Showing posts with label church-state. Show all posts
Showing posts with label church-state. Show all posts

Thursday, September 11

Frazer on "Christian Nation" nonsense

Arguments that purport to show that nearly all of the Founders of our nation were Evangelicals are based on bullsh*t. I've written before of the common rumors that float around in email chains (does everyone have a mother like mine, who forwards EVERY ridiculous email to you?). From a legal standpoint, it matters not one iota what the Founders believed, only what they wrote into the Constitution.

Anyway, Ed Brayton brings us a more accurate look at what the views of the Founders really were from Evangelical historian Greg Frazer: theistic rationalism.
Theistic rationalism was a hybrid belief system mixing elements of natural religion, Protestant Christianity, and rationalism – with rationalism as the decisive factor whenever conflict arose between the elements. Theistic rationalists believed that these three elements would generally be in accord and lead to the same end, but that reason was determinative on those relatively rare occasions in which there was disagreement. Rationalism as used here is the philosophical view that regards reason as the chief source and test of knowledge. Educated in Enlightenment thought, theistic rationalists were at root rationalists, but their loosely Christian upbringing combined with reason to convince them that a creator God would not abandon his creation. Consequently, they rejected the absentee god of deism and embraced a theist God of, to a significant extent, their own construction. Hence the term theistic rationalism.

An emphasis on reason had long been accepted in the Christian community, but in Christian thought, reason was a supplement to revelation, which was supreme. Theistic rationalism turned this on its head and made revelation a supplement to reason. In fact, for theistic rationalists, reason determined what should be accepted as revelation from God. Unlike deists, theistic rationalists accepted the notion of revelation from God; unlike Christians, they felt free to pick apart the Bible and to consider only the parts which they determined to be rational to be legitimate divine revelation. They similarly felt free to define God according to the dictates of their own reason and to reject Christian doctrines which did not seem to them to be rational.

The God of the theistic rationalists was a unitary, personal God whose controlling attribute was benevolence. Theistic rationalists believed that God was present and active in the world and in the lives of men. Consequently, they believed in the efficacy of prayer – that someone was listening and might intervene on their behalf. Theistic rationalism was not a devotional or inward-looking belief system; it was centered on public morality. God was served by living and promoting a good, moral life. The primary value of religion was the promotion of morality, and the morality generated by religion was indispensable to a free society. Since all of the religions with which they were familiar promoted morality, they held that virtually all religions were more or less equally valid and led to the same God who is called by many names. Theistic rationalists generally disdained doctrines or dogmas. They found them to be divisive, speculative, and ultimately unimportant since many roads lead to God.
Interesting.

Thursday, July 31

Copeland continues to stonewall Congress

The investigation of Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) into the tax-free practices of some religious organizations turned up a few rocks, and some especially slimy creatures are scurrying away from the harsh sunlight:

Already a well-known figure, Copeland has come under greater scrutiny in recent months. He is one target of a Senate Finance Committee investigation into allegations of questionable spending and lax financial accountability at six large televangelist organizations that preach health-and-wealth theology.

All have denied wrongdoing, but Copeland has fought back the hardest, refusing to answer most questions from the inquiry's architect, Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa.
...
Swicegood said the church's independent compensation committee approves all payments to board members.

Marilyn Phelan, a Texas Tech University law professor and author on nonprofit law, said the practice could pose problems. Both the IRS and Texas state law prohibit benefits beyond reasonable compensation for insiders, including board members, she said. If violations are found, nonprofits can lose their tax-exempt status and board members can face penalty taxes.

As the Senate Finance Committee considers its next step, Copeland is not backing down. His ministry is portraying the inquiry as an attack on religious liberty.

At the same time, it is moving forward with a big fund-raising project: soliciting donations for new television equipment so Copeland can be broadcast in high-definition.
I'd love to see this crook thrown in jail, but it's enough to hope for all the money he's misused to be taxed. From their supposed needs for private jets to their staying in $5,000 a night resorts during "evangelistic trips" and driving Bentleys that they write off as "work-related vehicles"...it all just makes me sick. Paula and Randy White have probably cooperated more than anyone else, but with their ongoing divorce and financial issues, it's understandable that they can't take any more heat.

Wednesday, July 16

LTE in The State re "I Believe" plates

There is a great LTE in The State today opposing the unconstitutional "I Believe" plates, which I mentioned two months ago. (For more background, and you'll have to hold your nose as you visit the site, see this video.)
‘I Believe’ tags threaten religious freedom of all, Christians included

Having been a Presbyterian now for more than a decade, it is also out of my Baptist roots that I continue a lifelong commitment to religious liberty and its corollary, the separation of church and state. It was that itinerant Baptist preacher John Leland who was most instrumental in solidifying the views of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in assuring our well-being and posterity for what Jefferson later described as “the wall of separation” between church and state.

When the General Assembly passed the religious license plate bill and the governor allowed it to become law without his signature, some proponents acknowledged it would be challenged in court. And I commend the clergymen who are the plaintiffs — United Methodist Tom Summers, Unitarian Neal Jones, Jewish Rabbi Sanford Marcus and First Christian Church pastor Robert Knight.

For government to issue religious license plates is clearly unconstitutional. It is contrary to the First Amendment’s establishment clause that prohibits government from advancing or endorsing any religion, be it Christianity, Hinduism, Buddism, Islam or any other. There is no majoritarian exception.

Religious liberty means that each person can become an adherent to the faith of his or her choosing, or can choose not to be a believer. It means that the religious experience is between God and the human heart and mind. It means that faith never can be coerced, as well-meaning as government, the church, the synagogue, the temple or the mosque may be.

We don’t look to government for permission to believe, nor is it government’s prerogative to approve or disapprove our practice. Government is without competence in religious matters.

We are free to put personal religious decals on our vehicles. We are free to put religious symbols in our yards or our businesses. We are free to witness to our faith in the public square as long as we are not disruptive (e.g., a student cannot disrupt the teaching process in a public school classroom).

There are some who seek unconstitutionally to draw government into the most sacred precincts of our being. Some would see this as a means to curry favor with certain voters.

But as South Carolinians with deep individual faith or with no religious faith, let us never trample the freedoms that have made us unique, especially the freedom to worship. I will continue to “render” to both God and Caesar. May government and religion remain ever separate. This is best for both.

FLYNN HARRELL

Columbia
Well-spoken. See AU and this item for more.

Wednesday, May 21

Unconstitutional church-state separation bills in SC

*UPDATE: Jesusland prevails! The plates passed.*

Today I made some off-hand comment during H period about being liberal, and Norris (one of my favorite students) said, "Mr. Morgan, you ought to move out to California." I take it he meant because it is such a bastion of liberalism and such. That got me started talking about how divided we are as Americans, and I probably stepped on some toes when I mentioned the hilarious Jesusland-U.S. of Canada map.

My point, hopefully not lost on them, was that if we all coalesce around places where there is a uniform ideology and create homogeneous centers, we may as well secede and have little mini-countries everywhere to suit our own insularity.

Speaking of living here in Jesusland, SC, I can't say I'm surprised to read this. I mean apparently having "In God We Trust" on the plates here in S.C. just isn't enough.
S.C. lawmakers have religion on minds, in bills

By The Associated Press,
First Amendment Center Online staff
05.15.08

COLUMBIA, S.C. — Faith would have a high profile in the public square in South Carolina if three bills that are moving through the Legislature become law.

One would create license tags with "I Believe" in front of a cross; a second would make clear that prayers can be offered before public meetings and a third would allow set public displays of key legal foundation documents that would include the Ten Commandments.

The bills are beginning to raise questions about whether the state is taking a role in promoting faith.

"The South Carolina Legislature should not be in the business of telling people how or when to pray, whether to pray or to whom to pray," said Jeremy Gunn, director of the American Civil Liberty Union's Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief in Washington.

The "faith tag" zipping through South Carolina's Legislature nearly became law in Florida, but it was dropped from a license-tag measure there at the last minute.

In South Carolina, Baptists pitched the idea to Republican Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer's chief of staff. State Sen. Yancey McGill, a Kingstree Democrat, got S.B. 1329 bill passed through the Senate in a couple of days without even having a public hearing or debate.

"It's a great idea," McGill said on May 13, calling it an opportunity to express beliefs. "People don't have to buy them. But it affords them that opportunity. I welcome any religion tags."

What about Wicca, commonly referred to as witchcraft? "Well, that's not what I consider to be a religion," McGill said. And Buddhism? "I'd have to look at the individual situation. But I'm telling you, I firmly believe in this tag."

The House Education and Public Works committee approved the “I Believe” measure today. The measure is expected to go to the House floor for debate next week.

In Florida, the tag would have raised money to help send children to faith-based schools regardless of denomination. "We weren't really looking to get into a debate about a cross or not a cross," said Debbie Federick, a board member of Faith in Teaching, which pushed the Florida bill. "We don't really have a position on what's going on in South Carolina."

While the Florida tag would have paid school costs, in South Carolina the $30 it would raise would go into the state's general fund. That may be needed if the state gets sued.

"It raises significant constitutional issues," said Floyd Abrams, one of the nation's top First Amendment lawyers. A "serious constitutional argument can be made that the issuance by the state of license places with a religious affirmation on them violates the First Amendment," he said.

South Carolina has already lost court challenges on a license tag. In 2004, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a federal judge's ruling that abortion opponents' "Choose Life" tags were unconstitutional because they provided a forum for one group's views and not another's. The state ended up paying $157,810 to Planned Parenthood for legal bills.

Legal experts also have questioned including the Ten Commandments in "Foundations of American Law and Government" displays that would have, among other things, the Declaration of Independence; the Bill of Rights; the Emancipation Proclamation and Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech.

"I believe we have just as much solid legal advice on this in favor as we do in opposition to it," Smith said.

Thomas Crocker, a constitutional law expert at the University of South Carolina School of Law, warned the Senate panel handling H.B. 3159 last month that if the measure were seen as a way of endorsing religion it would be unconstitutional. But supporters sometimes stumbled into the tricky ground of which version of the Ten Commandments would be used as they said they'd follow a careful path to make sure the displays didn't amount to a religious endorsement.

And on May 14, the House Judiciary Committee approved S.B. 638, which would clarify how public bodies can allow prayer before meetings using one of their members, a chaplain they elect or a religious leader "serving established religious congregations in the local community."

That bill was sent to the House floor with no debate.

Bauer says has no qualms about expressions of faith heading closer to the governor's desk. "In my perspective, it would be freedom of speech," he said.
The license plate issue doesn't bother me so much. Like PZ said about Florida plates, they're just labeling themselves as idiots, and paying a "dumb tax" to do so. (Update on the FL tags here)

The fact that freedom of religious expression already is a part of our Constitution seems lost on these morons.

What they want is for it to be okay for the state or agencies of the state to sanction prayer. That isn't legal. It is perfectly legal for the individuals on city/state councils and commissions to pray on their own (or collectively) before the start of official city/state business; i.e., pray on your own before the meeting begins.

People confuse individual rights of religious freedom with a false sense of entitlement to use government powers to sanction religious activity or behavior. That's the crux of the issue. The 1st Amendment is about individual civil liberties, not what the state or agents thereof acting in official capacity can do.

Sunday, May 18

Virginia follows Texas with NCBCPS

A year ago to the day, I reported that the sectarian proselytizing tool known as NCBCPS was receiving its first legal challenge in Texas. Luckily, that case ended well for our civil liberties as the state saw its unconstitutional adoption of this tool would lead to further lawsuits and dropped it from the curriculum.

Virginians have now followed in Texans' footsteps. All it will take to remedy this one, as well, are some courageous parents who actually think the Constitution matters and are willing to act to enforce it. Craig County is smack dab in the heart of, you guessed it, Appalachia! More glorious progress for science education in the Bible Belt.

Sunday, April 27

It should be aggravating

But instead it gives me a goddam*ed belly laugh!



Notice how the sheep in the video bleat at every inflection of the pastor's voice.

It should be aggravating to see government resources squandered on stupid religious superstition. Larry Langford, mayor of Birmingham, is currently undertaking a "sackcloth and ashes" campaign to counter the city's violence and crime. I'm sure it will work very well -- much better than, say, hiring police officers or spending on after-school programs for youth. I'd love to see a non-punitive lawsuit come out of this; a judge scolding the mayor and setting the record straight on our Constitution would be very welcome. Idiots wasting time and resources on magic with tax dollars pisses me off mightily. Did the 2,000 sack cloths magically appear? Do it on your day off, mayor.

The city logo of Birmingham is apparently affixed to a shiny folder holding the proclamation for the special sackcloths...
To many Christians, sackcloth and ashes symbolize humility and repentance, but the mayor’s decree came dressed with the usual accoutrements - printed on fine, invitation-stock paper and wrapped in a bright silver folder, adorned by the magic hat logo Langford commissioned for the city last year.
Here is that logo:


More magic than ever!

bwahahahahahaha

You just can't make this stuff up! (H/T: PZ & TCR)

**PS: On a related note, the National Day of Prayer is 5/1 -- it should be renamed the National Obnoxious Fundamentalist Christians use Government to Push Their Agenda Day.**

Sunday, April 13

Medved is a moron

Right-wing website Town Hall has a column up by Michael Medved on why Americans should "resist" voting for an atheist as president. It's a load of bullshit from the getgo, and Don Feder's column in USAToday last year was much more articulate. However, given the CNN "faith" special tonight involving the Democratic candidates, it is probably worth looking at:

He begins with a repetition of something we already knew -- that atheists are more distrusted as a minority than any other:
Despite the recent spate of major bestsellers touting the virtues of atheism, polls show consistent, stubborn reluctance on the part of the public to cast their votes for a presidential candidate who denies the existence of God.
Funny that he even thinks we need reminding of that, since he's writing to an almost exclusively conservative audience, all of whom believe that already.
Meanwhile, the members of Congress may hardly qualify as saintly or angelic, but of the 535 men and women in the House and Senate, only one (the shameless radical rabble-rouser Fortney “Pete” Stark of Oakland, California) openly describes himself as an atheist. [link added]
Hyperbole, anyone? First, only a moron would think that Stark is the only nonbeliever in Congress, he's just the only one with the courage and political prospects that enable him to declare it. Not that we haven't heard this sort of stupidity before over Stark. One point to make is that the members of Congress (or the church in general) who have been caught in sexual scandals or what-not are actually more likely to be right-wing "Religious Right" crusaders than lefties like Stark or Sanders or Feingold: Mark Foley, Larry "wide stance" Craig, Bob Allen, Newt Gingrich...read the whole list. And so, if claiming the religious mantle has no real effect on one's behavior as a public official, what is the thrust of Medved's argument?
An atheist may be a good person, a good politician, a good family man (or woman), and even a good patriot, but a publicly proclaimed non-believer as president would, for three reasons, be bad for the country.
Okay, so tell us then, why? Here are his three justifications:
  1. Hollowness and Hypocrisy at State Occasions
  2. Disconnecting from the People
  3. Winning the War on Islamo-Nazism
One of the things that struck me in reading this list was how contradictory his logic was. Before I get into that...

First, can history tell us anything about non-religious presidents? Consider that a few presidents in our history have been about as religious as a toothpick, even if they still believed in God (I'm thinking of the usual suspects -- Jefferson, Lincoln, Grant, &c.). Would you say that the first two had any real discernible impact on their ability to preside over (1) and (2)? Lincoln would certainly not fit into the (2) category easily -- considering that about 1/2 of the nation was "disconnected" from him, but he's considered one of (if not the) greatest presidents. In addition, some of the more overtly religious (like Carter) have turned out to be horrid presidents. So even Medved would have to agree that being able to "connect" with the people of America by having shared views on everything in no way makes one a good Chief Executive or Commander in Chief.

Second, the ability to say, "Let us remember the sacred history of our forefathers and honor them and their achievements," doesn't require shared beliefs with them.

Third, Medved's logic is so convoluted on item three I can't even figure out what he's trying to say:
Our enemies insist that God plays the central role in the current war and that they affirm and defend him, while we reject and ignore him. The proper response to such assertions involves the citation of our religious traditions and commitments, and the credible argument that embrace of modernity, tolerance and democracy need not lead to godless materialism.
WTF? It literally sounds as if Medved thinks that these lunatics have a point and that we ought to sit down at the philosophical table and give them the credibility and standing to engage in such debates with us. It goes on:
In this context, an atheist president conforms to the most hostile anti-America stereotypes of Islamic fanatics and makes it that much harder to appeal to Muslim moderates whose cooperation (or at least neutrality) we very much need. The charge that our battle amounts to a “war against Islam” seems more persuasive when an openly identified non-believer leads our side—after all, President Atheist says he believes in nothing, so it’s easy to assume that he leads a war against belief itself. A conventional adherent of Judeo-Christian faith can, on the other hand, make the case that our fight constitutes of an effort to defend our own way of life, not a war to suppress some alternative – and that way of life includes a specific sort of free-wheeling, open-minded religiosity that has blessed this nation and could also bless the nations of the Middle East.
...again, I'm lost. Is he saying that we would be "aiding the terrorists" by having an atheist president, because then one of their "points" would be confirmed? Correct me if I'm wrong here, but don't they often refer to us as "Crusaders" -- trying to force their culture and religion to conform with ours? And isn't the term "infidel" used to describe non-Muslims, not just nonbelievers? And isn't the "war against radical Islam" what the right-wing wants and isn't it even their own frickin' phrase? This column makes zero sense to me.
--
Now, as far as angry, vocal atheists go, there are some. And as far as the problems that they cause for atheism, there are some. Although the importance of religion in our society must not be underestimated, neither must secular America, especially the trend as it applies towards younger Americans, something I've emphasized before:
The proportion of atheists and agnostics increases from 6% of Elders (ages 61+) and 9% of Boomers (ages 42-60), to 14% of Busters (23-41) and 19% of adult Mosaics (18-22).
Looking at very recent polls, around 18% of Americans do not believe in God. This trend is in line with other recent assessments of the state of atheism, and the disparity in numbers between "atheist" and "82% of people believe in God" confirms that people are still reluctant to self-identify with "the A word" despite their admission that they don't believe in God. In the largest religious self-identification survey ever undertaken, 14% of those surveyed reported "no religion" but only 0.4% explicitly as "atheist". A more recent Baylor study found only 50% of "religious nones" identify as "atheists" -- again note the disparity between non-religious persons and people willing to identify as "atheist" and/or be active in some sort of atheist organization. Another recent poll in The Nation shows that the number of nonbelievers is much higher than commonly recognized - at around 27% not believing in a God (those willing to self-identify as atheists is still much lower).

Regardless of the exact number, the number of atheists visible in politics is next to zero, and that is unlikely to change. Atheists are still distrusted and that prejudice won't change overnight. And that's a lot of why people are reluctant to use the label, even when they admit that they aren't theists. However, the idea that, as America progresses and as the levels of the non-religious and apathetic continue to rise, we won't or can't elect a President with no religion is just wishful thinking on his part. Given the demographics above, it becomes all the more likely as time goes on.

The next time Medved wants to tackle such a topic, he ought to have at least one solid argument behind him.

Sunday, April 6

The Virginian-Pilot's Bill Sizemore on Pat Robertson

My friend and yours, American Talibanist Pat Robertson, was exposed a while back for his role in denying compensation to a sponsor of his "age-defying shake" and threatening him when he chose to use legal means to recoup $. The Virginian-Pilot exposed Robertson, and he threatened to sue them...only to come back some time later (after talking to a lawyer who told him we have this pesky thing called "freedom of the press" -- Robertson never passed the bar exam after getting his JD in 1955) and try to buy off the paper.

The author of the original expose, Bill Sizemore, now has another great article on Robertson's past and details on how he came into the ministry and got involved with TV.

From Sizemore's piece:
In the decade between the time The 700 Club became a daily program and the midseventies, CBN purchased a new facility in Portsmouth with a 175,000-watt transmitter, then a staggering 2.25-million-watt transmitter that could reach most of the mid-Atlantic coastline. Robertson also purchased five radio stations in New York State and new TV stations in Atlanta and Dallas. Then, in 1976, CBN bought a satellite and, months later, broadcast its first feed from Jerusalem. Robertson’s teleministry was now big business. In 1972, Robertson wrote that you can’t “worry about technical production when the cameraman is caught up in the Spirit and begins to weep over someone’s testimony . . . Who cares about the time if God is moving?” But only a few years later, CBN’s brand of production had become distinctly professional. No longer were broadcast slots subject to whim. No more was airtime filled with homemade puppet shows.

Along with the increasingly political slant of the show came more and more secularized programming, aimed at broadening the network’s appeal. CBN began showing family-friendly reruns like Lassie to help finance pricey advertisements for The 700 Club on other networks. Soon, secular shows took up the bulk of CBN’s airtime. This shift led to Robertson’s first run-in with the government, when the state of Massachusetts realized that the programming on WXNE-TV in Boston, purchased by CBN in 1977, was more than 50 percent secular. The station could be tax-exempt only if it functioned as a church instead of a business. Robertson subsequently shifted his holdings to a new company, Continental Broadcasting—some said this shift was to prevent the state from accessing CBN’s financial records.

This glitch did little to slow CBN’s progress, however. The station was finally beginning to turn a profit, after years of surviving on charity from Robertson’s father and local donors. The gifts had often been generous (a local car dealer, for example, once gave Robertson a free Lincoln), but Robertson’s wife still had to work in a local hospital to support their four children—two boys and two girls. By the middle seventies, though, Robertson’s risky decision to “renounce wealth and privilege” to pursue a life of Christian televangelism was suddenly paying off in a whole lot of wealth and privilege.

Robertson is one of the loudest Religious Right figures, and IMHO, there is more reason for him to be investigated more than the six that Grassley has recently focused on. Why? He's used non-profit resources to push his own for-profit ventures for years now. Even with the shake, for-profit, which he promotes on a tax-free non-profit religious channel. The lines between churches and businesses have become far too blurred, and it's about damned time to levy taxes against churches who sell lots of products and make lots of money -- they forfeit their right to claim tax exemption when they start running like a for-profit entity.

He and Dobson have for years opposed the McCain-Feingold Finance Reforms that put a dent in their ability to buy influence in DC. Not that Robertson doesn't still have enormous clout there, especially with Bush in the WH and a huge percentage of Regent grads in Washington (but not Adam Key). I think much of the public is misinformed: the overwhelming majority of people do want church-state separation, not the other way around. Here are some of Robertson's greatest hits:
“I don’t know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he [Hugo Chavez] thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it.” [Link]

Robertson suggested that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s recent stroke was the result of Sharon’s policy, which he claimed is “dividing God’s land.” [Link]

“You know some of them [college professors] are killers!” [Link]

“I believe it’s [Islam] motivated by demonic power. It is satanic and it’s time we recognize what we’re dealing with. … [T]he goal of Islam, ladies and gentlemen, whether you like it or not, is world domination.” [Link]

[The following are from the American Taliban]:

"The Islamic people, the Arabs, were the ones who captured Africans, put them in slavery, and sent them to America as slaves. Why would the people in America want to embrace the religion of slavers?"

"Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different...More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history."

"When lawlessness is abroad in the land, the same thing will happen here that happened in Nazi Germany. Many of those people involved with Adolph Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals – the two things seem to go together."

"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians."

"You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense, I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist."

"I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household and the husband is the head of the wife, and that's the way it is, period."

"[Homosexuals] want to come into churches and disrupt church services and throw blood all around and try to give people AIDS and spit in the face of ministers."

"[Planned Parenthood] is teaching kids to fornicate, teaching people to have adultery, every kind of bestiality, homosexuality, lesbianism – everything that the Bible condemns."
Gotta love him.

Tuesday, March 25

Update on Grassley & ministers investigation

I was reading about additional craziness from John Hagee, and it reminded me of something that I'd written about a while back but forgotten about. First, the article on Hagee divulged much of what I already knew -- that he and his ilk want war with Iran, like, yesterday. Why is it that tying this guy and Parsley around McCain's neck isn't a toxic political millstone? The double standard applied to Rev. Wright and Obama is obvious here.

As I read about Hagee's lavish lifestyle and million-dollar salary, it reminded me of Sen. Grassley's investigation into financial impropriety in "prosperity" churches. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has been leading an investigation by the Senate Finance Committee into the finances of six ministries commonly affiliated with "prosperity preaching" with the aim of updating the tax code to appropriately deal with this malfeasance. I admitted a little skepticism at the utility and motives of this investigation when I first read about it. At the time, I said:
I read this the other day and I'm still scratching my head. I mean, I dislike Benny "Let the Bodies Hit the Floor" Hinn as much as anyone, and I think the whole lot of those six are probably as corrupt and unethical as it gets. However, I just don't understand the legal power that a Congressperson has to audit the finances of these people.

The IRS? Sure! But Congress...!?!? We'll wait and see if this goes anywhere.
It turns out that three of the six ministries are cooperating, and have until March 31st, according to this press release:
Baucus and Grassley lead the committee with exclusive Senate jurisdiction over tax policy; the ministry inquiry that Grassley launched last November is meant to gauge the effectiveness of certain tax-exempt policies.

“This ought to clear up any misunderstanding about our interest and the committee’s role,” Grassley said. “We have an obligation to oversee how the tax laws are working for both tax-exempt organizations and taxpayers. Just like with reviews of other tax-exempt organizations in recent years, I look forward to the cooperation of these ministries in the weeks and months ahead.”

Grassley wrote to six ministries on Nov. 5, 2007, asking a series of questions on the nonprofit organizations’ expenses, treatment of donations and business practices. The questions were based on presentations of material from watchdog groups and whistleblowers and on investigative reports in local media outlets. One of the six ministries – Joyce Meyer Ministries of Fenton, Mo. – has cooperated substantially with his request and provided the requested information. Benny Hinn Ministries of Grapevine, Texas, has indicated a willingness to cooperate and provided answers to
five of the 28 questions so far.

Representatives for Randy and Paula White of Without Walls International Church/Paula White Ministries, Tampa, Fla., verbally have indicated to Finance Committee staff that they will cooperate. Baucus and Grassley wrote to them on March 11 to thank them for the verbal commitment and to reiterate the committee’s role.

The remaining three ministries have not cooperated, citing privacy protections or questioning the committee’s standing to request the information. Baucus and Grassley wrote to them on March 11 to describe the committee’s jurisdiction and role in determining the effectiveness of tax policy developed by the committee, distinct from the Internal Revenue Service’s role, which is to enforce existing law. The three ministries are: Kenneth and Gloria Copeland of Kenneth Copeland Ministries, Newark, Texas; Creflo and Taffi Dollar of World Changers Church International / Creflo Dollar Ministries College Park, Ga.; and Eddie L. Long of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church/Eddie L. Long Ministries, Lithonia, Ga.

The committee’s jurisdiction includes the federal tax policy governing the billions of dollars donated to and controlled by the nation’s tax-exempt groups. The federal government forgoes the collection of billions of dollars to tax-exempt organizations every year.
It doesn't surprise me much about the Copelands or the Dollars. I don't know anything about Long, but I am quite familiar with Copeland and his reputation. I was pleasantly surprised about Hinn -- I figured him for one of those likeliest to resist, rather than cooperate. Randy and Paula White have faced enough personal problems recently with the divorce, so facing additional (scandalous) financial ones was probably a smart decision they made.

While you can read the pseudo-justifications for refusing to cooperate proffered by Creflo and Ken at their own sites, Eddie offers no such attempt at saving face. A little digging finds that some of these jokers are getting paid over $1M salaries. Fuc*ing absurd. Long's church has a gym inside ("Samson's Gym") that offers memberships and massages (all for a large fee, of course) -- the divisions between business and church blurred for these individuals long ago.

Tuesday, December 18

Blast from the past

I was just googling for a few handles and names I have used on the internet to see what sort of "dirt" people could potentially dig upon me, and stumbled across this copy of my interview on H&C. It's essentially the same video that I uploaded to Youtube, but a little better quality and without the copyright issue since it is hosted at FoxNews. I also pulled the .swf file link. See here for the full list of Dixie County articles and media.

I'm going to contact Brandon Hensler, Director of Communications of the ACLU of FL, as well as the PR department of the Liberty Counsel to get an update on where the case stands. For now, check out the latest I have on that story (with all media links) and everything I've written on it.

Dixie County media roundup (also see here):
  1. Gainesville Sun -- 11/28/06

  2. Dixie County Advocate -- 11/30/06

  3. Alligator -- 11/30/06, or here

  4. Alligator (editorial) -- 12/1/06, or here

  5. FFRF Press Release -- 12/1/06

  6. Gainesville Sun -- 12/02/06

  7. 3 Letters to the Editor at the Sun -- pro, pro, con 12/2/06

  8. Dixie County Advocate -- 12/7/06

  9. 2 More Letters to the Editor at the Sun -- pro 12/12/06, con 12/17/06

  10. St. Petersburg Times -- 1/3/07

  11. St. Petersburg Times (LTE) -- con, 1/13/07 (4th letter down; response to 1/3/07 article)

  12. Gainesville Sun -- 2/7/07

  13. ACLU News Release -- 2/7/07

  14. Reuters (Miami) -- 2/7/07

  15. Gainesville Sun -- 2/8/07

  16. St. Petersburg Times -- 2/8/07

  17. Alligator (LTE): -- con, 2/9/07, or here

  18. Dixie County Advocate -- 2/15/07, or here

  19. Gainesville Sun (LTE) -- pro, 2/17/07, or here

  20. Dixie County Advocate (LTE) -- con, 2/24/07, or here

  21. Liberty Counsel -- 3/8/07

  22. CNS News -- 3/12/07

  23. Florida Humanists Association -- 4/9/07, (also here and here)
other media (blogs):
  1. KipEsquire -- 11/28/06

  2. Florida Progressive Coalition -- 4/4/07

  3. John Pieret -- 4/15/07
I'll update after I find more information on the case status.

Alligator article on my interview on H&C

Because The Alligator's website underwent a great deal of revision, the old link to the article covering my interview on H&C is dead, and the archives are not yet working that far back. According to the editors, it may be a very long time for the pages to be updated. Thus, I decided to go in to my cached version of the page (thank you Google Desktop) and paste the text below so I can replace the dead link. Here is the article:
Student debates on Fox
By BRITTANY DAVIS
posted Thursday, November 30, 2006 1:00 a.m.
http://www.alligator.org/pt2/061130atheist.php

"Do you love the Lord?" locals asked strangers who visited the Dixie County Courthouse on Wednesday.

Daniel Morgan drove about an hour west of Gainesville to Cross City, the seat of Dixie County, to argue against the courthouse's six-ton monument bearing the Ten Commandments on a segment of the Fox News program "Hannity & Colmes."

Morgan, a UF chemistry graduate student who is president of UF's Atheist, Agnostic and Freethinking Student Association at UF, said Fox News called him at 1:30 p.m. Wednesday and asked him to come to the debate.

When introducing the segment, Hannity accused him of coming to Cross City to find someone who would sue the city over the monument. Morgan said that he hadn't and that he had never been to Dixie County before he was invited by Fox News.

He said he was thrilled to be invited.

"They offered me a ride, and I said I didn't need one because I was afraid he would get someone else to go (who didn't need a ride)," he said.

Morgan, who speaks with a Southern drawl, comes from Richlands, Va., a town of about 4,000 people.

His opponent was former county attorney Joey Lander. Lander is one of two lawyers in Cross City, a town of about 1,775 people and at least 20 churches.

Lander said the community supports the monument and the media is making an issue out of nothing.

The $20,000 monument, which also bears the phrase "Love God and keep his commandments," was given to the city by a private donor.

"It's already there, and it's not meant to coerce or endorse any particular religion," Lander said.

Lander is half-owner of the daily newspaper, which he said had only received calls in support of the monument. The one complaint the newspaper received was an editorial from a Gainesville resident.

Each man had about two minutes to present his interpretation of the First Amendment and the legal and philosophical implications of the monument before the satellite link was disrupted and the interview came to an early end.

Morgan argued that legal precedent demonstrated that a religious monument on government property is unconstitutional.

A crowd of 20 people gathered before the event, and many argued in favor of the importance of Jesus and the monument to their community.

The group was irked by the presence of Morgan and the Fox News cameramen.

One member of the group yelled, "This atheist is coming down here to take away our Ten Commandments!"

Copyright © 1996–2007 Alligator Online and Campus Communications.

Thursday, December 13

Cohen on the transatlantic religious divide

From "Secular Europe's Merits":
That is why I find Romney’s speech and the society it reflects far more troubling than Europe’s vacant cathedrals.

Romney allows no place in the United States for atheists. He opines that, “Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom.” Yet secular Sweden is free while religious Iran is not. Buddhism, among other great Oriental religions, is forgotten.

He shows a Wikipedia-level appreciation of other religions, admiring “the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims” and “the ancient traditions of the Jews.” These vapid nostrums suggest his innermost conviction of America’s true faith. A devout Christian vision emerges of a U.S. society that is in fact increasingly diverse.

Romney rejects the “religion of secularism,” of which Europe tends to be proud. But he should consider that Washington is well worth a Mass. The fires of the Reformation that reduced St. Andrews Cathedral to ruin are fires of faith that endure in different, but no less explosive, forms. Jefferson’s “wall of separation” must be restored if those who would destroy the West’s Enlightenment values are to be defeated.
Also see this.

Saturday, December 8

Giving credit where it is due

I wanted to add something to what I said earlier this morning about Mitt's speech on religion (reposted in full at the bottom).

First, for the sake of comparison, a quick check -- who said the following:
[M]y answer to people is, I will be your president regardless of your faith, and I don't expect you to agree with me necessarily on religion. As a matter of fact, no president should ever try to impose religion on our society.

A great—the great tradition of America is one where people can worship the way they want to worship. And if they choose not to worship, they're just as patriotic as your neighbor [emphasis mine]. That is an essential part of why we are a great nation. And I am glad people of faith voted in this election. I'm glad—I appreciate all people who voted. I don't think you ought to read anything into the politics, the moment, about whether or not this nation will become a divided nation over religion. I think the great thing that unites is the fact you can worship freely if you choose, and if you—you don't have to worship [emphasis mine]. And if you're a Jew or a Christian or a Muslim, you're equally American. That is—that is such a wonderful aspect of our society; and it is strong today and it will be strong tomorrow.
And who also said:
Let me talk about freedom of religion, as well, which is an incredibly important part of our society. My job as the President is to make sure -- this may get to your question, by the way, besides speech -- an incredibly important part about what you're asking is, can people worship freely, as well. Yes. That's the part of the job of the President, is to make sure that people can worship any way they want, any way they want. And they can choose any religion they want. Or they can choose no religion. You see, you're just as big a patriot -- as good a patriot as the next fellow if you choose not to worship. It's your choice to make. [emphasis mine] And the freedom of this country is that you can choose to do any way you want. And it's important that we keep that -- that freedom real and intact.
And finally:
First of all, we strongly believe in the separation of church and state here in Washington, D.C., and that's the way it's going to be. Secondly, I love the fact that people are able to worship freely in our country, and if you chose not to worship, you're just as patriotic as your neighbor. Freedom of religion means freedom to practice any religion you choose, or the freedom not to practice. [emphasis mine]
The answer is one that you are almost certainly going to be surprised by:

George W. Bush said all of the above.

For all the horrible things Bush has done to our country, I have to give him credit for one thing: he respects the non-religious in his public speeches. Do I think he respects us in his heart? No. Does he have to? No. But the man understands that a national community has to include all faiths...as well as those without faith at all. This is something Mitt got completely and seriously wrong in his speech.

And, if you want to see that spelled out very articulately, read Friday's NYT editorial on the topic:

Mr. Romney tried to cloak himself in the memory of John F. Kennedy, who had to defend his Catholicism in the 1960 campaign. But Mr. Kennedy had the moral courage to do so in front of an audience of Southern Baptist leaders and to declare: “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute.”

Mr. Romney did not even come close to that in his speech, at the George Bush Presidential Library in Texas, before a carefully selected crowd. And in his speech, he courted the most religiously intolerant sector of American political life by buying into the myths at the heart of the “cultural war,” so eagerly embraced by the extreme right.

Conservative David Brooks even gives a critical note:
And yet, I confess my own reaction is more muted [to Romney's speech].

When this country was founded, James Madison envisioned a noisy public square with different religious denominations arguing, competing and balancing each other’s passions. But now the landscape of religious life has changed. Now its most prominent feature is the supposed war between the faithful and the faithless. Mitt Romney didn’t start this war, but speeches like his both exploit and solidify this divide in people’s minds. The supposed war between the faithful and the faithless has exacted casualties.

The first casualty is the national community. [emphasis mine] Romney described a community yesterday. Observant Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Jews and Muslims are inside that community. The nonobservant are not. There was not even a perfunctory sentence showing respect for the nonreligious. I’m assuming that Romney left that out in order to generate howls of outrage in the liberal press.

Romney's speech will wither into the mist of history forgotten and mundane. It's just another ploy from another politician, not a genuine work of masterful prose and logic.

From WSJ's Peggy Noonan:
There was one significant mistake in the speech. I do not know why Romney did not include nonbelievers in his moving portrait of the great American family. [emphasis mine] We were founded by believing Christians, but soon enough Jeremiah Johnson, and the old proud agnostic mountain men, and the village atheist, and the Brahmin doubter, were there, and they too are part of us, part of this wonderful thing we have. Why did Mr. Romney not do the obvious thing and include them? My guess: It would have been reported, and some idiots would have seen it and been offended that this Romney character likes to laud atheists. And he would have lost the idiot vote.

My feeling is we've bowed too far to the idiots. This is true in politics, journalism, and just about everything else. [emphasis mine]
Amen, sister.

(from earlier)
So the big news in politics for the past few days has been Mitt's long-awaited speech on religion. Basically he pandered to religious godidiots by talking about the "religion of secularism" and implied that atheists are not Americans.
Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.
The idiot says the above, then goes on to admit that Europe is becoming more secular (but is still a country with more freedoms than we enjoy, thanks to King W) without seeing any contradiction. Jesus' General offers serious analysis of the issues at play and why considering a candidate's religion matters (from a secular standpoint).

Tuesday, December 4

A few religion-related things

Stanley Fish has redeemed himself a little since his last foray into comment on religion. This time, he emphasizes sound legal logic:
...the issues Locke identified and analyzed will never be resolved. In her dissent in Boerne, Justice O’Connor wrote, “Our Nation’s Founders conceived of a Republic receptive to voluntary religious expression, not a secular society in which religious expression is tolerated only when it does not conflict with generally applicable law.”

Yes, that’s the question. Do we begin by assuming the special status of religious expression and reason from there? Or do we begin with the rule of law and look with suspicion on any claim to be exempt for it, even if the claim is made in the name of apparently benign religious motives? [emphasis mine]
His language is tilted towards the former policy, and that means he's gained back a little of my respect.

Also, a great day for the Constitution and church-state separation as the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the state-sponsored religious program of Chuck Colson in prisons.

And on another religious note, there's an interesting new analysis of the Gospel of Judas, and one which claims the other interpretations are thoroughly wrong:

So what does the Gospel of Judas really say? It says that Judas is a specific demon called the “Thirteenth.” In certain Gnostic traditions, this is the given name of the king of demons — an entity known as Ialdabaoth who lives in the 13th realm above the earth. Judas is his human alter ego, his undercover agent in the world. These Gnostics equated Ialdabaoth with the Hebrew Yahweh, whom they saw as a jealous and wrathful deity and an opponent of the supreme God whom Jesus came to earth to reveal.

Whoever wrote the Gospel of Judas was a harsh critic of mainstream Christianity and its rituals. Because Judas is a demon working for Ialdabaoth, the author believed, when Judas sacrifices Jesus he does so to the demons, not to the supreme God. This mocks mainstream Christians’ belief in the atoning value of Jesus’ death and in the effectiveness of the Eucharist.

The author strongly criticizes National Geographic for getting it wrong. Interesting, but not very likely to impact the scholarly Christian rejection of the document either way. Mainstream Evangelicals would probably be more likely to support the document now, though, since it jives better with their interpretation of Judas.

Sunday, December 2

TCR: This Week in God

Lots of good God-related insanity this week to read at the TCR's This Week in God.

Pat Robertson has his interpretation of I-35, while Jesus' General has his own.


I promise that if Mr. James Stabile has "turned straight" for good that I'll start going back to church.

See Right Wing Watch for more.

Saturday, December 1

You probably won't hear this from them

A new study shows that sexual dysfunction is directly correlated to abstaining from sex until later in life. You probably won't hear about this from the "abstinence-only" crowd:
While past research has linked early sexual activity to health problems, a new study suggests that waiting too long to start having sex carries risks of its own.

Those who lose their virginity at a later age -- around 21 to 23 years of age -- tend to be more likely to experience sexual dysfunction problems later, say researchers at Columbia University and the New York State Psychiatric Institute's HIV Center for Clinical and Behavioral Studies.

The study will appear in the January 2008 issue of the American Journal of Public Health.

Men who lose their virginity in their 20s, in particular, seemed to be more likely to experience sexual problems that include difficulty becoming sexually aroused and reaching orgasm.
Who wants to bet that this study will be conveniently ignored by the RR? Keep in mind that this is the same crew who buried the government report showing the failure of their "wait until marriage" programs. As I said a few months ago, it isn't about the facts, but about religious control of people's sexual freedom:
Anti-choicers would do well to read up on the facts, and a new WHO study shows that abortion rates are highest in countries where it is illegal, and lowest in countries which have comprehensive sex ed programs and abundant contraception choices. Contrary to all the spin and stupidity, although the US is much more religious than European countries, we have higher rates of teen pregnancy, STDs and abortions than them. Why? Because the religiosity of our country blinds people to the reality that curtailing these things is only accomplished through sex ed for teens and widely-available contraceptive choices. In other words, if they really care about "saving" fetuses, they should be pushing contraception. Instead, they push failed "abstinence-only" policies that lead to more teen pregnancies and STDs. These people don't care about other people, just about controlling them.
In addition to that:
Faith-based programs are nothing but a sham to buy the votes of religious-right knuckle-draggers. These programs have no evidence to demonstrate their veracity, and in some cases, evidence to the contrary (i.e., "abstinence-only education" -- "According to a study released in March at the National STD Prevention Conference, 88 percent of 12,000 teenagers who took an abstinence pledge reported having sexual intercourse before they married. Although they delayed intercourse for up to 18 months, when they became sexually active, those who signed pledges were less likely to use condoms and less likely to seek medical help for STD infections than their peers.").
On the same topic -- 237 reasons why we "do it".

Saturday, November 24

Churches as businesses

Times are good for megachurches:
An analysis by The New York Times of the online public records of just over 1,300 of these giant churches shows that their business interests are as varied as basketball schools, aviation subsidiaries, investment partnerships and a limousine service.

At least 10 own and operate shopping centers, and some financially formidable congregations are adding residential developments to their holdings. In one such elaborate project, LifeBridge Christian Church, near Longmont, Colo., plans a 313-acre development of upscale homes, retail and office space, a sports arena, housing for the elderly and church buildings.
But the entrepreneurial activities of churches pose questions for their communities that do not arise with secular development.

These enterprises, whose sponsoring churches benefit from a variety of tax breaks and regulatory exemptions given to religious organizations in this country, sometimes provoke complaints from for-profit businesses with which they compete — as ChangePoint’s new sports center has in Anchorage.

Mixed-use projects, like shopping centers that also include church buildings, can make it difficult to determine what constitutes tax-exempt ministry work, which is granted exemptions from property and unemployment taxes, and what is taxable commerce.
The article in the NYT highlights another reason that churches should lose their tax exemption; not that this is any different than them acting as lobbyists or the RR bulldog groups making millions or as funnels of corruption for government $. The full-text of the NYT article is below:

November 23, 2007

In God's Name
Megachurches Add Local Economy to Their Mission

By DIANA B. HENRIQUES and ANDREW W. LEHREN

In Anchorage early in October, the doors opened onto a soaring white canvas dome with room for a soccer field and a 400-meter track. Its prime-time hours are already rented well into 2011.

Nearby is a cold-storage facility leased to Sysco, a giant food-distribution corporation, and beside it is a warehouse serving a local contractor and another food service company.

The entrepreneur behind these businesses is the ChangePoint ministry, a 4,000-member nondenominational Christian congregation that helped develop and finance the sports dome. It has a partnership with Sysco’s landlord and owns the warehouse.

The church’s leaders say they hope to draw people to faith by publicly demonstrating their commitment to meeting their community’s economic needs.

“We want to turn people on to Jesus Christ through this process,” said Karl Clauson, who has led the church for more than eight years.

Among the nation’s so-called megachurches — those usually Protestant congregations with average weekly attendance of 2,000 or more — ChangePoint’s appetite for expansion into many kinds of businesses is hardly unique. An analysis by The New York Times of the online public records of just over 1,300 of these giant churches shows that their business interests are as varied as basketball schools, aviation subsidiaries, investment partnerships and a limousine service.

At least 10 own and operate shopping centers, and some financially formidable congregations are adding residential developments to their holdings. In one such elaborate project, LifeBridge Christian Church, near Longmont, Colo., plans a 313-acre development of upscale homes, retail and office space, a sports arena, housing for the elderly and church buildings.

Indeed, some huge churches, already politically influential, are becoming catalysts for local economic development, challenging a conventional view that churches drain a town financially by generating lower-paid jobs, taking land off the property-tax rolls and increasing traffic.

But the entrepreneurial activities of churches pose questions for their communities that do not arise with secular development.

These enterprises, whose sponsoring churches benefit from a variety of tax breaks and regulatory exemptions given to religious organizations in this country, sometimes provoke complaints from for-profit businesses with which they compete — as ChangePoint’s new sports center has in Anchorage.

Mixed-use projects, like shopping centers that also include church buildings, can make it difficult to determine what constitutes tax-exempt ministry work, which is granted exemptions from property and unemployment taxes, and what is taxable commerce.

And when these ventures succeed — when local amenities like shops, sports centers, theaters and clinics are all provided in church-run settings and employ mostly church members — people of other faiths may feel shut out of a significant part of a town’s life, some religion scholars said.

Precedents in History

Churches have long played an economic role. Medieval monasteries in Europe and Japan were typically hubs of commerce. In the United States, many wealthy denominations have long had passive investments in real estate. And churches, like labor unions and other nonprofit groups, have been involved in serving immigrants, the elderly and the poor.

But the expanding economic life of today’s giant churches is distinctive. First, they are active in less expected places: in largely flourishing suburbs and barely developed acreage far beyond cities’ beltways and in communities far from the Southern Bible Belt with which they are traditionally associated. And in most cases — as at ChangePoint in Anchorage — these churches say their economic activities are not just an expression of community service but, more important, an opportunity to evangelize. The sports dome, for example, is a way to draw the attention of young families to the church’s religious programs.

“We don’t look at this as economics; we look at it as our mission,” Pastor Clauson said.

Scott L. Thumma, a pioneer in the study of megachurches at the Hartford Institute for Religion Research at the Hartford Seminary in Connecticut, whose roster of churches was the basis for the Times analysis, said he has noticed churches that sponsor credit unions, issue credit cards and lend to small businesses.

Although community outreach is almost always cited as the primary motive, these economic initiatives may also indicate that giant churches are seeking sources of revenue beyond the collection plate to support their increasingly elaborate programs, suggested Mark A. Chaves, a religious sociologist at Duke University.

Investing Capital Assets

Also feeding this wave of economic activity is the growing supply of capital available to religious congregations.

The Evangelical Christian Credit Union in Brea, Calif., a pioneer in lending to churches and a proxy for this market shift, has seen its loan portfolio grow to $2.7 billion, from just $60 million in the early 1990s, said Mark A. Johnson, its executive vice president. Where bankers were once reluctant to lend to churches, the credit union now shares a market with some of the nation’s largest banks.

ChangePoint paid $1 million upfront and borrowed $23.5 million from a state economic development agency to buy a defunct seafood-packaging plant and warehouse out of foreclosure in July 2005. To do so, it formed a partnership with the for-profit owner of the cold-storage unit surrounded by the seafood plant’s land. An affiliated nonprofit is developing the sports dome with a gift of $4 million worth of church land. The church controls these entities directly or through board appointments, said Scott Merriner, executive pastor and a former McKinsey consultant.

Pastor Clauson acknowledged that a few local businessmen who own sports facilities have complained about the subsidized competition they face from The Dome, a nonprofit organization. It is an issue the church takes seriously, he said.

“We don’t want to be taking bread off of people’s tables,” the pastor said.

But the sports dome “is scratching such an enormous proverbial itch, there is no way we’re harming anyone,” he said, adding, “There is more than enough need to go around.”

Martin McGee, the Anchorage municipal assessor, acknowledged that the property poses an assessment challenge. Land and floor space used only by the church are exempt, he said, but the rest of the seafood plant site is taxable, and the tax treatment of the sports dome site is still under review.

The tax issues will be even more complex for a megachurch project in Charlotte, N.C. There, the University Park Baptist Church paid $11.5 million late last year to buy the Merchandise Mart, a half-million-square-foot office and exhibition space.

Some 57 percent of the space will ultimately be remodeled for church use, but the rest will bring new business activity to the neighborhood, said Claude R. Alexander Jr., the church’s lead pastor who also serves on the board of the Charlotte Chamber of Commerce.

His church has left its economic mark on the neighborhood it will leave behind when it moves to the mart. With its traffic added to that of another megachurch a few miles away, a once-quiet intersection between the two churches has recently seen the construction of fast-food outlets and other businesses.

The traffic is unlikely to ease when University Park moves. The other nearby megachurch, the Friendship Missionary Baptist Church, already has zoning approval for Friendship Village, a complex of shops, apartments, homes, offices and housing for the elderly on 108 acres off Charlotte’s beltway.

According to Tom Flynn, the economic development officer for Charlotte, University Park’s purchase of the Merchandise Mart already has prompted interest in older properties nearby.

A Complex Tax Challenge

The church, which formed a for-profit property management unit that also includes a small limousine service, envisions a mixture of commercial and religious uses at its new site — with its own share of the space beginning around 38 percent and rising over time.

What’s a poor tax assessor to do?

The entire site is currently taxable, said Alonzo Woods, the church’s director of operations. But when the church moves in, it will seek exemptions for areas used “strictly for church purposes.”

Churches are moving into residential development, as well. Windsor Village United Methodist Church, one of two churches that own shopping centers in Houston, is teaming up with a national home builder to develop more than 460 homes in the southwestern section of the city.

And in Dallas, The Potter’s House, a 30,000-member church established by Bishop T.D. Jakes, is the linchpin in an economic empire that includes Capella Park, a community of 266 homes.

Just how far-reaching the megachurch economy can become is clear at the First Assembly of God Church in Concord, a small community northeast of Charlotte. Under the umbrella of First Assembly Ministries are the church, with 2,500 in weekly attendance; a 180-bed assisted-living center; a private school for more than 800 students; a day-care center for 115 children; a 22-acre retreat center; and a food service — all nonprofit. In addition, there is WC Properties, a for-profit unit that manages the church’s shopping center, called Community at the Village, where a Subway outlet, an eye-care shop and other businesses share space with church programs that draw traffic to the mall.

Doug Rieder, the church business administrator, said WC Properties files a federal tax return and pays property taxes on the commercial space at the mall.

But Mr. Rieder acknowledged the difficulty of allocating space, staff time and expenses to the appropriate tax category. “We’re very intertwined — it gets tough day to day,” he said adding, “I have to constantly ask myself whether I am accurately allocating our costs.”

Concord was delighted to have First Assembly as the new landlord at the mall once anchored by Wal-Mart.

“That’s a very crucial crossroads for the city,” said W. Brian Hiatt, the city manager. “And the church has been a great partner.”

Another contribution the church makes to the city is a free daylong celebration it holds on Independence Day, complete with fireworks.

Mr. Hiatt said no one seemed to find it awkward for a church to conduct the community’s celebration marking the birth of a country committed to separation of church and state.

“It was a very positive event,” he said.

Mr. Rieder, the church business manager, paused when asked whether people of other faiths would have felt comfortable at the event.

“We try not to discriminate in doing community service,” he said. “There are Muslims and other non-Christians here, of course. And we do want to convert them, no doubt about it — that’s our mission. We don’t discriminate, but we do evangelize.”

The same quandary confronts Pastor Clauson in Anchorage. “There is nothing inherently alienating about what we’re doing economically,” he said. “An Orthodox Jewish youngster or a conservative Muslim child encountering our programs would find zero intimidation.”

Nor does he want his community to become divided along religious lines, he said. But at the same time, “we definitely want to use these efforts as an open door to the entity that we feel is the author and creator of abundant life — Jesus.”

He added, “It’s a tough balancing act.”

Most stopped trying to "balance" $ and Jesus a long time ago...

Wednesday, November 21

Public wants church-state separation

We hear a lot from the vocal minority of religious fundamentalists who decry the Constitution's mandate of church-state separation.

Do they represent the mainstream?

Absolutely not.

The overwhelming majority of persons surveyed don't want politicians in their church, nor their pastors directing them how to vote.


This trend is nothing new, either:
This seems to have held up for several years. In 2004, a poll released by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life found that 65% of Americans oppose church endorsement of political candidates, 69% think it improper for political parties to ask congregations for their membership lists and 64% oppose the idea of Catholic bishops denying communion to politicians who fail to support church teachings on abortion and related issues.

Moreover, in 2002, 75% of Americans said churches should not come out in favor of one candidate over another. In 2001, the Pew Research Center found that 65% of Americans said they did not “think it is ever right for clergy to discuss political candidates or issues from the pulpit.”

This, however, had to be the most amusing part of the poll:
On the Republican side there also has been a contest to win the backing of religious conservative leaders, including former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani’s endorsement by televangelist Pat Robertson.

But the poll said that could hurt more than help — 29 percent said Mr. Robertson’s endorsement made them less likely to support Mr. Giuliani, while only 6 percent said they now are more likely to support him. That was consistent across all such demographic categories as age, party affiliation and income.
Apparently, appearing alongside a lunatic televangelist doesn’t carry quite the same electoral punch as the Giuliani campaign had hoped.
Keep the church and state forever separate. (Ulysses S. Grant, 1875, Leo Pfeffer, Church, State, and Freedom, 1967, p. 337)

Sunday, October 28

Christians and campaign finance

I don't remember why this never interested me before, but hearing people like James Dobson argue against campaign finance reform has finally made me stop and think. Let's concede the obvious: making politics fair is not in the best interests of money/power-hungry politicians and their lobbyists.

I mentioned Dobson's recently-founded 501(c)(4) group a while ago, and it looks like a clear reason for him to oppose campaign finance reform is his own organization.

The main thrust of campaign finance reform since the '90s has been targeting soft money. Soft money is contributed not directly to a campaign or candidate, but to a PAC like Dobson's, which then have very little regulation or disclosure requirements with the public. It's basically a way to try to buy elections, and the Supreme Court agreed in 2003 to uphold limitations on soft money. While I agree that our constitutional civil liberties must be protected, the issue is being obfuscated in much the same way that church-state issues are (by the same players): the Constitution protects individual liberties, not those of PACs. While I personally have the right to say and do as I wish with respect to advertising and campaigning for a candidate, the state has a vested interest in regulating the activity of collective efforts backed by corporate dollars.

Any time that transparency mixes with politics, those who practice in the dark fight furiously against the intrusion of light. We should be quite suspicious of those who are so vocal and adamantly opposed to this legislation via sheer demagoguery (using lies about limits on individual religious expression).

I don't actually think that Dobson wants to hide something of his own personal fortune. I mean, hell, Dobson only makes around $300 K himself in his $200M FoF empire (plus $30M for the FoF "Action" political branch), just chump change, really. I think the real fear that these people have is the way that the money flows from their non-profit religious groups to their political action groups. That, combined with who is funding those action groups. I think Dobson doesn't want the public to know that he is bankrolled by the same machinations that Ralph Reed, with the Christian Coalition, was: Jack Abramoff and crooks just like him. I think Dobson and Perkins and others like them are in bed with the same corrupt lobbyists that all the politicians are, and they don't want anyone to know about it. The money they receive from their religious fronts are siphoned over to PACs. They are able to take politicians out to dinner and on trips to influence their votes for their own special interests. Dobson and his ilk are no better than any other politicians or lobbyists in DC, they just don't want anyone to know about it.