have to have that discussion with my maker when my time comes.  But I don't like the idea of priests publicly saying that a person should or should not take communion. 

Well done, Mata. *CHEERS and HUZZAHS*

Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor ( http://blogher.org/blog/kim-pearson )|KimPearson.net ( http://kimpearson.net )|